Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment · 1 Draft E San Martin 15/7/2009 2...

Associated British Ports Southampton

Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment Date: January 2010 Project Ref: R/1310/091 Report No: R.1553TN

Associated British Ports Southampton

Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment Date: January 2010 Project Ref: R/1310/091 Report No: R.1553TN © ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd

Version Details of Change Authorised By Date

1 Draft E San Martin 15/7/2009

2 Final E San Martin 1/9/2009

3 Final E San Martin 22/1/2010

Document Authorisation Signature Date

Project Manager: E San Martin

22/1/2010

Quality Manager: S C Hull

22/1/2010

Project Director: W S Cooper

22/1/2010

ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd Suite B, Waterside House Town Quay Tel: +44(0)23 8071 1840 SOUTHAMPTON Fax: +44(0)23 8071 1841 Hampshire Web: www.abpmer.co.uk SO14 2AQ Email: [email protected]

http://www.abpmer.co.uk/�

mailto:[email protected]�

Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment

R/1310/091 1 R.1553TN

Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment Table of Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2

2. The Requirement for an Appropriate Assessment.......................................................................... 4

3. The Port Master Plan ..................................................................................................................... 5

4. Information on Designated Sites that may be Affected................................................................... 6

5. Information on the Need for the Master Plan.................................................................................. 7

6. Consideration of Alternative Strategies .......................................................................................... 9

7. Consultation ................................................................................................................................. 12

8. Direct and Indirect Changes to Habitats ....................................................................................... 13

9. Designated Features’ Conservation Objectives and Favourable Condition Target ...................... 13

10. Preventative Measures, Mitigation and Compensatory Measures................................................ 14

11. In-Combination Effects with Other Plans or Projects.................................................................... 14

12. Assessment of Implications for European Sites ........................................................................... 15

13. Considerations of Overriding Public Interest ................................................................................ 15

14. References................................................................................................................................... 16

Tables 1. Conservation Objectives for the European Sites that could be affected by the draft Master Plan 17

2. Favourable Condition Table for the Solent and Southampton Water SPA ................................... 20

3. Favourable Condition Table for the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Site ....................... 21

4 Favourable Condition Table for the Solent Maritime SAC ............................................................ 22

5. Favourable Condition Table for the South Wight Maritime SAC................................................... 23

6. Interest Features of the New Forest SPA..................................................................................... 23

7. Interest Features of the New Forest Ramsar Site ........................................................................ 23

8. Interest Features of the New Forest SAC..................................................................................... 24

9. Interest Features of the River Itchen SAC.................................................................................... 25

Figure 1. International Nature Conservation Designations and European Marine Sites


R/1310/091 2 R.1553TN

1. Introduction

Background

1.1 Associated British Ports (ABP) has published its Master Plan for the Port of Southampton. The Plan sets out a strategy to meet the infrastructure and development requirements of the Port for the period to 2030. The South East Plan (the statutory Regional Spatial Strategy, RSS) requires the Port “to bring forward and justify proposals for investment in infrastructure that support existing port operations and, where justified, their expansion” (paragraph 8.33). The Port Master Plan provides both a framework within which proposals for port development projects can be brought forward when they are needed, and advises the preparation of local development documents by local planning authorities covering the Port area. Habitats Regulations Assessment of Plans and Projects

1.2 When, at some future date, ABP wishes to promote the port developments identified in the Master Plan, some of the projects may have to be considered in the context of their potential impacts on the conservation of natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora, under the terms of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended. These Regulations implement the Habitats Directive1 in Great Britain and are commonly referred to as ‘the Habitats Regulations’.

1.3 The Habitats Regulations require plans to be considered in a similar manner to projects.

Regulation 48 states that a plan or project can only be agreed after it has been ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site. The meaning of “European site’ is defined in Regulation 10, and the term includes sites identified under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives. Government policy in PPS 9 also requires proposed and candidate European sites and listed Ramsar sites to be treated in the same way.

1.4 It is debatable whether a formal appropriate assessment of the Master Plan is actually required,

in that the Port Master Plan does not constitute a land-use plan as defined and ABP is not a plan-making authority2. In addition, when, at some future date, applications for consent for development proposals are submitted in accordance with the Master Plan, ABP will at that time provide the information necessary for the decision-making authority to carry out an appropriate assessment of those proposals.

1.5 Bearing in mind the importance of the Port Master Plan, however, ABP has decided, as part of

the master planning process, to commission consultants ABPmer to prepare this "shadow" appropriate assessment which is designed to assess, insofar as is both practicable and possible, the environmental implications of the Master Plan in terms of the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Relevant guidance for formal appropriate assessment has been followed. This shadow appropriate assessment, therefore, identifies and evaluates the likely effects of the implementation of the strategy set out in the Management Plan on the integrity of European sites, taking into account their conservation targets and objectives. In line with

1 EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. 2 Habitats Regulations, Regulations 85A to 85E.


R/1310/091 3 R.1553TN

Regulation 10 of the Regulations and paragraph 6 of PPS9, European sites have been taken to include Ramsar3 sites, Special Protection Areas4 (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation5 (SAC). A list of sites that may be affected is provided in section 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest

1.6 Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations establishes a process by which development may be permitted within or near to European sites. In summary, if an appropriate assessment concludes that there will be an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site, permission for the development can only be given having ascertained that there are no alternative solutions and that the project is necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). In such cases, compensatory measures must be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of the network of European sites is maintained.

1.7 There are parallel provisions in respect of land-use plans, set out in Regulations 85B and C of

the Habitats Regulations. A plan-making authority can only give effect to a land-use plan having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site. If it is satisfied that, there being no alternative solutions, the plan must be given effect for IROPI (which, with some exceptions, can be of a social or economic nature), they can do so despite a negative assessment of the effects of the implications for European sites. There is a requirement for referral to the Secretary of State, and if the development is to go ahead, Regulation 85E requires necessary compensation measures to be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Avoidance and Mitigation

1.8 The Government Office for the South East (GOSE) advises that avoidance or mitigation measures should be considered in relation to proposals for which it cannot be demonstrated that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of a European site or sites when considered in-combination with other plans or projects. GOSE says “the application of these measures to individual sites must follow at a later date when more detailed information is available.” The Government Office also promotes the concept of ‘strategic avoidance/mitigation’ where a number of individual effects may be avoided or mitigated by a co-ordinated approach.6

3 ABP has also commissioned a Shadow Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Port Master Plan which can be

viewed at www.southamptonvts.co.uk. International Convention of Wetlands of International Importance, signed at Ramsar, Iran 1971.

