South East river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 ... · South East river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 Habitats Regulation Assessment March

1

South East river basin district

Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021

Habitats Regulation Assessment

March 2016

Executive summary

The Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for the South East River Basin District (RBD)

provides an overview of the range of flood risks from different sources across the nine

catchments of the RBD and more specifically from local flood sources in the one Flood Risk

Area (FRA) of Brighton and Hove. The one FRA was identified as having higher local flood

risk by the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments. The RBD catchments are defined in the

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and based on the natural configuration of bodies of

water (rivers, estuaries, lakes etc.).

The FRMP provides a range of objectives and programmes of measures identified to

address risks from all flood sources. These are drawn from the many risk management

authority plans already in place together with a range of further strategic developments for

the FRMP ‘cycle’ period of 2015 to 2021. The range of measures in the South East RBD

FRMP, are reported under the following types of flood management action:

Types of flood management measures % of RBD measures

Prevention – e.g. land use policy, relocating people at risk etc. 15%

Protection – e.g. various forms of asset or property-based protection 48%

Preparedness – e.g. awareness raising, forecasting and warnings 26%

Recovery and review – e.g. the ‘after care’ from flood events 7%

Other – any actions not able to be categorised yet 4%

The purpose of the HRA is to report on the likely effects of the FRMP on the network of sites

that are internationally designated for nature conservation (European sites), and the HRA

has been carried out at the level of detail of the plan. Many measures do not have any

expected physical effects on the ground, and have been screened out of consideration

including most of the measures under the categories of Prevention, Preparedness, Recovery

and Review. Others that may have effects but are in catchments that do not have any

designated European sites have also been screened out of consideration.

Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have for a long time been addressing the range of

flood risks through a range of plans and actions. Much of the South East RBD FRMP

presents measures that are ongoing from existing plans, which have already been subject to

HRA. RMAs have considered the effects of these existing plan measures on European sites

in published HRAs where required. These measures, their effects and agreed actions to

mitigate the effects have been summarised under relevant RBD catchments and FRAs

within this report. Where RMAs have identified new flood risk management priorities for the

next FRMP cycle period between 2015 and 2021, then the measures to implement these

have been considered alongside existing plan measures in this HRA.

The following table summarises the numbers of measures that the HRA has considered:

FRMP RMA plans Screened out measures

Measures from existing plans

New cycle 1 measures

1

SE RBD catchments 138 119 28

FRA Brighton and Hove 5 4 0

Total 143 (48%) 123 (41%) 28 (10%)

The HRA has been carried out for the set of measures for each RBD catchment that address

main river, sea and reservoir flooding alongside any measures volunteered by RMAs that

address local flooding and thus form a ‘RBD plan’ within the FRMP. Measures within FRAs

that address high risk of local flooding in these areas have been considered in the HRA as

separate ‘FRA plans’ within the FRMP. Both ‘RDB plan’ and ‘FRA plans’ are further

considered in-combination by the HRA. The findings are a summary of the risks to European

sites and an indication of the need for future HRAs at a project level when developing local

actions, as well as considering how to avoid and mitigate any residual risks to European

sites.

For the South East RBD FRMP, the main conclusions from the stages of assessment across

the 2 RMA plans of the FRMP are as follows:

A determination was made to screen out measures that would not have physical effects on

any European sites.

The effects of the measures from existing plans include effects of measures to address

coastal flooding from SMPs, measures to address main-river flooding from CFMPs and

measures to address local flooding from local strategies. Existing controls and mitigation

from these plans include: for SMPs, development of coastal strategies, accompanied by

more detailed HRAs for relevant SMP Policy Areas; and for CFMPs and Local Strategies

more detailed appraisal and assessment on plans or projects arising out of the plans to

demonstrate meeting the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010, as amended (Habitats Regulations).

The effects of the measures that are for new flood risk management priorities for the next

FRMP cycle period of 2015 to 2021 have been considered within this strategic-plan level

HRA as far as they can be assessed at this high level. This HRA considers the range of

mitigation options that may be applicable. It is concluded that the measures are expected to

be able to be avoided or mitigated as part of their development as local actions, and all

measures have been identified as capable of being fully mitigated. It can therefore be

concluded that at the plan level there is sufficient scope for ensuring no likely significant

effects during its implementation. The detail of the controls and mitigation required will be

assessed as part of requirements to meet consents under planning and other consenting

mechanisms as part of a project level HRA, some of which may need to proceed to

appropriate assessment in order to gather the necessary level of detail.

The HRA considers the potential for in-combination effects with other plans and projects.

Given the level of information currently available, the assessment has identified the plans

where the greatest risk of in-combination effects occur, but a detailed assessment can only

1 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a

different figure than reported in the FRMP.

be undertaken at the project level when details of location and design of measures are

known. Key external plans to consider for in-combination effects are:

Local Plans – plans of local planning authorities to determine consent for proposed developments including FCRM ‘Protection’ types of development and which require HRA for developments affecting European sites

Water Resource Management Plans – plans to manage the supply of water to communities by Water Companies.

River Basin Management Plans – plans that seek to ensure the objectives of water dependent European Sites are maintained.

Marine Plans – plans to manage the sustainable use of marine resources for inshore areas.

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier strategies,

plans or projects that implement measures. This plan-level HRA does not give any weight to

subsequent lower-tier plans or projects and their HRA outcomes.

As local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are

known, this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not been assessed

here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan.

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Introducing this report ............................................................................................. 6

1.2 Background to the FRMPs ...................................................................................... 7

1.3 The South East RBD FRMP .................................................................................... 7

1.4 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment ................................................... 9

2 European sites in the South East RBD ......................................................................... 11

2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP.............................................. 12

2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs ........................................................... 12

2.3 European sites and their management .................................................................. 13

3 Approach to the HRA ................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures .............................................. 15

3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ................................................................ 16

3.3 Screening out catchments where no European Sites are present ......................... 16

3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects .............................. 16

3.5 Considering measures from existing plans ............................................................ 17

3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1 ....................................................... 18

3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment ........................................ 18

4 South East River Basin District Catchments HRA ........................................................ 20

4.1 Summary of Measures .......................................................................................... 20


4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ................................................................ 45

5 Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area HRA ..................................................................... 49

5.1 Summary of Measures .......................................................................................... 49


6 In combination effects with other plans and projects .................................................... 52

6.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs .......................................................................................... 52

6.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs ....................................................... 53

6.3 In-combination effects with external plans ............................................................. 53

7 Conclusion and Future HRAs ....................................................................................... 56

Annex A: Table A1 – HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories

Table A2 – Management catchments and European sites in the SE RBD

Table A3 – Mitigation and control measures

Annex B: SE RBD European sites

1 Introduction

1.1 Introducing this report

This report sets out the results of a strategic plan-level Habitat Regulations Assessment

(HRA) into the likely significant effects on designated ‘European sites’ of the Flood Risk

Management Plan (FRMP) for the South East River Basin District, published in December

2015. The HRA report has been prepared by the Environment Agency on behalf of the

collective Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) that have responsibilities for information

being published within the FRMP, and are thus the ‘competent authorities’ for the HRA of

their respective published information, as follows:

Information on flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs being published for the

catchments of the river basin district (RBD) are the responsibility of the Environment

Agency (for English catchments).

Information on flooding from local sources being published for any Flood Risk Area

(FRA) is the collective responsibility of Lead Local Flood Authorities within the FRA.

In preparing the HRA report the Environment Agency has consulted with Natural England

(for English catchments) and Natural Resources Wales (for Welsh catchments). The Lead

Local Flood Authorities in Flood Risk Areas are ‘competent authorities’ for HRA of their

FRMP information and have agreed that this report will meet their HRA requirements.

FRMPs are new strategic plans for implementing the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 and the

existing National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for

England. They have been developed for each of the River Basin Districts (RBDs) and Flood

Risk Areas (FRAs) and draw together information from a range of existing strategies and

plans that are in place and continue to be maintained by Risk Management Authorities. The

HRA has been carried out at the level of detail published in the FRMP and takes into

account HRAs that have already been undertaken for measures in existing plans, and at the

level of detail provided by these existing plans. Whilst a HRA at this strategic level cannot

obtain the level of detail necessary for in-depth assessment, the HRA summarises the likely

risks and potential need for controls and mitigation and the range of generic mitigation

options available, which will then proceed through further consideration once measures are

developed as specific local actions. In this way, this high-level HRA will be helpful for future

HRAs that consider the effects on European sites at a project level.

The report describes each of the main stages and results of the FRMP HRA as follows:

Describing the network of European sites within the RBD (chapter 2)

The approach to the HRA (chapter 3)

Screening and assessing likely significant effects (chapters 4,5)

Appropriate assessment, alternative solutions and imperative reasons of overriding

public interest (IROPI) (chapters 4,5)

Conclusion and future HRAs (chapter 7)

1.2 Background to the FRMPs

Flood risk management plans (FRMPs) highlight the hazards and risks from rivers, the sea,

surface water, groundwater and reservoirs and set out how risk management authorities,

such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, will manage flood risk. They are

required by the European Union Floods Directive and the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. The

FRMPs must be reviewed and reissued every six years to describe progress.

The Environment Agency is required to prepare FRMPs for all of England covering flooding

from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. Lead Local Flood Authorities (county councils and

unitary authorities) must prepare flood risk management plans for flood risk areas (there are

ten flood risk areas in England) where the risk of flooding from local sources is significant as

identified in Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments.

The 2015-2021 period will be the first cycle of the FRMPs, however RMAs already plan for

flooding and a large proportion of the FRMP measures are taken from existing plans that

have already been consulted on and published. This includes plans such as Catchment

Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) as well as

Local Flood Risk Management Strategies that have been developed by local authorities.

Some further strategic developments have been included for the 2015-2021 first cycle of the

FRMP that build on existing plans and seek to address the key objectives of the Flood Risk

Regulations 2009, such as: strengthening joint working of RMAs, developing more integrated

management of the water environment, and updated priorities from any new understanding

of flood risks including the implications of climate change.

1.3 The South East RBD FRMP

The South East River Basin District covers an area of 10,500km2 and includes the counties

of Hampshire, East and West Sussex. It also includes about half of Kent and parts of

Wiltshire and Surrey. The river basin district comprises nine catchments.

The coastline of the River Basin District is varied and has many iconic features. These

include the dramatic cliffs around Beachy Head, Dover and the Seven Sisters in East

Sussex, as well as the natural harbours of Langstone, Portsmouth and Chichester. There

are broad expanses of sand and dunes near Rye and Camber and the famous pebble beach

and piers of Brighton.

The Isle of Wight is a unique feature within the River Basin District and even with its

relatively small coastline has all of the wider catchments features, including the iconic

Needles on the West of the Island, the marshes at Bembridge and the sandy beaches at

Sandown.

The majority of the basin drains into the English Channel with the exception of the Stour

which discharges into the North Sea. Some of the individual catchments still retain much of

their natural character, whereas others have been significantly modified over time as a result

of industry, navigation and agriculture.

Parts of the South East River Basin District are heavily urbanised with a population of more

than 3.7 million. Major urban centres include Brighton and Hove, Portsmouth, Southampton

and Ashford.

In recent years there has been notable flooding across the basin, with severe flood events

occurring in the autumn of 2000, winter of 2008, summer of 2012 and again during the winter

storms of 2013/14. These flood events had significant impacts on some communities,

businesses and infrastructure as well as the natural environment. With a changing climate it

is predicted that there may be more extremes in the weather, leading to more frequent and

severe events like these.

The South East RBD is made up of 9 management catchments (see map in Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: South East RBD catchments and Flood Risk Area

The South East RBD FRMP sets out the objectives and measures that have been drawn by

risk management authorities from existing plans or newly developed for the FRMP cycle

period of 2015-2021. Existing measures in the South East RBD FRMP are derived from the

following source plans:

Shoreline Management Plans (SMP)

Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs)

Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMS) developed by LLFAs.

The FRMP is divided into the separate plans that are the responsibility of different risk

management authorities, as follows:

Measures within the 9 RBD catchments of the South East RBD that the Environment Agency is responsible for, and

Measures within the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (FRA) for local sources of flooding that fall within the Adur and Ouse catchment. Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority are responsible for these measures.

1.4 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment

In England, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended,

commonly termed the Habitats Regulations, implements the European Union Habitats

Directive (Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and

fauna, and certain elements of the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). This legislation

provides the legal framework for the protection of habitats and species of European

importance in England.

Sites protected under the Habitats Regulations comprise Special Protection Areas (SPA),

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), candidate SACs (cSAC), Sites of Community

Importance (SCI) and, as a matter of government policy, to potential Special Protection

Areas (pSPA) and Ramsar sites (sites designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention for

their internationally important wetlands). These sites are referred to collectively as in this

report as ‘European sites’.

Regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations requires that a ‘competent authority’ must

consider the requirements of Habitats Directive in exercising any of its functions. Article 6(3)

of the Habitats Directive defines the requirements for assessment of plans and projects

potentially affecting European sites. This requires that a competent authority, before

deciding to undertake, or give any consent or authorisation for a plan or project which is

likely to have a significant effect on a European site, and is not directly connected with or

necessary to the management of that site, must carry out an appropriate assessment. The

term commonly referred to for the assessment process is ‘Habitats Regulations

Assessment’.