4 SPAs are classified under EC Directive 79/409/EC known as the Birds Directive. 5 SACs are classified under EC Directive 92/43/EEC known as The Habitats Directive. 6 Government Office for the South East April 2009. South East RSS: SA and HRA/AA of the Secretary of State’s

final revisions.


R/1310/091 4 R.1553TN

2. The Requirement for an Appropriate Assessment

2.1 Regulation 48 (1) of the Habitats Regulations states that:

“A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission, or other authorisation for a plan or project which: (a) is likely to have significant effect on a European site in Great Britain (either alone

or in combination with other plans or projects); and (b) is not directly connected or necessary to the management of the site shall make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives”.

2.2 Regulation 85B, inserted by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations

2007, repeats the requirement of Regulation 48(1) in relation to land-use plans. It says the plan-making authority for that plan “shall make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives where [it] -

(a) is likely to have significant effect on a European site in Great Britain (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects); and

(b) is not directly connected or necessary to the management of the site.”

2.3 Regulation 85B re-states the requirement of Regulation 48 to consult with the appropriate

nature conservation body and to take the opinion of the general public, and to have regard to any representations made during the consultation process.

2.4 Notwithstanding that Regulation 85B does not apply to the Port Master Plan, in preparing this shadow appropriate assessment, account has been taken of relevant guidance from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to plan-making authorities (“Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment – Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents”, August 2006).

2.5 The scope and content of an appropriate assessment is not fixed by the Regulations, and depends on the circumstances of a case. The scope of the information provided in this shadow appropriate assessment is based on the relevant Habitats Regulations Guidance on Appropriate Assessment methods (HRGN1) published by English Nature in 1997, which remains the principal guidance document from what is now Natural England.

2.6 As mentioned above, DCLG guidance acknowledges that there will be cases where a land-use plan is implemented despite it being shown that implementation is likely to cause adverse impacts on the integrity of a European site. In such cases, the guidance says it must be demonstrated that, in proceeding with the plan, there is no alternative solution and that it is being proceeded with for IROPI. If these tests can be met then it will also be necessary for any compensatory measures to be secured to ensure the coherence of the network of European sites.


R/1310/091 5 R.1553TN

3. The Port Master Plan

3.1 The Port of Southampton Master Plan covers the period to 2030, which generally accords with the horizons used by national trade forecasts produced for the Department for Transport and by the South East Plan (the statutory RSS approved by the Secretary of State in 2009). The South East Plan sets out regional policies for the Port and other considerations, including nature conservation, material to decisions on port development proposals.

3.2 The key objectives of the Port Master Plan are established in paragraph 3.44 of that document. They are to: Clarify the Port’s strategic planning for the medium to long term; Identify, in broad terms, how land owned by ABP may be sustainably developed in the

future to handle the forecast growth in maritime trade at the Port; Set out the approximate timescales for development; Inform other planning decisions in the region; Assist regional and local planning bodies and transport network providers in preparing

and revising their development strategies; and Inform port users, employees and local communities on how the Port may develop

over the coming years.

3.3 The Master Plan sets out the anticipated requirements for the development of the Port’s land and marine infrastructure that will be required in order to maintain and enhance the Port’s role, as prescribed by regional policies. Proposals to enable the Port to accommodate predicted trade growth are presented for the period up to 2020 and between 2020 and 2030.

3.4 The Master Plan identifies the following developments and land-use changes as likely to be required by 2020: Construction of up to three further multi-deck car compounds in the Eastern and

Western Docks (to add to the three existing facilities); Re-commissioning of berths 201 and 202 in the Western Docks into container use in

order to accommodate the new, longer and deeper-draught container ships; Displacement of trade car and roll-on/roll-off storage areas in the Western Docks by

additional container storage areas; Construction of additional cargo sheds, in response to customer demand; and Re-routing of dock roads to accommodate the above land-use changes and

development proposals.

3.5 The following additional development proposals and land-use changes are seen as likely to be needed between 2020 and 2030: Construction of further multi-deck car compounds for the storage of import and export

trade cars and for the parking of vehicles belonging to cruise passengers; Further expansion of the Port’s container terminal, together with the intensification of

container handling operations to optimise land-use efficiency; Construction of a fifth passenger cruise terminal, most probably in the Western Docks,

to accommodate anticipated growth in the cruise market;


R/1310/091 6 R.1553TN

Re-routing of dock roads to accommodate the above land-use changes and development proposals; and

Construction of additional Port facilities on the Dibden reclaim.

3.6 The precise timing, location and nature of these proposals, and the form they will take, cannot be predicted with certainty. The need for these projects is market driven and the process of bringing forward individual proposals will, therefore, begin with the identification and confirmation of a market need and trade and customer requirements.

3.7 The Master Plan also identifies marine proposals that may be needed up to 2030. These reflect the likelihood that, in response to competitive global pressures to reduce the unit costs of shipping goods, the average and maximum sizes of vessels serving the trades in which Southampton engages will continue to grow.

3.8 It is possible that improvements to the Port’s navigation infrastructure may also be required

during the period of the Master Plan. This will be to enable the port to maintain its position as the UK’s premier international gateway able to accommodate the largest ships in the trades that it handles.

3.9 The Master Plan acknowledges that some of the above proposals and projects outlined are

likely to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the EIA Directive and Regulations and/or appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive and Regulations.

4. Information on Designated Sites that may be Affected 4.1 The boundary of the statutory Port of Southampton covers Southampton Water, parts of the

Solent and the tidal stretches of the Rivers Test and Itchen. Parts of a number of European sites are within this area, and others adjoin it or are close by.

4.2 The development of additional or replacement Port infrastructure may have, therefore, direct

and/or indirect effects on one or more European sites. Experience and dialogue over the course of many years between ABP and the responsible statutory bodies (Natural England and the Environment Agency) and with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as the RSPB and the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, suggests that when proposals are drawn up for development within the Port boundary, account should be taken of the following SACs and SPAs (which are European sites as defined by the Habitats Regulations):

Solent and Southampton Water SPA; River Itchen SAC; Solent Maritime SAC; South Wight Maritime SAC; New Forest SPA and Ramsar site; New Forest SAC; Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar site; and Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site.


R/1310/091 7 R.1553TN

4.3 A European site that lies below highest astronomical tide i.e. it is either land covered

(continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters, or any part of the sea, in or adjacent to Great Britain, up to the seaward limit of territorial waters, is known as a European marine site. The following European marine sites may potentially be affected, directly and/or indirectly, by the implementation of some of the development proposals of the Port Master Plan:

Solent European Marine Site, comprising:

o Solent Maritime SAC; o Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site; o Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site; and o Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar site.

South Wight Maritime European Marine Site, comprising:

o South Wight Maritime SAC, and o New Forest SAC and Ramsar site.

4.4 These designations are identified in Figure 1 and a summary of their features, sub-features and

conservation objectives is provided in Table 1. The starting point for compiling this information has been Natural England’s advice given under Regulation 33(2) of the Habitats Regulations for the Solent European Marine Site (English Nature, 2001a) and South Wight Maritime European Marine Site (English Nature, 2001b).

5. Information on the Need for the Master Plan

5.1 In July 2007, as part of its review of national ports policy, the Government recommended that

the major UK ports produce port master plans, and consult upon them, to help co-ordinate their future planning. The Department for Transport (DfT) issued guidance on the preparation of master plans in 2008, in which it advises that master plans should:

Clarify the port’s own strategic planning for the medium to long term; Assist regional and local planning bodies, and transport network providers, in preparing

and developing their own development strategies; and Inform port users, employees and local communities as to how they can expect to see

the port develop over the coming years. 5.2 For the Port of Southampton, these objectives have been given greater focus following the

approval by the Secretary of State, in June 2009, of the South East Plan (the RSS for the South East up to 2026 which forms the strategic element of the statutory development plan).

5.3 The South East Plan establishes the Government’s regional policy and it includes policies for

the Port of Southampton. Policy T10 (and supporting text in paragraphs 8.33 and 8.34) recognises the Port’s role as “a major international gateway deep-sea port with significant global and economic importance”, and requires that role to be “maintained and enhanced”. The Plan acknowledges that the Port’s “infrastructure and development needs, both short and long term, require further consideration” and it commends the preparation of a port master plan.


R/1310/091 8 R.1553TN

5.4 Local Development Documents being prepared by local authorities have begun to reflect the

economic importance of the Port of Southampton identified in the South East Plan. The maintenance of prosperity of the Port is one of the bases of the core strategy for the City of Southampton. The Strategy acknowledges that a long term need for port expansion will have to be met outside the boundaries of the City. In the light of the adoption of the South East Plan, New Forest District Council, in its core strategy, acknowledged the national and regional importance of the Port and that Dibden Bay is the only site onto which the Port can expand if and when the need arises.

5.5 All these policy documents, at regional and local level, include parallel policies to protect the

environment, which draw attention to nature conservation designations and the legislation protecting European sites.

Geographical Scope of the Master Plan

5.6 The Master Plan generally deals with the area of the statutory Port. It looks in particular detail

at ABP’s existing commercial docks and land owned for Port expansion, part of which is outside the current area of the statutory Port (but would be included in it, by a Harbour Revision Order, if it were to be developed for port purposes). The Plan also covers the statutory pilotage area, which is more extensive than the statutory Port, and, insofar as they are vital to the Port, the road and rail corridors that connect the Port to the wider south-east region and the rest of the UK.

5.7 The Port is located on the central south coast of England, close to international shipping lanes

and mainland Europe. It is part of a city region of over one million population. The area around Southampton Water and the Solent, within which the Port lies, contains the UK’s most important concentration of marine and marine related industries. A study prepared for SEEDA in 2008 estimates that the marine sector, including the Port of Southampton, which is the single most significant element of the marine economy, supports some 77,000 jobs and contributes £5.5 billion to the economy, nearly 30% of the annual Gross Value Added.

5.8 ABP is the Harbour Authority for the statutory Port. The boundary of both the Port and the

Harbour Authority is high water spring tides and includes the tidal reaches of the Rivers Test and Itchen, Southampton Water and the central Solent. ABP is also the Competent Harbour Authority for the provision of pilotage services (by agreement, ABP also provides pilotage for the adjoining Dockyard Port of Portsmouth), the Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) Authority and the Local Lighthouse Authority.

5.9 The Port Master Plan deals in detail with ABP’s commercial dock estate and land owned by the

company for port expansion. The statutory Port area includes the marine access to other port facilities, notably Exxon’s Fawley Terminal, BP’s Hamble Terminal and the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) Marchwood Seamounting Centre. None of these facilities has made known to the Harbour Authority plans for expansion within the area of the statutory Port.

5.10 ABP’s land ownership, which spans high water mark, includes the following:


R/1310/091 9 R.1553TN

The existing Eastern Docks – which extends to approximately 69ha (170 acres); The Western Docks and the container port - approximately 237ha (585 acres), and A strategic land bank of approximately 325ha (800 acres) on the western shore of

Southampton Water and the River Test, which for many years has been held for future port expansion. This holding consists of land reclaimed by the deposit of channel dredgings (colloquially still known by its former name of Dibden Bay) the foreshore, and farmland and woodland between the reclaim and the A326.

Temporal Scope of the Master Plan

5.11 In line with DfT guidance on the production of port Master Plans, the Master Plan considers the

future of the Port over the medium and long term. The medium term period is taken to be the period up to 2020 and the longer term is taken to be the period beyond 2020, although the Master Plan does not give detailed consideration to the period beyond 2030.

6. Consideration of Alternative Strategies

6.1 The Master Plan sets out the strategy that ABP presently envisages will require implementation

over the period to 2030. For the existing docks, the strategy is based on continuation of the Port's current strategy, namely to ensure the most efficient use of existing port land, namely:

Increasing the allocation of land to the Port’s key trades within the dock estate. These

trades are containers, roll on/roll off trade cars and passenger cruise trade; Removal of the few remaining non-port related land uses from the dock estate; Intensification of the use of land for port land purposes in the dock estate use; and Increasing specialisation in port related land-use, which requires increasingly

specialised and dedicated facilities. 6.2 A strategy of securing the most efficient use of the existing docks will suffice to maintain the

Port’s role, however, only for the medium term. The existing docks are landlocked by the urban area and have a finite capacity, which is being approached. Within the lifetime of the Master Plan, therefore, it will be necessary for the Port to expand in order to maintain and enhance its role, as regional policy requires.

6.3 DfT guidance on the preparation of port master plans advises that the promoter of a port

master plan is responsible for ensuring that possible alternative means, within its control, of securing the objectives of the strategy have been considered and eliminated as demonstrably impractical before any specific proposal which impacts a protected site is pursued further.