The SE FRMP is considered to fit within the definitions of a ‘plan’ as defined by the Habitats

Directive, and requires a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The FRMP is a high-

level planning document for the SE River Basin District (RBD) (see map in Figure 1),

therefore potential impacts of the plan on European sites across the RBD are difficult to

determine. Given the geographic scale and nature of the plan, the HRA has been tailored to

be appropriate for the spatial area of coverage and the strategic nature of the plan.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment has followed a framework of four distinct stages, only moving to the next stage if required by the results of that stage of the assessment. The four stages are:

Stage 1: Screening and Likely Significant Effects is the process which initially identifies

the likely impacts upon a European Site of a plan or project, either alone or in combination

with other plans or projects, and considers whether these impacts may be significant. This

stage also includes the development of mitigation to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment is the detailed consideration of the impact on the

integrity of the European Site of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other

plans or projects, with respect to the site’s conservation objectives and its structure and

function. This is to determine whether there is objective evidence that adverse effects on the

integrity of the site can be excluded. This stage also includes the development of mitigation

to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

Stage 3: Assessment of alternative solutions is the process which examines alternative

ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that would avoid adverse impacts on

the integrity of the European Site, should avoidance or mitigation be unable to avoid adverse

effects.

Stage 4: Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse effects

remain is made with regard to whether or not the plan or project is necessary for imperative

reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and, if so, of any required compensatory

measures.

2 European sites in the South East RBD

Within the South East RBD there are 36 SACs, 14 SPAs, and 11 Ramsar sites. Some of the

sites have more than one designation such as Arun Valley, parts of which are designated as

SPA, SAC and Ramsar. There is a proposed extension and name change to one SPA and

proposed Ramsar which is currently with Defra (‘Dungeness to Pett Level’; proposed name

change to ‘Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SPA’ and proposed Ramsar site of the

same name). This name change has not resulted in the SPA being double counted within

the FRMP. There is also a proposed marine SPA and Ramsar site which is currently being

consulted upon (Solent and Dorset Coast SPA). The proposed Ramsar and marine SPA are

included in the figures provided above. Figure 2 shows a map of the South East RBD with

the European sites and the management catchments of the SE RBD.

Figure 2 - Map of the European sites in the South East River Basin District

Although most of the European sites contain a variety of habitat types, broadly speaking they

could be described as coastal and marine sites and freshwater sites (comprising rivers such

as the Itchen SAC and wetlands such as the Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar). The

terrestrial sites are much smaller in area in comparison and generally comprise habitat such

as woodlands and grasslands.

Natura sites include Sandwich Bay SAC, which is a long sweeping inlet of the sea between

Ramsgate and Deal. The coastal area consists of sand flats with their associated salt

marshes and coastal sand dunes. The Sandwich Flats stretch for about five miles (8 km)

along the coast.

Dungeness SAC and Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, is of international conservation

importance for its geomorphology, plant and invertebrate communities and birdlife. The

proposed Ramsar site includes the entire SPA (including proposed extensions) as well as

additional areas of grazing marsh, drainage channels, canals, shingle beaches, sand dunes

and ponds.

The coastline along the west of the district is heavily designated with international

designations for birds and their habitat including Solent and Southampton SPA/Ramsar site,

Solent Maritime SAC and Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar site. It also contains

important wetland sites such as Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar and

Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC.

The Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar is a large low lying area, which drains to the sea.

Water level management is fundamental in helping to restore and maintain the site in

favourable condition. The Ramshorn Snail and Fen Raft Spider are supported. The

freshwater mollusc Anisus vorticulus is a European Protected Species whose range is very

restricted – largely being confined to the Arun Valley and Pevensey Levels, which are SAC

designated.

The River Itchen is a SAC. The geology (chalk and sandy beds based) make this lowland

catchment an important haven for wildlife within which many SAC species are found

including salmon, native crayfish, southern damselfly, otters, bullhead, lamprey and water

voles.

Annex B contains a summary of the European sites present within South East RBD. Table

A2 in Annex A presents a summary of the European sites present within the management

catchments of the South East RBD. In a number of cases European sites cross over the

boundary of two or more management catchments, therefore a number of European site

names / designations may appear against more than one management catchment.

2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP

The South East FRMP is a long term plan for the water environment, which could potentially

affect both water dependent and non water-dependent European sites and their qualifying

features.

It is not possible from the outset to rule out, at the RBD scale, any (water-dependent or non

water-dependent) European sites from being affected by the South East FRMP. The HRA

(in particular Sections 4.2 and 5.2 for the FRA) reviews the European sites by management

catchment, and determines whether any of the measures within the catchments are likely to

lead to significant effects on European sites.

2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs

The South East RBMP provides summary information on the current status and baseline for

water-dependent European sites as part of its monitoring data.

European sites in England, with the occasional exception, are also designated as SSSIs.

Natural England monitors the conditions of SSSIs and their component units using six

reportable condition categories: favourable; unfavourable recovering; unfavourable no

change; unfavourable declining; part destroyed and destroyed.

The current status of water-dependent European site protected areas for the South East

RBD is summarised in table 1 below. This gives the current area of water-dependent SSSI

units of European protected areas in different condition categories as currently recorded on

Natural England’s designated site data system. SSSI units underpin European protected

areas and Natural England only collects data at a SSSI unit level. When SSSI units are in

favourable condition, they are deemed to be meeting their conservation objectives.

The table shows that for the South East RBD, 45% of water-dependent SSSI units of

European protected area sites are currently not compliant with the condition requirements.

Table 1 Status of water-dependent European Sites based on assessment of SSSIs

units for the South East RBD (Extract from Natural England databases August 2015)

Condition South East RBD (ha)

Favourable 20,482

Destroyed / Part destroyed 0

Unfavourable declining 182

Unfavourable no change 406

Unfavourable recovering 15,875

Total Area Unfavourable 16,463

% Unfavourable 45

2.3 European sites and their management

As part of a new strategic approach to managing all England’s European sites, new

measures needed to achieve favourable conservation status for all European sites in

England have been developed by Natural England in partnership with the Environment

Agency. These are collectively referred to as Site Improvement Plans (SIPs), and are being

developed by the Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). SIPs

were published for all European sites in England in 20152.

With reference to relevant SIP’s for England's Natura 2000 Sites, common pressures on

units in the South East region transitional and coastal water bodies include water pollution,

air pollution resulting in atmospheric nitrogen deposition, invasive species and commercial

marine and estuarine fisheries. Coastal squeeze, changes in species distributions and direct

impact from 3rd parties are marginally less common. Whilst less common pressures include

inappropriate water levels and ditch management, scrub and weed control, recreational

marine and estuarine fisheries, public access/disturbance, overgrazing, change in land

management and physical modification. For freshwater sites common pressures include

water pollution, inappropriate water levels and ditch management, with less common

pressures including invasive species, inappropriate scrub and weed control, overgrazing and

public access/disturbance.

2 Site Improvement Plans for the South East River Basin District can be found on:

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6287197783195648

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6287197783195648

The South East FRMP recognises SIPs include actions where flood risk management is

specifically a mechanism for their delivery.

Measures from within the SIPs within the South East RBD have been considered as part of

the development of measures within the RBMP, so that they will contribute to objectives for

WFD Natura 2000 Protected Areas in the RBD.

3 Approach to the HRA

The steps undertaken to complete the HRA are as follows:

describe the plan and the measures proposed

screen and assess the likely significance of any effects on European sites

consider need for further stages of assessment (i.e. appropriate assessment,

alternative solutions and IROPI)

determine a plan-level conclusion

3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures

The South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) is a joint

publication of several plans required under the Flood Risk Regulations that are the separate

responsibilities of specific Risk Management Authorities (RMAs), as follows:

South East River Basin District catchments (Environment Agency)

Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (LLFA within the FRA)

3.1.1 River Basin District Catchments

FRMPs for the River Basin District (RBD) are being published by the Environment Agency

(for English catchments) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) (for Welsh catchments), and

are focused on measures principally to address flood sources from main river, the sea and

reservoirs. The measures have been divided into catchments based on the River Basin

Management Plans (where they are called ‘management catchments’).

Production of the FRMPs for the RBDs is the legal duty of the Environment Agency and

NRW. Where any voluntary information on local sources of flooding within RBD catchments

has been provided by LLFAs, these are published by joint agreement in the RBD FRMP.

The Environment Agency and NRW are also the competent authority under the Habitats

Regulations for the RBD FRMPs.

3.1.2 Flood Risk Areas

FRMPs for Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) are being published by the Lead Local Flood

Authorities (LLFAs) where the FRAs lie within their administrative boundaries. Production of

the FRMPs for the FRAs are the legal duty of the respective LLFAs. The LLFAs responsible

for the FRA FRMPs are also the competent authority under the Habitats Regulations.

Where a RBD includes one or more FRA, as is the case for the South East RBD, the

measures that have been developed specifically for these FRA FRMPs are presented and

assessed separately.

3.1.3 Applying HRA

In applying the HRA process, each RMA plan has been assessed separately. A final

summary of conclusions and recommendations for future HRAs is provided that also draws

on a high-level summary of the potential for in-combination effects of the FRMP with other

key plans.

3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects

This first stage of the HRA process requires consideration of screening and likely significant

effects of measures on European Sites. The tasks undertaken to complete this are as

follows, and set out in more detail below:

screening out catchments where no European Sites are present

screening out measures that would not have physical effects

considering measures from existing plans, with mitigation / controls already agreed in

HRAs for any likely significant effects, or in some cases potential adverse effect on

site integrity

considering new measures and their likely significant effects, with mitigation / controls

where considered necessary

conclusion from screening and likely significant effects.

The results of these tasks for each RMA’s plan of the FRMP are provided in the following

chapters:

Chapter 4: SE River Basin District catchments

Chapter 5: Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area

3.3 Screening out catchments where no European Sites are present

Where there are no European sites present in a catchment, it was determined that no further

consideration of measures in the catchment is required. Given the level of detail in the plan

where the FRMP measures are mainly strategic in nature and are not specific on their

precise location, there is insufficient details to consider downstream or down drift effects

beyond the catchment. However, such screening for cross-catchment effects will be a

requirement in assessing local plans and projects.

3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects

Every measure included within the FRMP is categorised according to one of the following 4

categories, accompanied by an M-code:

Prevention (M2) - reducing the impacts of flooding through land use and

development policy, relocation of assets at risk, or measures to divert the hazard to

avoid harm.

Protection (M3) - protecting people from the risk of flooding; for example, by the

maintenance, refurbishment of existing defences or building new defences.

Preparedness (M4) - by taking actions that prepare people for flooding; for example,

by improving awareness of flood risk, or by providing warning and forecasting for

floods.

Recovery and review (M5) - supporting recovery after flooding has happened and

reviewing how things can be improved; for example, by improving the availability of

recovery services such as providing temporary accommodation.

Other (M6) – measures not fitting in to any of the above categories.

Further definitions of each of the measures are set out in the FRMP according to a second

tier of M-codes. For example, Prevention (M2) includes the second tier measure, M22, which

is defined as “Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood

prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk”. These measure definitions have

been used as the basis for the initial screening out of the measures that require no for further

consideration within the HRA.

The measure codes and their definitions are included as Table A1 (in Annex A to this

document). Measures under ‘Preparedness’ (M4) and ‘Recovery and review’ (M5) will not

result in development, demolition or changes of management ‘on the ground’ that could

result in effects on European Sites. These were therefore screened out from any further

consideration. Similarly, under the ‘Prevention’ category (M2), only the removal or relocation

of receptors from flood prone areas could potentially affect European sites. The measures

that have been screened in to the assessment are set out below and have been highlighted

in Table A1:

M22 – Prevention – removal or relocation (category)

M3 – Protection – all sub-categories

M6 – Other – not yet defined.

3.5 Considering measures from existing plans

Risk Management Authorities have a range of plans in place for developing and

implementing measures related to flooding from main river (in Catchment Flood

Management Plans), to flooding from the sea (in Shoreline Management Plans) and related

to local sources of flooding (e.g. in Local Flood Risk Management Strategies). These plans

have been subject to HRA where relevant, and have reported on the effects on European

Sites consistent with the level of detail of the plans.

For this HRA, these existing HRAs have been used to summarise the effects of measures

from existing plans that are now set out under specific RBD catchments or FRAs. For many

RBD catchments and FRAs there are multiple existing plans covering the geographic area

but also some existing plans that are split across RBD catchments or FRAs. Nonetheless we

have separated out the ‘screened in’ measures from individual existing plans and referenced

the specific HRA results that apply to them.

The results from existing HRAs have considered the extent that they remain valid since they

were published. This has been done by checking the status of the relevant European sites

that were considered within the source plan’s HRA for any changes to site designations

since the date of the HRA publication. The criteria were agreed with Natural England and

comprised: whether there were any new / additional site designations, any changes in site

boundaries, changes in designated site features, or any significant changes in site

conditions.

The HRA results from Shoreline Management Plans are relatively recent with most

published between 2010 and 2011. The HRA results from Catchment Flood Management

Plans are a little older with most published between 2008 and 2010. The HRA results from

Local Flood Risk Management Strategies are the most recent with the first ones being

published around 2012 and most being published much more recently.

One of the main reasons for a likely change from when the effects of plan measures were

reported in HRAs is where there have been boundary changes to European sites or to the

scope of condition of the interest features of the sites i.e. specific habitats, species etc.