6.4 ABP has given careful consideration to alternatives to the strategy put forward in the Master

Plan. It is of the view that there are three strategic alternatives – as is reflected in the accompanying Shadow Strategic Environmental Assessment. These comprise:

1) Restrict forecast investment so that the commercial Port has to operate permanently within the physical limits of the existing docks.


R/1310/091 10 R.1553TN

2) Implement the investment strategy set out in the Master Plan to around 2020 and

thereafter limit port operations to the existing commercial docks.

3) Implement the Master Plan Strategy to 2020 but thereafter expand the Port in a form or location that would have fewer implications for nature conservation (specifically for European sites) than development of Dibden reclaim (a Site of Special Scientific Interest, SSSI) and foreshore (a European site).

Restrict Forecast Investment so that the Commercial Port has to Operate Permanently Within the Physical Limits of the Existing Docks

6.5 A decision would be required to the effect that the Port should not take up opportunities to grow its trade, meaning that it would cease to be in the first rank of UK and international ports. This scenario is not acceptable to ABP and would be contrary to national, regional and local policies, not only for the Port but also for the wider economy. It would have potentially severe adverse economic and social impacts on the Port and the economy of the local area and the South East region and limit the ability of the UK to participate in global trade. There would be no guarantee that the Port would secure a ‘niche’ role to replace its current status. Such a strategy would clearly not maintain and enhance the identified role of the Port as required by the South East Plan. For these reasons, this option is demonstrably unacceptable. Implement the Investment Strategy Set Out in the Master Plan to Around 2020 and Thereafter Limit Port Operations to the Existing Commercial Docks

6.6 This is a variation of the first alternative. The difference is that the point at which the role of the

Port declined would, at least in theory, be delayed until the end of the next decade. This option suffers from the same disadvantages as the first option. Moreover, it might prove to be an illusory option. The companies that constitute the port’s primary customer base might be reluctant to make significant investments in Port infrastructure if it was clear that the Port could not thereafter accommodate their future expansion plans. This alternative might, therefore, turn out to be little different to the first option, in that it would be unlikely to assist in the maintenance and enhancement of the role of the Port beyond the short term. Like the first option, it would have significant adverse effects on the Port, the people who work there or in related industries and the economic well being of the City, the sub region, the region and UK’s global competitiveness.

6.7 Thus, this option was also considered unacceptable. It should, however, be noted that it would

effectively form the ‘default strategy’ for the Port in the absence of consent for port expansion, underlining the significance of port development at Dibden Bay if the policy objectives for the Port set out in RSS are to be achieved.


R/1310/091 11 R.1553TN

Implement the Master Plan Strategy to 2020 but Thereafter Expand the Port in a Form or Location That Would Have Fewer Implications for Nature Conservation (Specifically for European Sites) than Development of Dibden Reclaim (A Site of Special Scientific Interest, SSSI) and Foreshore (A European site)

6.8 Implementation of the Master Plan strategy proposals to 2020 would take the Port to the point at which further significant overall growth would not be possible within the existing docks. The Port could maintain and enhance its role only if permitted to expand elsewhere.

6.9 The question of where the Port might expand after the capacity of the existing docks has been reached has been researched on a number of occasions since the 1960s, most recently in evidence presented to the Dibden Terminal Inquiry in 2001/2. The consistent conclusion of these analyses has been that the Dibden reclaim is the only location where substantial port development can take place. This conclusion, which is the same as reached by the Port Master Plan, has strengthened over the years as other potential port development opportunities have been developed for other uses.

6.10 Studies carried out for ABP’s Dibden Terminal application in 2000 identified and investigated 16

other possible locations that, on paper, appeared at that time to have potential for Port expansion. They concluded that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay was the only one of these locations on to which the Port of Southampton could, in practice, expand. This conclusion was supported by the independent Public Inquiry Inspector and confirmed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, at the recent examination of the New Forest District Council core strategy, the Council has acknowledged the national and regional importance of the Port and that Dibden Bay is the only site onto which the Port can expand if and when the need arises.

6.11 Of the 16 possible locations considered by the Dibden Terminal Public Inquiry, nine were small or relatively small-scale seaward extensions to the existing docks. One of these extensions, the redevelopment of berths 201/202, is included in the Port Master Plan; the rest are demonstrably impractical and/or would deliver very little benefit.

6.12 As regards possible locations outside the existing docks, a smaller scale possibility identified in 2000 on the former power station site at Marchwood (which at the time was found unsuitable) is no longer available, as it has been developed for other uses. The possibility of establishing a coastal shipping facility at Bramble Bank was also dismissed as impractical.

6.13 The Dibden Terminal studies identified five larger scale development possibilities: coastal locations at Woolston, in the Fawley area (three possible sites) and at Hook. These locations are presently intertidal or permanently under water. ABP has no property interests in any of them.

6.14 The implementation of major port development in any of these locations would have significant direct and/or indirect effects on European and/or European marine sites. Lack of sufficiently detailed information about the proposals precludes a conclusive judgement that these effects would be greater than those associated with developing Dibden Bay, but almost certainly that would be the case. None of the major possibilities considered currently exist as land suitable for port development, and it is not possible to identify a source of sufficient fill material for the


R/1310/091 12 R.1553TN

works that would be required to create them. In several cases existing uses would have to be displaced to build a port.

6.15 In any event, two of the locations cannot be considered suitable for major port development for reasons unrelated to nature conservation. Other marine and terrestrial infrastructure would also be required that would have adverse impacts on the environment. There would be little or no realistic prospect of achieving a rail connection to port development at Woolston and Hook, and this consideration alone would rule them out as locations for major port facilities for all the trades for which expansion land and berths are sought. The Fawley location could be provided with a rail connection, but it is further from national transport networks than Dibden Bay, and the required improvements to road as well as rail connections would have a correspondingly greater impact.

6.16 The overall conclusion is that none of the five locations identified as possibilities for major port

development approach the operational suitability of Dibden reclaim and on the available evidence all are demonstrably operationally impractical. Further, ABP is not in a position to deliver any of them. Considered solely in terms of their effects on European sites, none offer advantages over the use of ABP’s land at Dibden Bay. Indeed, it is likely that their development for port purposes would have a greater impact on European sites.

6.17 In conclusion, the position is that the reclaimed land at Dibden Bay is demonstrably the only area of land that is physically capable of accommodating significant expansion of the port. There is, thus, no credible alternative to the strategy set out in the Port Master Plan and the expansion of the Port onto the Dibden reclaim.