Where we have been advised that such changes have occurred and are significant then this

has triggered further consideration of the validity of the existing HRA results that we have

relied upon.

3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1

In reviewing the range of measures across existing plans covering all sources of flooding,

Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have taken the opportunity to put forward further

strategic developments for the next 6 year cycle of the FRMP. These ‘new measures’ focus

on: strengthening the joint working of RMAs across all flood sources; developing more

integrated management of the water environment as set out in the River Basin Management

Plans and other related plans; and updating flood risk information to help manage risks with

communities.

For this HRA we have reviewed the set of new measures that have been ‘screened in’ for

each catchment. As they are mostly ‘strategic’ measures without specific information on

location or the form of action that would be developed on the ground, we have considered a

range of factors that would give rise to any likely risks from this set of measures in a specific

catchment, which includes:

their general proximity in the catchment to European sites

whether they aim to address sources of flooding that are local, or main river or

related to the coast

the mix of types of new measures within the catchment denoted by their M-codes

(i.e. whether they are mainly maintenance, or channel works, or new solutions).

General proximity was considered by narrowing down the set of measures within a

catchment to those that were closer in general and more likely to be connected to European

sites by the hydrology of the catchment rather than applying specific buffer distances to

individual measures.

3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment

HRA steps were carried out for each RBD catchment of the RBD plan that is the

responsibility of the Environment Agency. Further HRA steps were carried out for each FRA

(by catchment) that is the responsibility of respective Lead Local Flood Authorities. The

determination for each catchment or FRA that there are no likely significant effects to

European sites, is based on the following assumptions:

that this HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier

strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, nor does it give any weight to

their outcomes. Consideration of potential impacts and options available to mitigate

for those impacts should assist, but not influence or constrain any lower-tier

assessments.

that as local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope

and scale are known, that this may identify additional effects on European Sites that

have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial

scale of plan.

4 South East River Basin District Catchments HRA

This chapter sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the South East

RBD catchments that are for flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs and for local

flooding sources outside of Flood Risk Areas. This is the FRMP information for which the

Environment Agency is the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. The

Flood Risk Area FRMP information for which other RMAs have responsibility has been

considered separately in later chapters of the HRA (see sections 5 and 6).

This section covers the following stages of the assessment:

Summary of measures being assessed

Screening and assessment of likely significant effects

Consideration of results and conclusion

4.1 Summary of Measures

The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for

each of the 9 management catchments within the SE RBD FRMP.

Figure 3 - Map of the South East river basin district and management catchments

A summary of the measures and their screening is given below for each catchment.

Table 2: Summary of measures by catchment

Management Catchment

Nu

mb

er

of

measu

res

scre

en

ed

in

(o

ut)

Nu

mb

er

of

measu

res

fro

m e

xis

tin

g p

lan

s1 Number of measures related to types

of existing plans1

Nu

mb

er

of

ne

w

measu

res f

or

cycle

1 Number of new measures and

known level of detail1

Nu

mb

er

of

Eu

rop

ean

Sit

es

Catchments with no screened in measures

All catchments have some screened in measures.

Catchments with all measures from existing plans

Rother 19 (13)

19 3 from CFMPs 16 from SMPs

0

5

Sub-total 19 (13)

19 3 from CFMPs 16 from SMPs

0

% all measures

7% 7% (n/a)

Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP

SE RBD Wide

7 (15) 0 7 7 strategic/proximity unknown 61

Adur and Ouse

12 (8) 9 2 from CFMPs

7 from SMPs

3 3 not in proximity

4

Arun and Western Streams

22

(11)

15 6 from CFMPs

9 from SMPs


1 specific/in proximity

18

Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels

19 (9) 13 8 from CFMPs

4 from SMPs

1 from LLFA plans


3

Test and Itchen

8 (32) 5 1 from SMPs

4 from LLFA plans

3 3 specific/in proximity 11

East Hampshire

8 (14) 7 1 from SMPs/other EA plans

6 from LLFA plans

1 1 not in proximity 9

Isle of Wight

2 (6) 2 2 from CFMPs 0 7

New Forest

3 (13) 2 2 from SMPs 1 1 specific/in proximity 7

Stour 47

(17)

47 22 from CFMPs

21 from SMPs

4 from LLFA plans

0 16

Sub-total 128 (125)

100 40 from CFMPs 45 from SMPs 15 from LLFA plans

28 16 not in proximity 7 strategic/proximity unknown 5 specific/in proximity

% all measures

2

45% 35% 10% 16 (6%) 7 (2%) 5 (2%)

Overall Total

147 (138)

119 43 from CFMPs 61 from SMPs 15 from LLFA plans

28 see above

% all measures

2

52% 42% 43 (15%) 61 (21%) 15 (5%) 10% see above

1 all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets

2 all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures

'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment) 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide 3 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a higher figure than

reported in the FRMP.

Of the total of 285 measures 52% have been screened in for HRA consideration (48%

screened out). All management catchments within the SE RBD have some screened in

measures and are considered further.

There are 22 measures that are RBD-wide and are considered in section 4.2.4.9.

There are no measures from neighbouring river basin districts that were included in SE RBD

catchments.

4.1.1 Risks from existing plan measures

42% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and from existing

plans, 15% are from CFMPs and 21% from SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures

where adverse effects identified in the SMP HRA for specific policy areas are being

addressed.

Most risks to European Sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the (21%)

measures in SMPs, and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects,

such as in the catchments of Rother, East Hampshire and New Forest.

4.1.2 Risks from new measures

10% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and new

measures, 2% are strategic without locations, 6% are not in proximity to any European Sites

and 2% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks

will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next

FRMP cycle and can be found in the Test and Itchen and New Forest catchment and to a

lesser extent in the Arun and Western Streams and Isle of Wight catchments.


The management catchments that make up the SE RBD FRMP are set out in table 3 below.

The colour coding in the table summarises the nature and source of the bundle of measures,

which forms the basis for how each management catchment has been assessed. The

following sub-sections consider each of the management catchments in turn.

Table 3 Management Catchments of the SE RBD /FRMP

Management Catchment Category

Management Catchments

Management catchments with no European Sites present.

None

Management catchments with no ‘screened in’ measures.

None

Management catchments with all measures from existing plans.

- Rother

Management catchments with new measures.

- Isle of Wight

- New Forest

- Test and Itchen

- East Hampshire

- Arun & Western Streams

- Adur & Ouse

- Cuckmere & Pevensey Levels

- Stour

4.2.1 Management catchments with no European sites present

All management catchments within the South East RBD have European sites present,

therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this

basis.

4.2.2 Management Catchments with no ‘screened in’ measures

All management catchments within the South East RBD have screened in measures,

therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this

basis.

4.2.3 Management Catchments with all measures from existing plans

The following management catchments in the South East FRMP do not contain any FRMP

new measures; they contain only measures from existing plans.

This plan has already been subject to consultation and assessment, including HRA. The

HRA conclusions for those source plans have been referred to in each case.

4.2.3.1 Rother Management Catchment

European sites

New measures Existing plan measures

4 Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out

0 0 19 13

The Rother management catchment contains 4 European sites. There are no new

measures within this catchment; all of the 32 measures are from existing plans.

There are eight measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. There are

five measures which relate to recovery and review. These are screened out.

South Foreland to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan

One Rother District Council protection measure under the ‘Fairlight Cove coastal protections

works’ comprises works to increase the rock protection at the base of the cliffs to decrease

erosion is some 1km alongshore of the Hastings Cliffs SAC and 2km updrift of the

Dungeness to Pett Level SPA. The SMP identified no likely significant effect for this policy

unit due to distance from the European sites and the west to east drift direction.

One Environment Agency led protection measure for the replacement of Tillingham Sluice is

some 20km upstream of Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, proposed Ramsar and Dungeness

SAC. The Hythe Ranges Sea Defences is some 25km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown

Cliffs SAC.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to enhance the operation and

maintenance of Marshlands Tidal Basin to the south of Dymchurch. This is some 4km

alongshore of the Dungeness SAC and proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay

SPA and Ramsar and some 30km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

One Shepway District Council led protection measure for shingle recycling from Folkestone

to Hythe to maintain the existing sea defences, is some 15km updrift of the Dover to

Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

One Environment Agency led protection measure for the Hythe Ranges sea defences, is

some 15km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

One Shepway District Council protection measure comprises works to improve the

Coronation Parade structure in Folkestone and prevent future cliff erosion is some 10k

updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC

One Environment Agency led ‘other’ measure is to assess the strategic requirement for

habitat creation as a result of implementing short, medium and long term polices of the

South Foreland to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan on European sites. This high

level assessment is not likely to lead to significant effects.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Nook Point to Cliff End, under ‘Pett

Shingle Recycling’ is an existing operation, which is subject to annual review with Natural

England under the Habitats Regulations of potential impacts on the Dungeness to Pett Level

SPA (including the extension), and proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay

pRamsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Broomhill Sands under ‘The Broomhill

Sands Coastal Defence scheme’ has already been consented following an assessment

under the Habitats Regulations, which considered the pSPA extension and pRamsar as

material considerations, with construction due for completion in December 2015.

One Environment Agency led protection measure adjacent to Broomhill Sands which is the

refurbishment of Jurys Gap Tidal Basin is currently undergoing consent under the Habitats

Regulations with no Likely Significant Effect identified from the works.

One Shepway District Council led protection measure for ‘Greatstone Dunes Management’

is within the Dungeness SAC. The measure comprises the ongoing maintenance of fencing

to retain sand within the dune network to maintain stability, which is subject to existing

agreement with Natural England and is considered not to have a likely significant effect on

the European interest features.

Three Environment Agency led protection measures comprised of Rother Tidal Walls East,

Lydd Ranges Sea Defences and Romney Sands Sea Defences are currently being

progressed together as a package subject to project level Habitats Regulations Assessment

further to the Folkestone to Cliff End Coastal Defence Strategy IROPI case, regarding

Dungeness SAC and the proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay pSPA and

pRamsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to continue maintenance of shingle

recycling from the Denge Beach Management Plan at Dungeness to Jury’s Gap, is currently

subject to annual agreement with Natural England. This has been considered within the

consented Broomhill Sands Habitats Regulations Assessment and the consented Broomhill

Sands Extension. The shingle recycling to Dungeness Power Station as part of the same

measure is already consented as part of the current Denge Beach Management Plan which

is reviewed annually subject to consideration of potential impacts on Dungeness SAC and

the proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA extension and Ramsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measures, ‘Littlestone beach recharge’ is for a

capital recharge which will be informed by the current Denge Beach Management Plan. This

site is within the proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay pSPA and pRamsar

and adjacent to the Dungeness SAC.

An Appropriate Assessment was carried out as part of the SMP. The Appropriate

Assessment concluded that implementation of the SMP:

may have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness to Pett SPA;

will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness SAC;

will not have a likely significant effect on the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC,

Hastings Cliffs SAC or the Pevensey Levels Ramsar site;

will not have any adverse effects as a result of in-combination effects with other plans

and programmes.

Consequently, an application was made to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs to consider the case for Overriding Public Interest. This case was accepted by

Defra who consequently confirmed that they had no objections to the intention to approve

the SMP. Compensatory measures are to be developed by the Regional Habitat Creation

Programme. Consideration of additional impacts on the pSPA and pRamsar will be a

material consideration in the development of the proposals and will be considered at the

project level.

Rother and Romney Catchment Flood Management Plan

Two existing protection measures are to undertake maintenance. One is to carry out in-

channel maintenance work such as weed cutting and desilting along the main river and

another measure to carry out maintenance of existing flood risk management assets,

including existing sluices, embankments, reservoirs, pumping stations, flood gates, and sea

defences are subject to existing agreements relative to the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA

and proposed Ramsar and Dungeness SAC about the mouth of the River Rother which are

reviewed annually with Natural England.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to investigate options to reinstate storage

of flood water within the flood plain of the Rother Valley may have effects on the Dungeness

to Pett Level SPA and proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay Ramsar. The

Rother and Romney CFMP HRA identifies that the increase in flooding that would occur in

the Rural Rother would be carried out via a managed approach and done in consultation

with Natural England.

The CFMP HRA, could not conclude that there will not be a likely significant effect on the

Dungeness SAC and Dungess SPA and Ramsar site. However, following an appropriate

assessment, it was concluded that the CFMP would not adversely affect the integrity of

the European sites.

Proposed Mitigation: Some existing measures cannot be put into effect until more detailed

appraisal and assessment has taken place at project level to show they have met the

requirements of the Habitat Regulations, and to take account of the material consideration of

the pSPA and pRamsar.

Some existing measures are currently subject to project level HRA that is assessing the

detailed measures and identifying appropriate mitigation where necessary.

The Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the FoCES requires that

appropriate compensatory habitat needs to be secured before the schemes under it can

progress. The conclusions need to be considered relative to the additional interest features

for the Lydd Ranges Sea Defences and Romney Sands Sea Defences resulting from the

proposed extension (and name change of the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA to the

Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay), including the proposed Ramsar designation

which was not considered by the FoCES due to uncertainty on boundary at the time of its

writing.

4.2.4 Management Catchments with New Measures

4.2.4.1 Isle of Wight Management Catchment

European sites



0 3 2 3

The Isle of Wight management catchment contains 7 European sites. In total there are 8

measures for the catchment, 3 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European Sites present protect habitats including maritime cliff and

slope, coastal and flood plain grazing marsh, lowland heathland, saline lagoons, intertidal

mudflats, coastal sand dunes, intertidal flats and seagrass beds and coastal vegetated

shingle. The Solent and Southampton Water is designated as a Ramsar site and as a

Special Protection Area, as it supports internationally important numbers of wintering

waterfowl and various rare invertebrates and plants.

New measures

There are three new plan measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness.

These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Existing measures – Isle of Wight Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

There are two existing measures which relate to prevention. These measures have been

screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

One existing protection measure is located on the Lukely Brook, which is a tributary of the

River Medina, some 1km upstream of the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar

sites and Solent Maritime SAC. The scope of the works includes consideration of upstream

flood storage, raised defences and property level protection.

One existing protection measure is on the Monktonmead brook, within Ryde on the north

coast of the Isle of Wight, adjacent to the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar

sites. The measure proposes to investigate and implement an option to reduce ongoing

blockage of the outfall.

The Isle of Wight CFMP HRA concluded a likely significant effect from taking further action

to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future. Predicted impacts identified

comprised a potential risk of increased erosion of inter-tidal habitats at low tide from

increased channel conveyance. The CFMP identified uncertainty as to whether adverse

effects on site integrity would occur, with the caveat for additional assessment

required at scheme level.

Proposed Mitigation: The protection measure at Ryde has been developed at scheme

level, with support from Natural England provided on the draft Habitats Regulations

Assessment, which concludes no likely significant effect on the eelgrass beds or

overwintering bird populations within the intertidal area from the options for maintaining

outfall capacity, conditional on mitigating any effect from scour at detailed design stage.

4.2.4.2 New Forest Catchment

European sites



1 0 2 13

The New Forest management catchment contains 7 European sites. In total there are 17


The water dependent European Sites protect areas covering around half of the catchment.

There are 2 Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites, which include the Solent and

Southampton Water as well as the New Forest itself, 2 Special Areas of Conservation which

again includes the Solent Maritime and the New Forest. Many of these sites support

important wetland habitats and species sensitive to changes in water levels and flow. There

is also the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA which protects feeding and

roosting sites for three tern species of bird.

New measures

One protection measure at Bartley is within or in close proximity to the New Forest

SAC/SPA/ Ramsar site. This measure is investigating the potential for attenuating flood

waters through the creation of upstream storage alongside of other options. There is the

potential for changes in water level and flow as a result of this measure which could present

a low risk of disturbance to SAC and Ramsar features in particular from prolonged flooding

and increased turbidity.

The final solutions for these measures are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain

how or where the measures are implemented, and these measures will be subject to

subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level. Project level control through the

consenting process for these measures, and associated requirements for consideration of

project level HRA (see sub-section below – Project Level Control and Mitigation) will ensure

these measures will not result in adverse effect on the European sites.

Given the avoidance and mitigation options available to ensure adequate project-level

controls are in place, the above strategic plan-level measures are screened as not likely

to lead to significant effect on the European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and

does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or

specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures

There are 11 existing plan measures which relate to preparedness and 2 to prevention.


North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

Two protection measures at Totton and Hythe are investigating options for improving the

standard of protection of coastal defences. The measures are in proximity or within the

Solent Maritime SAC and the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites and the

proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA. There is the potential for footprint and

coastal squeeze effects on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds for both roosting

and feeding. An adverse effect on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds from

coastal squeeze from policies which seek to sustain or improve the standard of protection

and footprint impacts was identified by the North Solent SMP HRA. This is likely to be

relevant to these measures. There may be additional effects on high level roosts, and with

regards to the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA, which have not been

assessed as part of the North Solent SMP.

Proposed Mitigation and compensation: The effects occurring on salt marsh and mud flat

resulting from coastal squeeze, have been assessed under the North Solent SMP Habitats

Regulations Assessment (HRA) and IROPI case, with impacts arising from Epoch 1,

mitigated through compensatory habitat which is currently establishing, further to the

Medmerry managed realignment scheme.

The Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the North Solent SMP has

been signed off on the condition that the regional habitat creation programme records likely

impacts and subsequent habitat requirements and to identifies suitable sites for creation of

habitat to compensate for the adverse effects. The detail on location of compensatory and

mitigatory habitat for Natura effects shall come from scheme level assessment.

The SMP was able to identify through reference to Cox (2009b), that the network of feeding

and roost sites within the SPA/Ramsar site is important, not necessarily individual feeding

and roost sites alone, but that there were potential losses of high tide roost sites within

certain policy units. However a detailed assessment of potential effects on high level roosts

was not within the ambit of the North Solent SMP HRA. A study is currently underway to

supplement the North Solent SMP to identify where high level roosts occur, to inform

scheme level assessment of impact and mitigation for high level roosts.

The SMP HRA suggests that “the loss of habitat function can be mitigated through habitat

management, for example, creating new shingle islands within the estuaries or removing

scrub and woodland to create new areas for roosting. In addition, artificial roost and breeding

sites can be substituted by use of pontoons, although it is questionable whether these

artificial sites are of the same ecological value (Cox, 2009).”

4.2.4.3 East Hampshire

European sites



1 0 7 14

The East Hampshire management catchment contains 9 European sites. In total there are

22 measures for the catchment, 1 of which is a new measure.

The water dependent European sites within the catchment include the Solent Maritime SAC,

Solent and Southampton SPA/Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone SPA/Ramsar, Portsmouth

Harbour SPA/Ramsar, and Solent and Isle of Wight lagoons SAC. These are important

wetland habitats that support species sensitive to changes in water levels, quantity and

quality.

New measures

One protection measure is located at Petersfield on a tributary of the River Rother, which is

some 30km upstream of the Arun Valley SPA and Ramsar within the adjacent Arun and

Western Stream management catchment. Given the distance downstream to the European

sites, it is determined that this new measure is not likely to lead to significant effects.

The final solution for this measure is not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or

where this measures is implemented, and will be subject to subsequent appraisal and

assessment at the project level.

At this strategic-plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified. (see section

4.3.3 and also Table A.3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to

adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the new measures are screened as not likely to

lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not

remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need

for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures

There are 6 existing plan measures which relate to prevention and 8 existing plan measures

which relate to preparedness. These measures have been screened out of consideration of

likely significant effect.

Portsmouth Flood Risk Management Strategy

One ‘Other’ measure led by Portsmouth Unitary Authority, to consider options for the

Farlington Marshes future management relative to the adjacent M27, which is privately

owned by the Highways Agency.

Four protection measures led by Portsmouth Unitary Authority as Lead Local Flood Authority

(LLFA) are located at Southsea, North Portsea Island, Tipner and Portchester Castle,

adjacent to the Portsmouth Harbour SAC, SPA and Ramsar site and proposed Solent and

Dorset Coast marine SPA. All measures are to improve the standard of protection in line with

the Portsea Island and Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategies under the

Portsmouth Flood Risk Management Strategy. The measure at North Portsea Island is to

sustain and improve the standard of protection where viable, linking with regeneration

opportunities. The measure at Tipner (Harbour Way to Twyford Avenue), is for a privately

owned defence dependent upon development to deliver an improved standard, with a

statutory requirement to maintain the coastal defences to minimise the risk of any potential

contaminates entering Portsmouth Harbour water body. The measure at Portchester Castle

is to improve the coastal defences against flooding to the existing community, and the A27,

in conjunction with the Trafalgar Wharf development. An adverse effect on salt marsh and

mud flat and their use by birds from coastal squeeze from policies which seek to sustain or

improve the standard of protection and footprint impacts was identified by the North Solent

SMP HRA. This is likely to be relevant to this measure. There may be additional effects on

high level roosts, which have not been assessed as part of the North Solent SMP.

The risks to European sites result from coastal management measures. These have been

assessed at the strategic level by HRAs for the Portsea Island and Porchester to Emsworth

strategies. These both concluded an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites as a

result of coastal squeeze effects. The HRAs demonstrated that there were ‘no alternatives’

to the preferred solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and

public safety. Compensatory habitat is provided as part of the Medmerry managed

realignment scheme.

Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy

One existing protection measure at Farlington Marshes is located within the Chichester and

Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site and adjacent to the Solent Maritime SAC. This

measure is an investigation into the potential to carry out the recommendations of the

Portchester to Emsworth strategy of tidal defence realignment and improvements, following

completion of the high roost study being carried out by the coastal partnership. The

Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy identifies that any potential managed

realignment route would be determined following further study, data collection to determine

the exact area of freshwater loss and inter-tidal habitat gain and appraisal. Should this prove

viable, the realignment will need review and assessment as part of the North Solent SMP

update process. The coastal cell currently has a policy of hold the line for all three epochs

with the potential for managed realignment in epoch 2 or 3 pending further studies.

The Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment

concluded an adverse effect on site integrity for the Portsmouth Harbour SAC, SPA and

Ramsar site due to coastal squeeze losses and small/direct losses as a result of ‘hold the

line’ options. The HRA demonstrated that there were ‘no alternatives’ to the preferred

solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and public safety.

Compensatory habitat is provided as part of the Medmerry managed realignment scheme.


One Environment Agency led protection measure is located at Wallington. This measure is

to investigate options to reduce tidal flooding and the installation of flap valves on surface

water drainage outlets. This measure is located adjacent to the Portsmouth Harbour SAC,

SPA and Ramsar site and some 5km from the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine

SPA. There is the potential for footprint and coastal squeeze effects on salt marsh and mud

flat and their use by birds for both roosting and feeding. An adverse effect on salt marsh and

mud flat and their use by birds from coastal squeeze from policies which seek to sustain or

improve the standard of protection and footprint impacts was identified by the North Solent

SMP HRA. This is likely to be relevant to this measure. There may be additional effects on

high level roosts, and with regards to the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA,

which have not been assessed as part of the North Solent SMP.








impacts and subsequent habitat requirements and identifies suitable sites for creation of















Taking the above mitigation into account and with regards the Portsmouth Unitary Authority

led schemes, the Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy Habitats Regulations

Assessment identified that the nature and scale of any compensatory habitat provision

needed to be agreed with Natural England in advance of implementation of any schemes

which represent ‘adverse effect’.

4.2.4.4 Test and Itchen Management Catchment

European sites



3 31 5 1

The Test and Itchen management catchment contains 11 European sites. In total there are

40 measures for the catchment, 34 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European sites within the catchment include The River Itchen, which is

designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for its abundant and exceptionally rich

aquatic flora and fauna. Present along the coast are the Solent and Southampton Water

SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC and proposed Dorset and Solent Coast marine

SPA.

New measures

There are six prevention measures. There are 22 preparedness measures and two recovery

and review measures. These have all been screened out.

One protection measure at Romsey on the River Test occurs some 6km upstream of the

Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC and proposed

Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA. The measure is to investigate options to include a

tilting weir to help divert water around Romsey. The Emer Bog SAC is located some 3km to

the east of Romsey, up the Tadburn Lake Stream. The measure has the potential to affect

the structure and extent of bog habitats from changes to water levels, flow, velocity, water

chemistry and the hydrological regime brought about by a reduction in frequency or duration

of flooding over time

One protection measure at Winchester, in close proximity to the River Itchen SAC comprises

an investigation into both temporary and permanent defences to protect central Winchester

from fluvial flooding. This measure has the potential for effects from/on the potential direct

loss/physical damage of in channel/bankside habitat, non-migratory fish, invertebrates and

otters in the plan footprint, constraining habitat migration downstream, and potential noise

and visual disturbance to mammals during any construction works.

One protection measure in the vicinity of Totton, to the west of Southampton is an

investigation to increase of the capacity of the open watercourses, reinstate existing ditches

and create of a new ditch to run parallel with Calmore Road, upstream of the the Solent and

Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites, the Solent Maritime SAC and the proposed

Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA.



subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level.


4.3.3 and also Table A.3 Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately

avoid or mitigate for impacts, the new measures are screened as not likely to lead to

significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove

the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for

appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures

There is one prevention measures. This has been screened out.


One ‘no measure’ in the vicinity of Totton, to the west of Southampton is located at Manor

House Farm, on the River Test, which is immediately upstream of the current extent of the

European sites. This measure is derived from the Selsey Bill to Hurst Spit SPA. The aim of

this measure is to work with the Regional Habitat Creation Programme (RHCP) to create

compensatory freshwater grazing marsh, as part of the requirements resulting from the

implementation of the North Solent SMP. Should this prove viable, this will involve land

acquisition, detailed design, construction and monitoring.

Southampton Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are three protection actions led by Southampton City Council Unitary Authority. One is

to designate structures/features that may play a role in flood risk management which are not

directly owned or maintained by SCC or Environment Agency, and another protection

measure aims to improve surface water management through a focus on hotspot locations

within Southampton. The third measure is to retrofit SuDS schemes to reduce flood risk,

improve the quality of surface water runoff and enhance amenity/biodiversity.