6.18 A future application for consent to develop Dibden Bay would have to be supported by

evidence that, at the time the application is submitted, there is no alternative that either does not affect European sites or causes less harm to them. Such a judgement will require detailed knowledge of the proposals, their effect on designated sites, and the measures that are included in the application to avoid and reduce the effect of the proposals.

7. Consultation 7.1 The objectives and strategy put forward in the Master Plan have been shared with the Port’s

many stakeholders. Copies of the Master Plan consultation draft were circulated to relevant stakeholders and made available at www.southamptonvts.co.uk/portconsultation for comment.

7.2 In total 52 organisations and 100 members of the public responded in writing to the consultation.

Responses were received from a wide variety of organisations, including elected representatives at parish, district, county, national and European levels as well as local authorities, Government agencies, businesses, business representatives and community.

7.3 The themes of the consultation responses are summarised in a separate document (Summary of

Responses to the Consultation on the Port of Southampton Master Plan 2009) available at www.southamptonvts.co.uk. The final versions of the master plan, Shadow SEA and Shadow AA have been amended as required to take account of the responses received.

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/portconsultation�


R/1310/091 13 R.1553TN

8. Direct and Indirect Changes to Habitats 8.1 There are no detailed or outline proposals for the infrastructure requirements identified in the

Master Plan for the Eastern and Western Docks, nor is there a detailed design for the development of port facilities on the Dibden reclaim. It is, therefore, impossible at this stage to assess the direct and indirect effects of the proposed developments included in the Port Master Plan. Such an assessment will be undertaken as projects come forward, as appropriate.

8.2 It is considered unlikely that implementation of the infrastructure requirements identified within

the Eastern and Western Docks will have direct or indirect effects on the interest features of designated sites. The position will, nonetheless, be reviewed when detailed proposals are brought forward.

8.3 It is not at this stage possible to identify how future port development on Dibden Bay might be

carried out. The site is sufficiently large to permit consideration of alternative development strategies. When a market need to develop Dibden becomes clear, ABP will discuss with stakeholders, including Natural England, the Environment Agency, nature conservation NGOs, local government at all levels, and local people, how the site might best be developed. The requirements of the Habitats Regulations, especially in respect of the need to minimise the effect on European sites, for mitigation and compensatory measures (and the form those might take) and assessment of the cumulative effects, will be central to those discussions. ABP’s previous scheme for Dibden Terminal cannot be taken as being indicative of any future proposal.

9. Designated Features’ Conservation Objectives and Favourable Condition Target

9.1 The conservation objectives for each of the international designations comprising the European

sites are provided in Natural England’s advice given under Regulation 33(2) Habitats Regulations for the Solent European Marine Site (English Nature, 2001a), the South Wight Maritime European Marine Site (English Nature, 2001b) and the New Forest SAC. These are summarised in Table 1.

9.2 Tables 2 to 9 provide an overview of the interest features and target condition of the European

sites. These have been adapted from the favourable condition tables published in the Regulation 33(2) advice documents. The interest features of the European sites above highest astronomical tide are presented in Tables 6-8. In due course, if it is considered necessary to undertake an appropriate assessment for a specific infrastructure requirement, these tables will be used in assessing the potential impact on the relevant interest feature.

9.3 The target condition of interest features comprising European sites is intended to define the

desired condition of an attribute, taking into account fluctuations due to natural change. 9.4 Assessing the predicted effects of a scheme in relation to the targets enables the potential

effect on favourable condition and hence on the designated status of these sites to be determined. It is important to note that an impact pathway will only exist at locations where a


R/1310/091 14 R.1553TN

direct and/or indirect impact will occur as a result of the proposed scheme. As there is, as yet, no detailed design available, for the individual identified infrastructure requirements, a judgement has been taken by ABP to assess the likely potential effects in order to form a view on the effect on integrity of the European sites.

10. Preventative Measures, Mitigation and Compensatory Measures

10.1 The DCLG guidance describes mitigation as a course of action that aims to cancel out any adverse effects or where it is not possible to eradicate effects completely, the action should aim to minimise the impact to the features of the European site(s). Mitigation measures will normally involve the amendment of a design option but in any case need to be viable, timely and feasible to implement.

10.2 DfT guidance on Port Master Plans acknowledges that it is not always possible to identify mitigation

measures for the potential environmental impact of new development at the Master Plan stage (Department for Transport, 2008). Preventative measures and mitigation will be investigated as part of the project-related EIA that will be prepared subsequent to the Master Plan as schemes come forward, as appropriate.

10.3 Preventative measures are any measures that could be incorporated into the design of the scheme

or the proposed methodology for construction to minimise potential impacts as far as possible. In instances where higher impact levels are identified, relevant impact verification monitoring may be proposed as best practice. Where greater effects are predicted, appropriate mitigation measures will be identified.

10.4 Where, despite a negative assessment of the implications for European sites, a plan or project

is permitted for considerations of IROPI (see also below), compensatory measures are required by Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations to be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

10.5 It is likely, on the available evidence, that compensatory measures will be required in respect of

proposals for Dibden Bay. ABP will discuss the need for such measures and the form they might take, with Natural England as soon as it becomes clear that there is a need to bring forward port development on the site.

11. In-Combination Effects with Other Plans or Projects

11.1 The Habitats Regulations require assessment of in-combination effects of plans and projects on European sites. These refer to effects, which may or may not interact with each other, but which could affect the same interest feature.

11.2 Plans and projects that are in the planning domain and that could potentially have in-combination

effects with the implementation of the Master Plan have been identified in the Master Plan and the shadow SEA.


R/1310/091 15 R.1553TN

11.3 A review of applicable plans and projects will be undertaken at the appropriate time when the individual infrastructure requirements are being advanced for application. The in-combination effects of the development with extant projects will then be assessed as part of the project-related EIA.

12. Assessment of Implications for European Sites 12.1 With the exception of the development of the Dibden reclaim, the identified infrastructure

requirements will be built on existing port land in the Eastern and Western Docks. The footprint of these developments will not, therefore, impact directly on a designated site. The development of these infrastructure requirements, and possible improvements to marine infrastructure, may have the potential indirectly to affect the features of the designated sites, and relevant proposals will be assessed as appropriate.

12.2 Should the development proposals identified in the Master Plan for Dibden be brought forward

in the future, then it is recognised that such development will have a likely significant effect on one or more of the designated sites both directly and indirectly. In those circumstances, ABP anticipates that the competent authority will carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications for the sites in view of those sites’ conservation objectives of any such proposal.