One protection measure led by the Southampton Unitary Authority as Lead Local Flood

Authority (LLFA) is to take forward the River Itchen Flood Alleviation Scheme to reduce flood

risk through the implementation of an interim height flood wall along the west bank of the

River Itchen, from Ocean Village for some 3km upstream. This measure is in close proximity

to the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites, the Solent Maritime SAC and

the proposed Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA. The HRA for the Southampton Coastal

Flood and Erosion Risk Management (CFERM) Strategy concluded no adverse effect for

this frontage, but it did not assess potential impacts on the draft Solent and Dorset

Coast Marine SPA.








impacts and subsequent habitat requirements and to identifies suitable sites for creation of















4.2.4.5 Arun and Western Streams Management Catchment

European sites



7 0 15 11

The Arun and Western Streams management catchment contains 18 European sites. In total

there are 33 measures for the catchment, 7 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European sites present include Pagham Harbour SPA and Ramsar

and Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, Solent Maritime SAC and the

draft Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA. Further inland up the River Arun is the

freshwater Arun Valley SCI, SPA and Ramsar.

New measures

All of the new measures are protection measures.

Three Environment Agency led measures at Horsham; replace the manual sluice gate with a

fixed weir; and in partnership with West Sussex County Council at Billingshurst develop and

implement actions from a Surface Water Management Plan; and Loxwood, investigate

options for reducing flood risk. All measures are located some 15-30km upstream of the

Arun Valley SCI, SPA and Ramsar.

Three Arun District Council led measures at Kingston Gorse, Rustington and East Preston

are on small watercourses, which discharge to the open coast. The nearest alongshore

European site is some 50km to the east, at Pevensey Levels SCI, whilst against the easterly

current the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA at Middleton-on-Sea is some 6

to10km to the west.

Due to the distance of these measures to the European sites it is determined that these new

measures are not likely to lead to significant effects on the European sites.

One Environment Agency led measure is to work in partnership with Southern Water to

investigate options to reduce flood risk to properties in Emsworth from the West Brook and

the Nore Farm Stream. The small water bodies within Emsworth drain into the Chichester

and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC. These are large

intertidal areas dominated by coastal processes rather than minor fluvial inputs. This means

that the system is likely to be more resilient and robust to fluvial flood events. It is not

thought that any works would significantly affect site integrity as the catchment sizes are

small and so there will be limited volumes of fluvial floodwaters to deal with. In addition, with

rising sea levels, the freshwater inputs to the system will continue to be an important

component of the site. This measure is a duplication of an existing measure, but to include

partnership working.



subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level.


4.3.3 and also Table A.3 Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately

avoid or mitigate for impacts, the new measures are screened as not likely to lead to

significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove

the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for

appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures

There is one existing plan measure which relates to prevention and ten existing plan

measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These measures have been

screened out of consideration of likely significant effect

There are 13 existing protection measures and 2 ‘other’ measures.

Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

One Environment Agency led measure is to investigate options to reduce flood risk to

properties in Emsworth associated with the West Brook and the Nore Farm Streams. These

are small water bodies, which drain into the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and

Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC.

One West Sussex County Council led measure is to identify solutions through a Surface

Water Management Plan, which will help manage the fluvial flood risk and the surface water

flood risk on the Manhood Peninsula. The Arun CFMP HRA identifies that watercourses in

the Coastal Plain Unit do not drain into Pagham or Chichester Harbour and there are no

foreseen flood risk management activities for surface, sewer or groundwater flooding that will

be undertaken in the land adjacent to the Pagham Harbour in this Policy Unit.

One Environment Agency led protection measure north of Bognor Regis is to assess

sustainable and integrated flood risk management solutions for the Aldingbourne Rife

catchment, some 3km upstream of where this discharges through a coastal outfall into the

proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Arundel is located some 10km

downstream of the Arun SAC, SPA and Ramsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measure in partnership with West Sussex County

Council aims to improve surface water flood risk in combination with small scale flood risk at

Angmering. The watercourse discharges well downstream of the Arun Valley SCI, SPA and

Ramsar, with no pathway of impact.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to consider the implementation of the

‘Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy’ through the withdrawal of maintenance from flood

defences in reaches of the Arun above Arundel.

The Arun CFMP HRA concluded that adverse effects on the Arun Valley SCI, SPA and

Ramsar could be avoided by continuing to protect the site. For other sites the effect of the

plan was uncertain due to the lack of detail on how the policies will be implemented. The

CFMP was signed off on the basis that it sets a strategic direction for flood risk

management, but this could not be implemented until more detailed assessment and

appraisal has taken place on plans and projects arising out of the CFMP to demonstrate that

they have met the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.

Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

There are 9 measures from the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to recharge the existing beach at Climping

is some kilometre alongshore from the European site.

Two Environment Agency led protection measures are located within or adjacent to Pagham

Harbour SPA and Ramsar. The measure at Sidlesham is currently investigating inland bank

improvements. The measure at Pagham village is currently investigating options to improve

the standard of protection for low lying areas.

One Chichester District Council protection measure is to investigate options for coastal

erosion management for Selsey, Bracklesham and East Wittering. Effects on the proposed

Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA may need to be considered. This is part of ongoing

beach management with habitats regulations assessment in place.

There are two ‘No measures’. One of these relates to continued environmental monitoring at

Medmerry. The other ‘No measure’ relates to consideration of discontinuing coastal

maintenance between Emsworth in the west through to the River Arun in the west.

Two Arun District Council led protection measures include groyne replacement at Aldwick

and the maintenance of beach condition and width at Middleton on Sea.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Elmer comprises beach management

works including repairs to breakwaters. These measures are adjacent to or within the

proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

The HRA of the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill SMP concluded that there will not be any

adverse effects on the integrity of European sites from the proposed policy options,

but it did not assess potential impacts on the draft Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA. It is

recommended that project level assessment is required to rule out any potential impacts on

the new marine site.

Proposed Mitigation: Measures are considered to be consistent with the higher level

assessment undertaken for the CFMP and SMP, and relevant strategies on the basis that

they cannot be put into effect until more detailed appraisal and assessment has taken place

on them to show they have met the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

Where measures have previously been assessed under the Habitats Regulations or did not

have any interconnectivity with a European site, these will need to be reviewed for likely

significant effect relative to the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

4.2.4.6 Adur and Ouse Management Catchment

European sites



3 1 9 7

The Adur & Ouse management catchment contains 4 European sites. In total there are 20


European sites are located on high ground throughout the catchment, with Ashdown Forest

SAC and SPA on the sandstone of the high weald, and Castle Hill SAC and Lewes Downs

SAC on the chalk down land overlooking Brighton and Lewes respectively. There is limited

fluvial connectivity to these European sites. The nearest water dependent European site to

the east of the management catchment with connectivity is the Pevensey Levels SAC,

located some 20km to the east.

New measures

One Lewes District Council led prevention measure comprises monitoring of cliffs between

Saltdean and Newhaven to inform erosion modelling prevention. This is screened out.

Two West Sussex County Council led protection measures are to develop surface water

management plans for Hassocks and for Lancing with associated works. The nearest

alongshore European site is some 40km to the east of Lancing, at Pevensey Levels SCI,

whilst against the easterly current, the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA at

Middleton-on-Sea is some 20km to the west. Hassocks is some 20km upstream of the coast

to the east of Lancing.

One Environment Agency led protection measure is to reduce flooding in the Barcombe area

on the River Ouse through wetland habitat creation, delivered through partnership as the

Middle Ouse WFD Mitigation and Wetland Habitat Creation. This measure on the River

Ouse is some 15km downstream of the Ashdown Forest SAC and SPA.

Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, these new measures are not

likely to lead to significant effects.

Existing measures

There are sixteen existing measures. There are five measures which relate to public

awareness and preparedness. There are two measures which relate to prevention. These

are screened out.

Adur Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

One Environment Agency led protection measure is to improve the banks of Ferring Rife

against flood risk resulting from tide locking.

The nearest alongshore European site is some 50km to the east, at Pevensey Levels SCI,


Middleton-on-Sea is some 10km to the west.

An HRA was not required for the Adur CFMP due to the absence of any European

sites within the catchment.

Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

Five Environment Agency led protection measures include (from west to east) beach

recharge between Shoreham and Lancing under the ‘Shoreham and Lancing Coastal

Defences Beach Management Plan’; the improvement of tidal walls through the ‘Shoreham

Adur Tidal Walls scheme; ongoing beach management and recycling at Seaford; an

improved standard of protection against flooding at Newhaven and the standard of flooding

sustained upstream at Southease.

Two Worthing Borough Council led protection measures comprise the maintenance and

improvement of coastal defences at both Worthing and Goring by sea, through the

replacement of timber groynes.

One combined Lewes District and Arun District Council protection measure comprises

monitoring of cliff retreat to inform future proactive management of risks at Peacehaven.

The nearest alongshore European site is some 50km to the east, at Pevensey Levels SCI,


Middleton-on-Sea is some 10km to the west.

The HRA of the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill SMP concluded that there will not be any

adverse effects on the integrity of European sites from the proposed policy options.

4.2.4.7 Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels Management Catchment

European sites



6 2 13 7

The Cuckmere & Pevensey Levels management catchment contains 3 European sites. In

total there are 28 measures for the catchment, 8 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European sites present include the Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar

site. At the eastern extent of the catchment along the coast is the Hastings Cliffs SAC. The

interest features comprised of successional development of vegetation of Hastings Cliff SAC

are supported by the actively eroding soft cliffs.

New measures

One Environment Agency led prevention measure comprises the investigation of options for

future coastal defences following the end of the Pevensey Coastal Defence contract along

the Eastbourne, Pevensey Bay and Bexhill coastal frontages. However this is due to end in

2025 so will not result in any change within this FRMP cycle and has been screened out of

the assessment.

One Environment Agency led prevention measure comprises the desilting of some of the key

watercourses on the Pevensey Levels to aid conveyance, improve the SSSI and tackle

invasive species. This measure is considered necessary for the conservation management

of the interest features of the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site and in line with the

Pevensey Levels SSSI Water Level Management Plan which should support the interest

features of the SCI and Ramsar site. Due to the measure being necessary for the

management of the interest features of the site, this measure has been screened out of the

assessment.

One Environment Agency led prevention measure comprises an appraisal of the future

capacity of the Combe Haven sea outfall at Bulverhythe and St Leonards. Given the lack of

any inter connectivity to the European sites, this new measure is not likely to lead to

significant effects.

Three Environment Agency led protection measures along the Cuckmere River or its

tributaries include the review of the water level control structure at Upper Dicker,

investigation of opportunities to reduce flood risk and provide environmental enhancement

from the Knockhatch Stream, which flows west from Horsham and provision of improved

flood risk at Alfriston and West Dean. Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the

Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar, it is determined that these new measures are not

likely to lead to significant effects.

One Environment Agency led protection measures is located some 8km upstream of the

Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site, around the headwaters of the Langley Sewer. This

measure is to investigate flow restrictions in Polegate and propose solutions to reduce flood

risk. Due to the distance upstream of the European sites and the localised nature of the

measure, it is determined that this new measures is not likely to lead to significant

effects.

One Hastings District Council led protection measures to undertake coastal defence works

from the Southern Water Outfall to the Pier in Hastings. Given the lack of any inter

connectivity to the Hastings Cliff SAC, it is determined that this new measure is not likely

to lead to significant effects.

Existing measures

There are 20 existing measures. There are seven measures which relate to public

awareness and preparedness. These are screened out.

Cuckmere and Sussex Havens CFMP

Two East Sussex County Council led prevention measures comprise surface water

management plans and localised actions at Hailsham and Heathfield. Heathfield is in the

upper River Cuckmere with no interconnectivity with the European sites. Hailsham is some

1km from the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar and so exhibits potential interconnectivity

with this measure.

Two Environment Agency led protection measures comprise the identification of obsolete

structures in Bexhill, to encourage their removal by developers and the identification of any

local flow restrictions in Hastings.

One East Sussex County Council led protection measures with support from the

Environment Agency is to implement the action plan from the Bexhill surface water

management plan to reduce the risk of surface water flooding for Bexhill.

One Environment Agency led protection measure is to extend Egerton Park Coastal Outfall.

Two Environment Agency led protection measures along the upper Cuckmere River are to

improve flood risk at Hellingly, Grovebridge and Horam through increased flood storage

including an investigation into a flood attenuation reservoir on the Bull River.

The HRA for the Cuckmere and Sussex Havens CFMP concluded that the effects of the

policies on the integrity of the European sites were uncertain. Key risks were associated

with the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site, while it was concluded that there were no

likely significant effects on the Hastings Cliffs SAC. The CFMP was considered to provide a

strategic direction for flood risk management on the basis that the policies could not be given

effect without further HRA of the projects and plans arising out of the CFMP.

South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP

Two Environment Agency led protection measures comprise regular shingle recycling as

required from Sovereign Harbour (Eastbourne) to Cooden (Bexhill) under the Pevensey Bay

PPP, and at Bulverhythe Sea Defences.

One Hastings District Council led protection measure is to undertake coastal defence works.

One Eastbourne District Council led protection measure is to undertake beach management

coastal defence works at Eastbourne.

The HRA of the SMP concluded that there will not be any adverse effects on the

integrity of the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site or the Hastings Cliffs SAC from

the proposed policy options.

East Sussex Flood Risk Management Strategy

One measure is led by East Sussex County Council to carry out a Town Centre Surface

Water Assessment for Eastbourne. There is no pathway of impact on the Hastings Cliffs

SAC. Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, this existing measure

is not likely to lead to significant effects.

Proposed Mitigation: Cuckmere and Sussex Havens CFMP HRA identifies uncertainty of

adverse effect on site integrity on the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar with the following

caveat, as agreed with Natural England, that it cannot be put into effect until more detailed

appraisal and assessment has been undertaken on plans or projects arising out of it to show

they have met the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

4.2.4.8 Stour Management Catchment

European sites



0 11 47 6

The Stour management catchment contains 16 European sites. In total there are 64


The water dependent European sites present include Thanet Coast, Sandwich Bay and

Stodmarsh which are all designated Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas (SPA) and

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). There is also the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

New measures

There are 11 new plan measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness.


Existing measures

There are 6 existing plan measures which relate to recovery and review. These measures

have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Stour Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

There are 17 protection measures and 5 ‘other’ measures derived from the Stour CFMP. All

measures are led by the Environment Agency.

To provide an overview before considering how the measures fit with this, the Stour CFMP

HRA (2008) identifies no likely significant effect from policies on Sandwich Bay SAC, Thanet

Coast SAC or Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC. However likely significant effects are

identified in summary from ‘a range of unspecified water management and flood risk

management actions and alterations to existing maintenance regimes’ that could affect the

following sites, as follows:

Stodmarsh SAC, SPA & Ramsar (Policy 6 – take action to increase the frequency of

flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere (which may constitute an overall flood

risk reduction eg for habitat inundation))

Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA & Ramsar (Policy 3 – continue with existing or

alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood risk

will increase over time from this baseline))’

Impacts from the above policies are identified as resulting from potential changes to water

chemistry, changes to turbidity and simplification of habitat/communities, changes in surface

water flooding, changes in flow and velocity and changes in hydrological regime.

The measures are as follows:

Three protection measures comprise review of flood risk management options at South

Ashford under the ‘South Ashford Flood Alleviation Scheme’, a new replacement trash

screen for a culvert at Kennington, Ashford under the ‘Kennington Stream Trash Screen’ and

investigations into the proposed conveyance improvements work and the option for a high

flow channel at Sevington Mill under the ‘Ashford conveyance improvements’. These

measures are some 25km upstream of the Stodmarsh SAC/SPA/Ramsar.

One protection measure on the Little Stour River to improve standard of protection to

properties at Littlebourne and Wickhambreaux is some seven kilometres upstream of the

confluence with the River Stour, which is some 6km downstream of the Stodmarsh

SAC/SPA/Ramsar on a fluvially dominated system. The measures are located some 25km

upstream of the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and Sandwich Bay SAC.

One protection measure comprises a seven year desilt of a small section of the River Dour

within Dover town under the ‘River Dour Desiliting at Bridge Street’.

One protection measure is to undertake feasibility studies for potential flood risk

management schemes on the Great Stour and Little Stour Rivers, involving storage,

structure alterations, flood defence construction and relief channels under the ‘Great and

Little Stour Flood Alleviation Schemes’.

Three protection measures comprise catchment wide maintenance of main river, ongoing

maintenance of existing flood risk management assets and Great Stour flood wall repairs

from Grove Ferry to Sandwich.

Four protection measures comprise refurbishment of the Stour pumping stations, Stonar Cut

penstocks, Hacklinge and Worth Minnis pumping station and Seasalter Pumping Station.

Hacklinge and Worth Minnis are both within or adjacent to the Thanet Coast and Sandwich

Bay SPA and Ramsar, whilst Worth Minnis is adjacent to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA

and Thanet Coast SAC;

Three protection measures comprise CCTV surveys of culverts with clearance of debris and

asset maintenance on the Plenty Brook at Herne and at Kite Farm adjacent to the

Swalecliffe Brook at Tankerton, with the final measure on the Gorrel Stream Culvert.

Measures are upstream of Swalecliffe SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and

Ramsar;

One protection measure within the Lower Stour is comprised of investigation into silt build up

on the Lower Stour, with dredging carried out where appropriate under the ‘Lower Stour

conveyance activities’; Upstream of Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich

Bay SPA and Ramsar;

Two ‘other’ measures comprise review of Stodmarsh Water Level Management Plan for the

Stodmarsh SSSI, and review of the Sandwich to Hacklinge Marshes Water Level

Management Plan for the SSSI of the same name, to ensure the areas are being managed

most effectively. The respective SSSI’s coincide with the Stodmarsh SAC, SPA and Ramsar

and the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and Sandwich Bay SAC.

Three ‘other’ measures comprise modelling studies to look at options to achieve WFD

objectives on the River Wingham, Ash Levels and Lampen Stream. Despite their being inter

connectivity from the Lampen Stream to the Stodmarsh SAC/SPA/Ramsar, due to the high

level nature of these measures, these measures are not likely to lead to significant effects.

Despite the potential for likely significant effects at scheme level, given the project level

controls in place, the CFMP HRA concluded that the plan is not likely to adversely affect

the integrity of the European sites.

Isle of Grain to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

There are 20 protection measures and 1 ‘other’ measure derived from the SMP. Measures

are variously led by the Environment Agency, Canterbury District Council, Dover District

Council and Thanet District Council.

The measures are as follows:

One Environment Agency led ‘other’ measure is to assess the strategic requirement for

habitat creation as a result of implementing short, medium and long term polices of the

South Foreland to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan on European sites.

Three Environment Agency led protection measures include maintenance of current shingle

levels along the coastline to the south of Sandwich Bay, shingle recycling between Reculver

and Minnis Bay and Sandwich Bay Estate and Sandown Castle and shingle recharge

between the Northern Sea Wall and Pegwell Bay to Deal. These measures are coincident or

in proximity to Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar.

Three Dover District Council led protection measures are to maintain current shingle levels

along the coastline to the south of Sandown Castle at Deal and Kingsdown, with timber

groyne replacement from Walmer to Kingsdown. These measures are between some 0-5km

updrift of the Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar.

Five Thanet District Council led protection measures comprise refurbishment of assets as

follows: refurbishment or replacement of concrete groynes around the Thanet coastline;

repairs or replacement of existing assets within Broadstairs Harbour, Viking Bay to Dumpton

Gap and East of Epple to Westgate Bay, where some sea wall toe improvement work will

also be included; and refurbishment of the groyne which has toe protection provided by steel

sheet piles, under the ‘Broadstairs Harbour Flood Defence Scheme’. Measures are adjacent

or in proximity to Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar and SPA and Thanet Coast SAC.

One Thanet District Council led protection measure on Ramsgate main beach is to install

timber groynes to stabilise the beach, reduce recycling costs and hold much more material

at the north of the area of concern where insufficient material is naturally held. Measure is

some 1km alongshore and 1.5km west of Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and

Ramsar. The Thanet Coast SAC is adjacent.

Three Canterbury District Council led protection measures comprise shingle works as

follows: shingle recharge at Seasalter and Tankerton and recycling of shingle at Herne Bay.

Works at Seasalter are likely within or adjacent to the Swale SPA and Ramsar. Works at

Tankerton are likely within or adjacent to Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe SAC and Thanet

Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and Outer Thames Estuary SPA. Herne Bay is

some 1km alongshore of Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and is adjacent

to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA.

Four Canterbury District Council led protection measures comprise refurbishment of assets

as follows: Reculver seawall refacing, rock protection at the west end to prevent outflanking

and grouting/block replacement to the Towers Apron; Replacement of the steel sheet piling

at Whitstable Harbour that forms the sea defence and also some gates and associated flood

defence structures; New timber groynes and beach recycling in stages to ensure protection

to the seawall from Hampton to Bishopstone; and improvement where feasible to the

existing groynes, with the possibility of toe reinforcement to protect the seawall, and beach

recycling to the east of Hampton Pier under ‘Studd Hill and Hampton coastal defence works.

One joint Canterbury District Council and Environment Agency led protection measure

repeats the above measure to reconstruct the sea wall at Whitstable, relative to the condition

of the piling.

Works at Whitstable Harbour are adjacent to the Outer Thames Estuary SAC and The Swale

SPA/Ramsar, whilst works at Reculver and from Hampton to Bishopstone are respectively

adjacent to Thanet Coast SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA.

The Isle of Grain to South Foreland SMP HRA (SMP HRA) identifies no likely significant

effect from policies which seek to hold the line or support no active intervention on the

Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar. The SMP HRA recommends where no

defences currently occur in front of the cliffs that these sections follow a policy of no active

intervention.

With regards the Sandwich Bay SAC and Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC, the policies

within the SMP HRA were agreed as not likely to have significant environmental

effects.

Kent Surface Water Management Plan

Four Kent County Council led protection measures are to investigate options to reduce

surface water flood risk in the Church Street area of Deal, Whitstable, Margate and Dover.

Given these interventions are focused on the management of urban surface water

flooding there will be no likely significant effect on European sites.

Proposed Mitigation:

Stour Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

The Stour CFMP HRA identifies avoidance measures for implementation through an action

plan to ensure that the plan has no adverse effect on integrity of European sites of

Stodmarsh SAC, SPA & Ramsar and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA & Ramsar. The

HRA highlights that its assessment at the plan level does not remove the need for an

assessment at the project level and that: “If a project is not consistent with the plan then a

new Stage 3 Habitats Regulations Assessment may be required. Furthermore, a project

may be entirely consistent with this plan but still require further Appropriate Assessment as

detail emerging at the scheme-design stage may identify additional impacts that have not

been assessed here. Any project arising out of the plan will ensure any adverse effects on

integrity of European site are avoided.”

Isle of Grain to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

The SMP HRA identifies that if influences acting on the site, result in making the

conservation status of the habitat less favourable than it was before, then deterioration can

be considered to have occurred. This implies that scheme level assessment should be a

consideration in determining whether the above conclusions can be sustained. The SMP

HRA identifies that geomorphological and ecological surveys are likely to be required to

inform conditions necessary to best maintain site integrity and to increase the understanding

of sediment flux and habitat change through sea level rise for subsequent work.

4.2.4.9 District Wide New Measures

European sites



7 15 0 0

The South East District contains 61 European sites as explained within section 2.1. In total

there are 22 measures for the district, all of which are new measures

This section identifies measures which occur over the district.

New measures

There are 5 measures which relates to prevention, 8 measures which relate to public

awareness and preparedness and 2 measures which relates to recovery and review. These

measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

There are 7 Environment Agency led protection measures which are high level and generic

and uniformly are unlikely to result in physical changes on the ground. These include the

assessment of whole life costs to set the optimum regime for maintaining and replacing

assets; identification of the most suitable maintenance regime for different catchments;

implement measures from strategic plans; identify potential options and promote works to

reduce the likelihood of flooding in areas where modelling has shown that there is an

unacceptable risk, or that have flooded in the past; review land allocation, de-culverting and

flood storage opportunities; incorporate climate change allowances into flood risk

management works; identify where natural flood management can help adapt to impacts of

climate change.

Given the general scope and the strategic scale of the measures, the FRMP does not

specify or constrain how or where measures are implemented. The measures will be subject

to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated

requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of

mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In

light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the

measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites.

This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it

influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate

mitigation options in more detail.

4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion

The assessment of likely significant effects has been carried out for each catchment in turn.

The risks to European sites for those measures drawn from existing plans have been

considered with reference to existing HRAs and existing controls in place. The potential

risks arising from new strategic priorities for the next FRMP cycle have also been

considered.

In all catchments the conclusions are that likely significant effects can be avoided or

mitigated by appropriate controls and actions that are currently in place or will be in place at

a project level, when local actions are developed to implement the plan.

4.3.1 Risks from existing plan measures

74% of measures are from existing plans, of which 53% are from CFMPs and 22% from

SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in the SMP HRA

for specific policy areas are being addressed.

All risk management authorities responsible for implementing the measures in the FRMP

that are sourced from the existing CFMPs and SMPs, where risks to Europeans sites have

been identified, are required to take account of the HRAs of those plans (as identified in

section 4.2 above) and any mitigation proposals or statements made within them.

Most risks to European sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the (22%)

measures in SMPs, and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects,

such as in the catchments of Rother, East Hampshire and New Forest.

4.3.2 Risks from new measures

21% of measures are new, of which 12% are strategic, 6% are not in proximity to any

European sites and 3% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The

most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific

improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in the Test and Itchen and New

Forest catchment and to a lesser extent in the Arun and Western Streams and Isle of Wight

catchments.

4.3.3 Control and Mitigation for main risks from new cycle 1 measures

Controls

The principal controls for the development of local actions from new FRMP measures that

are more specific and are in the proximity of European sites comprise the consenting

procedures in place to assess proposed actions in order to authorise implementation.

Actions involving construction or creation of new, or changes to, alteration or improvement of

existing flood defence structures affecting main river are likely to require planning

permission. In some cases, flood risk management may ordinarily be permitted

development. Other types of actions may require controls under Flood Defence Consents

from the Environment Agency for main rivers or Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for non-

main watercourses.

Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for project level HRA is determined

through the planning process, the required information is submitted with the planning

application, with the assessment being the responsibility of the local planning authority as

competent authority. A determination is made in consultation with Natural England. Even

where the action would normally be permitted development, approval of the local planning

authority is required where a development is likely to have a significant effect on a European

site.

As part of these consenting mechanisms, the measures cannot receive approval to proceed

until it has been demonstrated that they will not result in adverse effects on integrity of any

affected European sites. Or, where an adverse effect cannot be avoided, a case for

‘Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest’ (IROPI) that includes the identification of

compensatory measures is approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs. Table A3 in Annex A provides additional detail on the consenting processes

and the consideration of the Habitats Regulations as they relate to measures to address

flooding from the various flooding sources (e.g. main river, ordinary watercourses, tidal,

reservoir).