12.3 An appropriate assessment of proposals for port development on Dibden Bay may reach a

negative conclusion. In this event compensatory measures will, therefore, need to be identified as part of the design process and brought forward for consideration with the application. ABP will seek to discuss with stakeholders, and agree with Natural England, a methodology and process to achieve this objective.

12.4 A conclusion that implementation of proposals for Dibden Bay will have a likely significant effect

on one or more European sites means that this is also the conclusion in respect of the Port of Southampton Master Plan, assuming that it is implemented in full. Similarly, if the implementation of the Master Plan is considered to have a likely significant effect then the Plan will also have such an effect when other plans and projects are considered in-combination.

13. Considerations of Overriding Public Interest 13.1 Where a plan is considered to fall under Regulations 48 or 85 of the Habitats Regulations, the

plan-making authority must be satisfied that there being no alternative solutions, the land-use plan must be given effect for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, notwithstanding a negative assessment of the implications for the European sites. It has been demonstrated earlier in this shadow appropriate assessment that there are no feasible alternative strategies, a conclusion previously accepted by the Secretary of State and recently endorsed by the relevant local planning authority. The conclusion that the implementation, in full, of the strategy outlined in the Port Master Plan is likely to have a significant effect, therefore, means that it is necessary to consider whether matters constituting IROPI exist or may exist in the future.

13.2 There is strong evidence to support the existence of an IROPI case now and in the future. The

Port of Southampton is identified by Government as a key international gateway and a component of the nation’s transport system that, along with the other identified components, is


R/1310/091 16 R.1553TN

critical to the functioning of the transport system as a whole and to the economic success of the nation. The recently adopted statutory RSS (the South East Plan) identifies the Port as a major international deep-sea port with significant global and economic importance, and requires this role to be maintained and enhanced. This cannot happen unless the Port can expand beyond the existing docks. ABP is of the view that the maintenance and enhancement of the role of the Port of Southampton identified in RSS, in the context of national policies for Ports, is likely to form the basis of an IROPI case.

13.3 If ABP’s IROPI case is accepted by the Secretary of State then it will be necessary to bring

forward such compensatory measures as are considered necessary. There are a number of port development projects throughout the country where such compensation has been agreed and provided. Some of these projects relate to developments promoted by ABP at other ports, for example the creation of new intertidal habitats in compensation for developments at a number of European sites in the Humber estuary. Although the precise nature and extent of compensatory measures would need to determined at the time of any detailed proposal ABP is confident that sufficient compensatory measures can be put in place in respect of any development of the Dibden reclaim for port purposes.

14. References

ABP, 2009. Port of Southampton Master Plan 2009. www.southamptonvts.co.uk Department for Communities and Local Government 2006. Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, DETR, 1994. Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on Nature Conservation. DETR, 1998. European Marine Sites in England & Wales: A guide to the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 and to the Preparation and Application of Management Schemes. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: UK Department for Transport, Dft, 2008. Guidance on the Preparation of Port Master Plans English Nature, 2001a. English Nature’s advice for the Solent European Marine Site given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. 18th October 2001. English Nature, 2001b. English Nature’s advice for the South Wight Maritime European Marine Site given under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. 25th May 2001. English Nature, 1997. Habitats Regulations Guidance Note 1 (HRGN 1) May 1997. Marine Natura Project Group, 2007. European Marine Sites: UK Conservation Agency Guidance. MN2KPG16_12_EMS_Final.doc

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/�


R/1310/091 17 R.1553TN

European Marine Sites Table 1. Conservation Objectives for the European Sites that could be affected by the Master Plan

International Designations European Site Conservation Objectives

Subject to natural change, maintain the cordgrass swards (Spartinion maritimae) in favourable condition, in particular, small cordgrass (Spartina maritima) communities, smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) communities and Townsends cordgrass (Spartina x townsendii) communities. Subject to natural change, maintain the Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia) in favourable condition, in particular, low marsh communities, mid marsh communities, upper marsh communities and transitional high marsh communities. Subject to natural change, maintain the estuaries in favourable condition, in particular, saltmarsh communities, intertidal mudflat and sandflat communities, intertidal mixed sediment communities and subtidal sediment communities. Subject to natural change, maintain the sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time in favourable condition, in particular, subtidal gravely sand and sand, subtidal muddy sand and subtidal eelgrass Zostera marina beds. Subject to natural change, maintain the mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide in favourable condition, in particular, intertidal mud communities, intertidal muddy sand communities, intertidal sand communities and intertidal mixed sediment communities.

Subject to natural change, maintain the annual vegetation of drift lines in favourable condition.

Solent Maritime SAC

Subject to natural change, maintain the Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand in favourable condition, in particular annual Salicornia saltmarsh communities and Suaeda maritima saltmarsh communities.

South Wight Maritime SAC Subject to natural change, maintain the reefs in favourable condition, in particular kelp forest communities, subtidal red algae communities, subtidal faunal turf communities, sea cave communities. Subject to natural change, to maintain New Forest pasture woodland in favourable condition with particular reference to: beech forests with holly (Ilex aquifolium) and yew (Taxus bacata), rich in lichens and mosses (Illici-Fagion), old acidophilous oak woods with pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) on sandy plains, Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests, stag beetle (Lucanus cervus), honey buzzard (Pernis apivoris), and nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus). Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest riverine woodland in favourable condition with particular reference to Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior. Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest inclosure woodland in favourable condition, with particular reference to early 19th century broadleaf and/or Ancient Woodland Sites (AWS), or ancient semi-nautral woodland, beech forests and holly (Ilex aquifolium) and yew (Taxus bacata), rich in lichens and mosses (Illici-Fagion), old acidophilous oak woods with pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) on sandy plains, honey buzzard (Pernis apivoris), and nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus). Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest bog woodland in favourable condition. Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest wet heath in favourable condition with particular reference to Northern Atlantic wet heath with cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix) and Southern damselfly (Coenagrion mercuriale). Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest dry heath in favourable condition with particular reference to European dry heaths, breeding nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), woodlark (Lullula arborea), Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata) and wintering hen harrier (Cygnus cyaneus). Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest mires in favourable condition with particular reference to depressions on peat substrates (Rhynchosporion), transition mires, alkaline fens and Southern damselfly (Coenagrion mercuriale). Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest wet grassland in favourable condition, with particular reference to Molinia meadows on chalk and clay (NVC M24), M25 and M23 communities.

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

New Forest SAC

Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest dry grassland in favourable condition, with particular reference to U1, U3, U4 grassland and U20-related species-rich bracken and woodlark (Lullula arborea).