Mitigation

Implementation of measures at the subsequent tier of plan or project, if deemed likely to

result in significant effect on one or more European sites, may need to include mitigation to

avoid or reduce potential effects. Specification of mitigation should be tailored to the

specifics of a project, and to the sites and features potentially affected, through the project

level HRA process and through consultation with Natural England ideally early in a project’s

appraisal and design. That way, mitigation can be incorporated into the way that the project

is designed and built, tailored to the specifics of the site/s and their qualifying features, and

therefore be most effective in avoiding or reducing potential adverse effects.

Project-level mitigation for European site species would consider the potential impacts

arising from construction and operation of the project / measure, alongside any site specific

sensitivities of the affected species. Depending on the nature of the project, identification of

the use of habitats in proximity by qualifying species and the functioning role of those

supporting habitats affected, may either be established by existing data / studies or may

need to be established through site survey.

Construction-related mitigation should consider managing the timing of activities to avoid

ecologically sensitive periods, such as breeding, over-wintering or migratory passage

periods for birds, or migratory periods for anadromous fish. The exact timings for these

construction ‘windows’ may vary for different sites in the RBD, depending on the presence,

distribution and proximity of qualifying species present. Avoidance or reduction of visual or

noise disturbance to species may also consider the use of techniques such as screening,

segregation or establishing buffer zones, recognising that some species may be more

vulnerable or sensitive than others (for example different bird species can vary in their flight

response). For potential construction impacts on habitats, such as loss of habitat or physical

damage, key construction-focused mitigation should focus on the avoidance of working on,

or in proximity to sensitive habitats, and development of site sensitive construction

techniques. This may for example include avoiding heavy plant usage in particular areas, or

screening / creation of buffer zones to avoid any disturbance or physical damage. This can

be informed through site specific / project-level HRA, and supporting survey where

necessary, to establish the presence, nature and sensitivities of potentially affected habitats.

For potential operational effects, sensitive and sympathetic design can minimise or avoid

effects, such as appropriate location or layout of any structures (set-back from sensitive

habitats) or minimising footprints where possible. Project-level HRA should also consider

potential changes in physical processes, such as changes to flows / velocities and the

physical regime, and potential water quality changes, for example due to the addition or

removal of a structure or a changed profile of the riparian zone / channel banks. Such

effects, as identified through the HRA, should inform a project’s appraisal and the building of

suitable mitigation into the design.

4.3.4 Conclusion

The assessment above has considered the FRMP information in RBD catchments that the

Environment Agency are responsible for and has screened the measures as having no likely

significant effect. This is concluded in light of the range of avoidance and mitigation

measures available.

Regulatory controls will identify any risks to European sites when the actions required to

implement the measures are developed. The FRMP itself also makes it clear that before any

measures in the plan are implemented they must be subject to the requirements of the

Habitats Regulations by the relevant competent authority. This is already the case for

measures from existing plans where HRAs have identified risks to European sites and where

any adverse effects that cannot be ruled out have been addressed through appropriate

mitigation and compensatory provision.

It is concluded that at this strategic-plan level, the measures are screened as being not likely

to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other

plans or projects (see chapter 6). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress

to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to

examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier

assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high-

level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each

individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements

of the Habitats Regulations.

5 Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area HRA

This section sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the Brighton

and Hove Flood Risk Area that are for flooding from local sources (ordinary watercourses

surface water, groundwater, etc.) and are the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood

Authorities (LLFAs) within the Flood Risk Area. This is the FRMP information for which these

LLFAs are the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. This section covers

the following stages of the assessment:

Summary of measures being assessed

Screening and assessment of likely significant effects

Consideration of results and conclusion.

5.1 Summary of Measures

The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for

the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (FRA) as illustrated in Figure 3 below. An overall

summary of the LLFA FRA measures is presented in Table 4.

Figure 3 Map of the European sites in the Brighton and Hove FRA within the Adur and

Ouse Management Catchment

Table 4 Summary of Brighton and Hove FRA measures by catchment


Nu

mb

er

of

me

as

ure

s s

cre

en

ed

in (

ou

t)

Nu

mb

er

of

me

as

ure

s f

rom

ex

isti

ng

pla

ns

Number of measures related to types of existing plans

Nu

mb

er

of

ne

w

me

as

ure

s f

or

cy

cle

1

Number of new measures and known level of detail

Nu

mb

er

of

Eu

rop

ea

n S

ite

s

Catchments with no screened in measures

All FRA catchments have some screened in measures.

Catchments with all measures from existing plans

All FRA catchments have new measures.

Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP

Adur and Ouse

4 (5)

4 4 from Brighton and Hove SWMP

0 1

Overall Total 4 (5)

4 4 from Local Strategies 0

% all measures2 44% 44% 44% from Local Strategies 0%

1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets.

2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures.

'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment). 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide.

Of the total of 9 measures, 4 (44%) have been screened in for HRA consideration, and 5

(56%) screened out.

5.1.1 Risks from existing plans measures

All 4 measures are from existing plans, all of which are from the Brighton and Hove surface

water management plan (SWMP) which cover parts of the Adur and Ouse management

catchment.


5.2.1 Adur and Ouse Management Catchment

European sites



0 2 4 3

The Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (FRA) falls within the Adur & Ouse management

catchment, that contains 4 European sites. However the FRA only contains one: Castle Hill

SAC, which overlays the north eastern boundary of the FRA, with the settlement of

Woodingdean to the west. The Castle Hill SAC supports semi-natural dry grassland on chalk

substrate including an important assemblage of rare orchids. Threats within the Site

Improvement Plan for the site include undergrazing, fertiliser use and atmospheric nitrogen

deposition.

New measures

There are two new measures which relate to prevention. These measures have been

screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Existing measures - Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority Surface Water Management

Plan

There is one existing plan measure which relates to prevention and two plan measures

which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These measures have been screened

out of consideration of likely significant effect.

There are 4 existing protection measures as follows:

There is 1 Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority led protection measure, which is to

implement the recommended works from Brighton Marina to River Adur Flood and Coastal

Erosion Risk Management Strategy. This occurs along the shoreline over some 3km from

the European site.

There are 3 Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority led protection measures, which are to

implement minor works to improve surface water management within urbanised, lower lying

areas at Bevendean, Patcham and Caren Avenue over 3km from the European site.

Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, it is determined that these

existing measures are not likely to lead to significant effects.

5.2.2 Conclusion

At this strategic-plan level of the Brighton and Hove FRA the measures are screened as

being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination

with other plans or projects (see chapter 6). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to

progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate

assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites).

Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in

this high-level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each

individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements

of the Habitats Regulations.

6 In combination effects with other plans and projects

The Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations require competent authorities to

consider the assessment of effects on a European site in combination with other plans or

projects. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the FRMP has demonstrated that, for

those measures where there is a potential effect on a European site, there is insufficient

detail available at this stage to understand the site-specific context in terms of location or

outline design of the flood risk management solution to be able to assess the likely effects in

the detail necessary to advise on site-specific avoidance and mitigation required. Rather,

the assessment has set out the range of avoidance, mitigation and control measures that

can be applied, and there is enough confidence in the breadth and type of measures

available to screen out likely significant effects for the purposes of plan-level assessment.

The application of HRA requirements at the project or lower-tier plan level will take place

when a greater level of detail will be available. Given the lack of available information on the

location and design of solutions and therefore the associated effects, we are also unable to

meaningfully assess the in-combination effects with other plans and projects. This section

has therefore set out the types of plans and projects where interactions are possible and

more detailed consideration of these will be required in the HRAs for projects or lower tier

plans.

The potential for in-combination effects lies with the following potential interactions:

The RBD FRMP with the FRA FRMP

Between different RBD FRMPs

The RBD FRMP with other external plans within the RBD.

The in combination effects with existing Risk Management Authority plans during the period

of the plan, including Shoreline Management Plans, Catchment Flood Management Plans

and Local Strategies, have been considered as part of the FRMP assessments undertaken

within each RBD catchment and flood risk area (see previous sections). This is because the

FRMP has already considered how the objectives and measures of these existing plans

combine and relate to the 6 year cycle 2015 to 2021 of the FRMP.

6.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs

FRAs geographically overlay one or more RBD catchments and as distinct ‘plans’

addressing local flood sources may have measures that coincide with wider RBD catchment

measures addressing flooding from main rivers, sea and reservoirs. Together these

measures have the potential to cause in-combination effects on nearby European sites

depending on their nature, location and relationship. At the strategic-plan level of the HRA

such in-combination effects on specific European sites in unable to be considered. Instead

the HRA highlights where risks of in-combination effects may in general be higher and which

project level assessments should consider further as follows:

Most FRAs are in urban areas where there are less European sites present so most

measures are less likely to be in proximity to them

Most measures in FRAs are drawn from existing plans (local strategies and surface

water management plans) that will have considered their flood management

measures alongside any in the same strategic area under CFMPs and SMPs,

including any in-combination effects on European sites in any HRA.

The combination of measures with highest risks of in-combination effects not

considered under existing plans, will be where there are specific improvement

measures that are new in the FRMP under both the RBD catchment (main river/sea

flooding) and the FRA (local flooding) that are in close proximity to each other and a

European site.

6.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs

The South East RBD shares a border with two other RBDs:

South West

Thames

There are some European sites that span these borders of the South East RBD.

In general more FRMP measures are located close to where the risks of flooding to people

and property are greatest and as a result less are located close to the water shed margins of

catchments that are the borders of RBDs. There are however, catchment or RBD wide

measures that relate to these borders and often involve working with natural processes. At

this level of the plan, the nature of such measures on any specific European sites that cross

RBD borders are not sufficient to identify effects and such measures are considered to result

in no likely significant effects to cross border European sites. Such effects may be important

for lower tier plans and project level assessments to consider when more details of the

measures and the effects are known.

6.3 In-combination effects with external plans

Potential for in-combination effects with external plans will depend on the specific locations

and design of actions or measures arising from the FRMP, external plan or project.

Nevertheless, a number of plans that could give rise to projects that have the potential to

contribute to an in-combination effect have been identified.

At this stage, given the uncertainty of location and design of measures in the FRMP, there is

limited value in examining other plans in detail and speculating on where interactions might

occur. The approach taken was to identify key plans that should be considered in the HRAs

for projects or lower tier plans or strategies, as described below. However, this is not a

definitive list; there are a range of plans and projects that will need to be taken account of in

the HRAs for lower-tier plans projects, when considering potential in-combination effects.

Local Plans: Local Plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the

area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community

facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to

climate change and securing good design. During their development and before they are

adopted, plans will be subject to an HRA where there is the potential for significant effects on

a European site or sites. Other local plans that may be relevant to also consider relate to

transport, minerals and waste.

Water Resource Management Plans: Water Companies including Southern Water,

Portsmouth Water, Affinity Water (formerly Veolia) an South East Water produce respective

water resource plans for the South East region.

South East Water, Water Resources Management Plan. 2013, comprises the majority of

Kent and East Sussex. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of this plan screens out any

potential significant effects for the south east river basin district.

Affinity Water (formerly Veolia), draft Water Resources Management Plan, 2013, comprises

the towns of Folkestone and Dover, together with surrounding rural areas including Romney

Marsh and Dungeness in Kent. The Habitats Regulations Assessment for this plan has not

yet been completed. However the final plan identifies that as part of the options appraisal

work on the Dungeness peninsular, that the abstraction level is significantly lower than

historic patterns and this appears to minimise the abstraction impact on these key areas,

with a future licence change proposed to restrict future daily and peak abstraction capability,

in conjunction with relocating two disused wells to maintain security of supply. This is likely

to benefit the interest features of the Dungeness SAC and Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and

proposed Ramsar site, through improving resilience to changes in the level of water

Portsmouth Water, Draft Water Resources Management Plan, 2014, comprises part of

Hampshire and West Sussex. There are not likely to be any in combination effects with the

FRMP resulting from the ‘Havant Thicket Winter Storage Reservoir Option A’. However there

is a potential benefit from this to ‘Manage pollution from rural areas’ as a result of reduced

nitrogen load once the reservoir is operational. The Habitats Regulations Assessment

identifies no likely significant effect on the Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone

Harbours SPA and Ramsar, from the ‘Havant Thicket Winter Storage Reservoir Option A’

scheme, as a result of the control measures identified as follows: Subject to monitoring and

performance testing, annual reviews and the formal five-year review cycle, which monitors

the performance of the WRMP and allows for adjusted demand forecasts.

Southern Water Services Limited, Water Resources Management Plan (SWWRMP), 2014,

comprises various areas across the district, including the Isle of Wight, half of Hampshire

and West Sussex, and parts of East Sussex and Kent. There are not likely to be any in

combination effects with the FRMP resulting from groundwater abstraction for flow

augmentation on the Candover Stream, which is a tributary of the River Itchen, despite this

causing a change to the natural level of the water. However the control measures may

contribute to improving habitat through physical modifications. The Habitats Regulations

Assessment (HRA) for the SWWRMP, identifies no likely significant effects on the River

Itchen SAC, resulting from groundwater abstraction for flow augmentation on the Candover

Stream, from the following impacts, as a result of the control measures identified.