R/1310/091 18 R.1553TN


Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest permanent ponds in favourable condition, with particular reference to oligotrophic waters with very few minerals of Atlantic sandy plains with amphibious vegetation. Subject to natural change to maintain New Forest temporary ponds in favourable condition, with particular reference to oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of Atlantic sandy plains, and oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with amphibious vegetation belonging to Littorelletae uniflorae and/or Isoeto-Nanojuncetea. Subject to natural change to maintain the habitats in favourable condition of the populations of Annex I species that contribute to internationally important populations in the New Forest SPA, for breeding Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata), nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus), woodlark (Lullula arborea), honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus) and for wintering hen harrier (Cygnus cyaneus). Subject to natural change to maintain the habitats in favourable condition of the populations of Annex II species: Southern damselfly (Coenagrion mercuriale). Subject to natural change to maintain the habitats in favourable condition of the populations of Annex II species: stag beetle (Lucanus cervus). Subject to natural change to maintain the habitats in favourable condition of the populations of Annex II species: great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Subject to natural change, maintain the habitats for the internationally important population of the regularly occurring Annex I species in favourable condition, in particular sand and shingle, saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats and shallow coastal areas. Subject to natural change, maintain the habitats for the internationally important populations of the regularly occurring migratory species in favourable condition, in particular the saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, boulder and cobble shores and mixed sediment shores.

Solent and Southampton Water SPA

Subject to natural change, maintain the habitats for the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl in favourable condition, in particular the saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, boulder and cobble shores and mixed sediment shores.

Portsmouth Harbour SPA

Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the nationally and internationally important populations of the regularly occurring migratory species, in particular saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, and shallow coastal waters. Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important populations of the regularly occurring Annex I species, in particular, sand and shingle, and shallow coastal waters. Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important populations of the regularly occurring migratory species, in particular, shingle, saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats and sandflats, and mixed sediment shores.

Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA

Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl, in particular, shingle, saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, mixed sediment shores, and shallow coastal waters.

Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

New Forest SPA To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the populations of Annex I bird species of European importance, with particular reference to dry heathland, dry grassland, and inclosure and pasture woodlands. Subject to natural change, maintain the internationally important wetland characteristic of the Atlantic biogeographical region in favourable condition, in particular, estuaries, saline lagoons, saltmarsh and intertidal reefs. Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland hosting an assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species in favourable condition, in particular, saline lagoons, saltmarsh, cordgrass swards (Spartinon spp.). Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland regularly supporting 20,000 waterfowl species in favourable condition, in particular, saltmarshes, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, boulder and cobble shores, and mixed sediment shores.

Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Site

Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland regularly supporting 1% or more of the individuals in a population of waterfowl species in favourable condition, in particular, saltmarshes, sand and shingle, shallow coastal waters, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, and boulder and cobble shores, and mixed sediment shores. Subject to natural change, maintain the internationally important wetland characteristic of the Atlantic biogeographical region in favourable condition, in particular estuaries, saltmarsh and intertidal mudflats and sandflats. Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland supporting genetically and ecologically diverse flora and fauna in favourable condition, in particular saltmarsh, cordgrass swards, and intertidal mudflats and sandflats.

Ramsar Sites

Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar Site

Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland supporting 1% or more of the individuals in a population of waterfowl in favourable condition, in particular saltmarsh, shallow coastal waters, and intertidal mudflats and sandflats.


R/1310/091 19 R.1553TN


Subject to natural change, maintain the internationally important wetlands characteristic of the biogeographical region in favourable condition, in particular, estuaries, saltmarshes and intertidal mudflats and sandflats. Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland regularly supporting 20,000 waterfowl in favourable condition, in particular shingle, saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, mixed sediment shores, and shallow coastal waters.

Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar Site

Subject to natural change, maintain the wetland supporting 1% or more of the individuals in a population of waterfowl species in favourable condition, in particular saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, mixed sediment shores, shingle, sand and shingle, shallow coastal waters.

New Forest Ramsar None listed for the Ramsar designation.


R/1310/091 20 R.1553TN

Solent and Southampton Water SPA Table 2. Favourable Condition Table for the Solent and Southampton Water SPA

Criteria/ Feature Sub-feature Attribute Target

Disturbance No significant reduction in numbers or displacement of birds from an established baseline, subject to natural change. All sub-features Absence of obstructions to view lines

No increase in obstructions to existing bird view lines from an established baseline.

Extent and distribution of habitat No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Sand and shingle

Vegetation characteristics Vegetation height and density throughout areas used for nesting should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Extent and distribution of habitat No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Vegetation characteristics Sward height and density throughout areas used for nesting should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Saltmarsh

Food availability Presence and abundance of suitable prey species should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Extent and distribution of habitat No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Intertidal mudflats and sandflats

Food availability Presence and abundance of suitable prey species should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Internationally important populations of regularly occurring Annex I species

Shallow coastal waters Food availability Presence and abundance of suitable prey species should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Disturbance No significant reduction in numbers or displacement of wintering birds from an established baseline, subject to natural change. All sub-features Absence of obstructions to view lines

No increase in obstructions to existing bird view lines from an established baseline.

Saltmarsh See Feature 1 above Intertidal mudflats and sandflats

See Feature 1 above

Extent and distribution of habitat No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Boulder and cobble shores

Food availability Presence and abundance of prey species and algae should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Extent and distribution of habitat No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Internationally important waterfowl assemblage, including the internationally important regularly occurring migratory species

Mixed sediment shores

Food availability Presence and abundance of prey species and algae should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.


R/1310/091 21 R.1553TN

Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Site Table 3. Favourable Condition Table for the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Site

Criterion Sub-feature Attribute Target

Extent No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Morphological equilibrium The intra- and inter-estuarine tidal prism/ cross-section ratio (of a given cross-section at high water springs) relationship should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Water density-temperature and salinity

Average temperature and salinity should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Estuaries

Nutrient status Average phytoplankton concentration should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change Extent No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Salinity Average seasonal salinity and seasonal maxima and minima should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Water depth Average water depth should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Isolating barrier – presence and nature

No change in measure from established baseline, subject to natural change.

Species composition Presence and abundance of composite species should not deviate significantly from the established baseline, subject to natural change.

Saline lagoons

Water clarity Average light attenuation should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Saltmarsh See Table 2

Extent No decrease in extent of reef from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Water temperature and salinity Average temperature and salinity should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Water clarity Average light attenuation should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Criterion 1a: particularly good representative example of natural or near natural wetland characteristics of the appropriate biogeographical region

Intertidal reefs

Characteristic species e.g. rocky shore communities

Range and distribution of characteristic biotopes should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Saline lagoons See Criterion 1a Saltmarsh See Table 2

Criterion 2a: hosting an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or sub-species of plant or animal, or an appreciable number of any one of these species

Cordgrass swards Distribution and extent of small, smooth and Townsend’s cordgrass communities

Distribution and extent of cordgrass communities should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Saltmarsh See Table 2 Intertidal mudflats and sandflats

See Table 2

Boulder and cobble shores See Table 2

Criterion 3a: regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl

Mixed sediment shores See Table 2 Sand and Shingle See Table 2 Criterion 3c: regularly supporting

1% or more of individuals in a population of one species or a sub-species of waterfowl

Shallow coastal waters See Table 2


R/1310/091 22 R.1553TN

Solent Maritime SAC

Table 4 Favourable Condition Table for the Solent Maritime SAC

Feature Attribute Target

Estuaries See Table 3

Extent No decrease in linear extent of vegetation from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Extent must take account of natural variation of this habitat as a result of dynamic coastal processes (storm events etc.). Indicative target is for 10% of vegetation maintained seasonally over structure that could support it.

Mobility No increase in extent constrained by introduced structures, landforms or operations. These areas to be identified whilst undertaking baseline monitoring.

Coastal processes Maintain sediment supply to and within the site through coastal processes to allow a balance of accretion and erosion. A net balanced sediment budget should prevail, subject to natural variation.

Substrate composition Maintain substrate composition with sufficiently low levels of human-induced disturbance to allow drift line vegetation to complete its vegetation cycle. As an indicative target, drift line organic materials should be present along at least 10% of length surveyed, with artificial (non-organic) debris not restricting or suppressing vegetation establishment and growth. Targets appropriate to site should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Annual vegetation of drift lines

Characteristic species of annual vegetation of drift lines

Maintain the presence and broad distribution of stands of Atriplex prostrate/ Beta vulgaris maritima – dominated community and other local variants of drift line vegetation across the feature, allowing for natural variation. As these communities can be very variable, local baselines will need to be established, but should not be lower than 10% of the area that could be colonised. Targets appropriate to site should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Distribution and extent of low, mid, upper and transitional high marsh communities

Distribution and extent of marsh communities should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Atlantic salt meadows

Species composition of characteristic low, mid, upper and transitional high marsh communities

Presence and abundance of constant species of characteristic marsh communities should not deviate significantly from established baseline, subject to natural change.

Algal mat cover No increase in algal mat cover from an established baseline. Common cordgrass (Spartina anglica) community

No increase in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand

Distribution and extent No change in distribution and extent of annual Salicornia saltmarsh communities from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Cordgrass swards See Table 3

Extent No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Topography Shore profile should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Nutrient enrichment – macroalgal mats

Average abundance of macroalgal mats should not increase from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Sediment character Average particle size analysis (PSA) parameters should not deviate significantly from the baseline, subject to natural change. Average sediment penetrability (degree of sinking) measure should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Average organic carbon content should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Intertidal mudflats and sandflats

Average black anoxic layer depth should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Extent No decrease in extent from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Sediment character Average grain size parameters should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time Topography Depth should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.


R/1310/091 23 R.1553TN

South Wight Maritime SAC Table 5. Favourable Condition Table for the South Wight Maritime SAC

Feature Attribute Target

Extent No decrease in extent of reef from an established baseline, subject to natural change. Absence of coastal defence No decrease in length of reef without coastal protection from an established baseline. Water temperature and salinity

Average temperature and salinity should not deviate significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change.

Reefs

Water clarity Average light attenuation should not decrease significantly from an established baseline, subject to natural change

New Forest SPA

Table 6. Interest Features of the New Forest SPA

Criteria/ Feature Sub-feature

Dry heathland Dry grassland

Internationally important populations of regularly occurring Annex I species

Inclosure and pasture woodlands

New Forest Ramsar Site

Table 7. Interest Features of the New Forest Ramsar Site

Criterion Interest Feature

1 Valley mires and wet heaths are found throughout the site and are of outstanding scientific interest. The mires and heaths are within catchments whose uncultivated and undeveloped state buffer the mires against adverse ecological change. This is the largest concentration of intact valley mires of their type in Britain.

2 The site supports a diverse assemblage of wetland plants and animals including several nationally rare species. Seven species of nationally rare plant are found on the site, as are at least 65 British Red Data Book species of invertebrate.

3 The mire habitats are of high ecological quality and diversity and have undisturbed transition zones. The invertebrate fauna of the site is important due to the concentration of rare and scare wetland species. The whole site complex, with its examples of semi-natural habitats is essential to the genetic and ecological diversity of southern England.


R/1310/091 24 R.1553TN

New Forest SAC

Table 8. Interest Features of the New Forest SAC

Criteria Interest Feature

Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix European dry heaths Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion) Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains Bog woodland

Annex 1 habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salinion albae) Transition mires and quaking bogs Annex 1 habitats present as a

qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site

Alkaline fens

Southern damselfly Annex 2 species that are a primary reason for selection of this site Stag beetle

Annex 2 species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site

Great crested newt


R/1310/091 25 R.1553TN

River Itchen SAC

Table 9. Interest Features of the River Itchen SAC

Criteria Interest Feature

Annex 1 habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Southern damselfly Annex 2 species that are a primary reason for selection of this site Bullhead

White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Brook lamprey Atlantic salmon

Annex 2 species present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site Otter

Figure

440000 460000 480000

9000

011

0000

0°55'0"W1°6'0"W1°17'0"W1°28'0"W

50°4

7'0"N

50°3

6'0"N International Nature Conservation Designations and European Marine Sites

DateMar 09

ByMCE

SizeA4

Version1

13101 - Fig_Designations.mxd

ScaleProjection OSGB 1936

© ABPmer, All rights reserved, 2009Data supplied by English NatureNOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION

SACSPARamsarSouth Wight European Marine SiteSolent European Marine SiteDibden Terminal DesignNab Disposal Site

Produced by ABPmer Ltd

1:230,000

Figure 1

QA DD

0 4 8 12 162 km0 4 8 12 162 km

Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment · 1 Draft E San Martin 15/7/2009 2...

Documents

Transcript of Port of Southampton Master Plan Shadow Appropriate Assessment · 1 Draft E San Martin 15/7/2009 2...