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP): RBMPs set statutory objectives for river, lake,

groundwater, estuarine and coastal water bodies and summarise the measures needed to

achieve them. Because water is linked to land, they also inform decisions on land-use

planning. The RBD that provides the spatial boundary for the FRMP is the same as that

used for the RBMP. The planning timeframe is also the same, so the plan for the period

2015-21 is currently being prepared. Water-dependent European sites are designated as

“Protected Areas” under the Water Framework Directive, and the RBMPs include measures

to ensure that the objectives for these areas are achieved. While it is unlikely that the plan

will result in a significant effect on a European site, an HRA is being undertaken to identify

any risks and unanticipated effects.

Marine Plans: Marine plans set out priorities and directions for future development within

the plan area, inform sustainable use of marine resources and help marine users understand

the best locations for their activities, including where new developments may be appropriate.

Marine plans are proposed for the inshore and offshore areas of England. Only interactions

with the inshore plan would be expected. Marine plans are required to be produced by

2021, but to date there is no draft plan for ‘South East Inshore’ and therefore it is not

possible to consider the potential for in-combination effects further.

7 Conclusion and Future HRAs

This HRA has been carried out at the level of published detail in the FRMP. For measures

from existing plans, the HRA has summarised the results from existing HRAs of these plans.

For any new strategic measures provided for the new FRMP cycle (2015-2021), the HRA

has considered the effects at a strategic level, as local actions will be developed at lower

tiers of plans or projects. The HRA has determined a conclusion for each of the two RMA

plans: South East RBD FRMP and the Brighton and Hove FRA FRMP. The HRA provides a

basis to identify options to avoid or mitigate for impacts to give confidence that the FRMP

can be screened as having no likely significant effect. The HRA also makes clear that these

will require further case-specific consideration during determination of any authorisations or

consents by the relevant competent authority as to their effects on European sites, and then

inform the appropriate mechanisms to be applied to secure any mitigation required.

The strategic nature of the FRMP limits the extent to which in-combination effects can be

considered. Nevertheless, the potential for in-combination effects has been considered and

a summary of the plans that will be important for assessments at project level to consider

have been identified.

The HRA conclusions for the FRMP is that there is sufficient scope for future

avoidance and mitigation to have confidence that the plan can be screened out of any

likely significant effects. This is based on controls already in place for measures from

existing plans (with agreed HRAs and the necessary avoidance, mitigation or

compensation secured), and controls that projects will have in place when developing

local actions for any new strategic measures in the FRMP.

Future HRAs should make specific reference to this strategic-plan HRA for risks related to

the ‘screened in’ measures where they are considered close enough to European sites to

need detailed consideration at project level. Future HRAs should also make specific

reference to HRAs for existing plans with agreed controls in place, and to any further

controls and mitigation in this strategic HRA related to any new strategic developments for

the new cycle of the FRMP.

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower-tier

strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, including the need for detailed

appropriate assessment where required.

As local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and

scale are known, this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not

been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan.

ANNEX A

Table A1 HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories

Measure code

Measure description Screened in or out

Justification

M2 Prevention

M21 Prevention, avoidance measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas such as land use planning policies or regulation

Out Comprises prevention and avoidance measures therefore unlikely to result in physical intervention.

M22 Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk

In Removal or relocation measures may involve physical intervention, with potential for effects on European sites where these interventions are in proximity. Screened in on a precautionary basis.

M23 Prevention, reduction measures to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions or buildings, public networks etc

Out Flood risk prevention / reduction / adaption to buildings etc will not result in physical interventions affecting European sites.

M24 Prevention, other prevention measures to enhance flood risk prevention (may include flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc)

Out Flood risk modelling / assessment will not result in physical interventions affecting European sites.

M3 Protection

M31 Natural flood management/run off and catchment management. Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems such as overland flow interceptors and/or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel, flood plan works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water.

In Measures comprise physical activities or interventions resulting in actual changes on the ground or effects on flows / movement of water and changes to physical processes.

M32 Water flow regulation. Measures involving physical intervention to regulate flows such as construction modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g. dams or other on-line storage areas) or development of existing flow regulation rules and which have significant impact on the hydrological regime.

In

M33 Channel, coastal and floodplain works. Measures involving physical interventions to freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal water and flood prone areas of land, such as construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics, management dykes etc.

In

M34 Surface water management measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively in an urban environment such as enhancing artificial drainage capacity or through SuDS

In

M35 Other measures to enhance protection against flooding which may include In

Measure code

Measure description Screened in or out

Justification

flood defences, asset maintenance programmes or policies.

M4 Preparedness

M41 Flood forecasting and warning. Measures to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system.

Out Measures do not comprise or result in physical changes or interventions.

M42 Emergency event response planning/contingency planning measures to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning

Out

M43 Public awareness and preparedness. Measures to establish the public awareness or preparedness for flood events.

Out

M44 Other measures to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to reduce adverse consequences.

Out

M5 Recovery and review

M51 Recovery and review (planning for recovery and review phases is in principle part of preparedness) individual and society recovery, clean up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure etc). Health and mental health supporting actions, inc managing stress disaster financial assistance (grants, tax) inc disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, temporary or permanent, relocation, other.

Out Measures on the whole do not comprise or result in physical changes or interventions. Measures involving physical activity are focused on restoration at a local level, i.e. buildings etc., none of which considered likely to result in physical effects on European sites.

M52 Environmental recovery, clean up and restoration activities (with several sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous material containers).

Out

M53 Other recovery, review and lessons learnt from flood events, insurance policies.

Out

M6 Other

M61 Other measures not fitting in to any of the other categories (M2-4) or their sub-categories.

In M61 code includes a variety of different kinds of measures, but includes measures such as habitat creation, floodplain restoration, managed realignment. Therefore screened in on a precautionary basis.

Table A2 Management Catchments and European sites in the SE RBD / FRMP


European Site Management Catchment

European Site

Adur and Ouse Ashdown Forest (SAC)

Castle Hill (SAC)

Lewes Downs (SAC)

Ashdown forest (SPA)

New Forest The New Forest (SAC)

New Forest (SPA)

New Forest (Ramsar)

Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons (SAC)

Solent Maritime (SAC)

Solent & Southampton Water (SPA)

Solent & Southampton Water (Ramsar)

Arun and

Western

Streams

Arun Valley (SAC)

Arun Valley (SPA)

Arun Valley (Ramsar)

Butser Hill (SAC)

Duncton to Bignor Escarpment (SAC)

East Hampshire Hangers (SAC)

Ebernoe Common (SAC)

Kingley Vale (SAC)

The Mens (SAC)

Rook Clift (SAC)

Singleton and Cocking Tunnels (SAC)

Woolmer Forest (SAC)


Wealden Heaths Phase II (SPA)

Chichester and Langstone Harbours (SPA)

Chichester and Langstone Harbours (Ramsar)

Pagham Harbour (SPA)

Pagham Harbour (Ramsar)

Solent and Dorset Coast marine (SPA)

Rother Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment (SAC)

Dungeness (SAC)

Hastings Cliffs (SAC)

proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay

(SPA)

proposed ‘Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay

(Ramsar)



European Site

Cuckmere and

Pevensey

Levels

Hastings Cliff (SAC)

Pevensey Levels (SAC)

Pevensey Levels (Ramsar)

Stour Blean Complex (SAC)

Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment (SAC)

Stodmarsh (SAC)

Stodmarsh (SPA)

Stodmarsh (Ramsar)

Thanet Coast (SAC)

Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay (SPA)

Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay (Ramsar)

Parkgate Down (SAC)

Sandwich Bay (SAC)

Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe (SAC)

Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs (SAC)

Wye & Crundale Downs (SAC)

Lydden & Temple Ewell Downs (SAC)

The Swale (SPA)

The Swale (Ramsar)

East Hampshire Butser Hill (SAC)



Chichester and Langstone Harbours (SPA)

Chichester and Langstone Harbours (Ramsar)

Portsmouth Harbour (SPA)

Portsmouth Harbour (Ramsar)




Test and Itchen Mottisfont Bats (SAC)

Emer Bog (SAC)

Salisbury Plain (SAC)

The New Forest (SAC)

New Forest (SPA)

New Forest (Ramsar)


River Itchen (SAC)

Porton Down (SPA)




Isle of Wight Briddlesford Copses (SAC)

Isle of Wight Downs (SAC)



European Site

South Wight Maritime (SAC)






Table A3 Mitigation and Control Measures

Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations

Measures to address flooding from rivers (main river)

Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing flood defence structures and main river channels / floodplain generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.

Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to main river channels, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may not require planning permission, but fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effect is predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

Measures to flooding from rivers (ordinary watercourses)

Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing flood defence structures and ordinary watercourse river channels / floodplain generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures involving works on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main river requires Ordinary Watercourse Consent from either the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) or Internal Drainage Board (IDB). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the LLFA / IDB as competent authority.

Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to all other watercourses that aren’t main river, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.


Flooding from the Sea

Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing coastal / tidal flood defence structures and estuary / coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit (including the waters of every estuary, river or channel where the tide flows up to the mean high water spring tide limit) require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.


Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

Coastal erosion

Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing coastal / tidal flood defence structures and estuary / coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.



Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

Surface water flooding

Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing structures to address surface water flooding (e.g. culverts, drainage ditches / channels) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures to address surface water flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river / ordinary watercourses).

Measures involving maintaining existing structures to address surface water flooding may not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

Groundwater flooding

Measures to address groundwater flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river / ordinary watercourses).

Measures to address groundwater flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Sewer flooding

Measures to address sewer flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main


river / ordinary watercourses).

Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Measures to address sewer flooding by sewerage undertakers may fall within their Permitted Development powers under authority The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Flooding from reservoirs

New reservoirs / impounding structures, or alterations or removals of existing structures, require an Impoundment Licence from the Environment Agency (Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by Water Act 2003), Environment Act 1995, Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the licensing application process, with HRA determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.

Measures involving construction / creation of new reservoirs / impounding structures, or changes to / alteration / of existing structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Annex B – South East RBD European sites

Site ID Name of Site SPA, SAC,

Ramsar

Area

(ha)*

UK0030366 Arun Valley SAC 487

UK0030080 Ashdown Forest SAC 2729

UK0013697 Blean Complex SAC 523

UK0030328 Briddlesford Copses SAC 167

UK0030103 Butser Hill SAC 239

UK0012836 Castle Hill SAC 115

UK0030330 Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC 185

UK0030138 Duncton to Bignor Escarpment SAC 214

UK0013059 Dungeness SAC 3241

UK0012723 East Hampshire Hangers SAC 572

UK0012715 Ebernoe Common SAC 235

UK0030147 Emer Bog SAC 37

UK0012835 Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment SAC 187

UK0030165 Hastings Cliffs SAC 182

UK0016254 Isle of Wight Downs SAC 458

UK0012767 Kingley Vale SAC 201

UK0012832 Lewes Downs SAC 146

UK0012834 Lydden and Temple Ewell Downs SAC 63

UK0030334 Mottisfont Bats SAC 197

UK0030338 Parkgate Down SAC 7

UK0030367 Pevensey Levels SAC 3585

UK0012599 River Itchen SAC 304

UK0030058 Rook Clift SAC 11

UK0012683 Salisbury Plain SAC 21466

UK0013077 Sandwich Bay SAC 1137

UK0030337 Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC 2

UK0017073 Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC 38

UK0030059 Solent Maritime SAC 11243

UK0030061 South Wight Maritime SAC 19866

UK0030283 Stodmarsh SAC 565

UK0013107 Thanet Coast SAC 2816

UK0012716 The Mens SAC 205

UK0012557 The New Forest SAC 29254

UK0030304 Woolmer Forest SAC 670

UK0012831 Wye and Crundale Downs SAC 111

UK0030378 Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe candidate

SAC 13

UK9020281 Arun Valley SPA 530

UK9012181 Ashdown Forest SPA 3207

UK9011011 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA 5811

UK9012091 Dungeness to Pett Level3 SPA 1479

UK9011031 New Forest SPA 27998

UK9020309 Outer Thames Estuary SPA 379268

UK9012041 Pagham Harbour SPA 629

UK9011101 Porton Down SPA 1562

UK9011051 Portsmouth Harbour SPA 1250

UK9011061 Solent and Southampton Water SPA 5401

UK9012121 Stodmarsh SPA 481

UK9012071 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA 1881

UK9012011 The Swale SPA 6510

UK9012132 Wealden Heaths Phase 2 SPA 2057

Solent and Dorset Coast

Proposed Marine

SPA UK11004 Arun Valley Ramsar 530

UK11013 Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar 5811

UK11047 The New Forest Ramsar 27998

UK11052 Pagham Harbour Ramsar 629

UK11053 Pevensey Levels Ramsar 3585

UK11055 Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar 1250

UK11063 Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar 5306

UK11066 Stodmarsh Ramsar 481

UK11070 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar 2182

UK11071 The Swale Ramsar 6510 Area denoted is for the entire designated area rather than the area within the RBD boundary.

3 Proposed name change to ‘Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SPA’ and extension, including proposed

Ramsar site of same name.

LIT 10249

www.gov.uk/environment-agency

Documents

South East river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 ... · South East river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 Habitats Regulation Assessment March