Download - Gypsy and Traveller - Cambridge City Council · The Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GTDPD), as part of the Council’s LDF, will form a vital tool for implementing

Local Development Framework

Gypsy and TravellerDevelopment Plan Document

Issues and Options 2 Site Options and Policies

Habitats Regulations Assessment

July 2009

08450 450 500www.scambs.gov.uk

Local Development Framework

Gypsy and Traveller

Development Plan Document

Initial Scoping Report of the Habitats Regulations Assessment

South Cambridgeshire District Council

July 2009

Gareth Jones, BSc. (Hons) MRTPI Corporate Manager (Planning & Sustainable Communities)

The maps in this document are based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown

copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Cambridgeshire District Council

Licence No. LA 100022500 (2009)

The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this document is provided by South Cambridgeshire District Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to

fulfil its public function to make available Council held public domain information. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping/map data for their own use.

The OS web site can be found at www.ordsvy.gov.uk

If you would like a copy of this document in large print or another format please contact

South Cambridgeshire District Council on 08450 450 500 or email [email protected]

July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment i

CONTENTS

PageExecutive Summary 1

Outcome of Assessment 1

Introduction 3The Requirement For Habitats Regulations Assessment 3

What are Natura 2000 Sites? 3 What is Habitats Regulations Assessment? 4

What is a Significant Effect on a Natura 2000 Site? 5 Structure of the HRA Report 5

SECTION 1: Description of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document – Issues and Options 2: Site Options

6

SECTION 2: Description of the Relevant Plans and Strategies to be Considered “In Combination”

9

SECTION 3: HRA Screening Methodology, Sets Out the Approach Used and Specific Tasks Undertaken

13

SECTION 4: Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites Potentially Affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD– Issues and Options 2: Site Options

15

SECTION 5: Screening Assessment of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD– Issues and Options 2: Site Options

17

SECTION 6: Consultations 18

SECTION 7: Conclusions 19

APPENDIX 1: Summary of Other Relevant Plans and Strategies 21

APPENDIX 2: Information on the Natura 2000 Sites 27

APPENDIX 3: Maps 51

APPENDIX 4: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Matrix 79

Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 ii

July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is an Assessment of the Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD) to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive. South Cambridgeshire District Council has prepared it, as the relevant competent authority.

The report provides a screening assessment to examine whether the options in the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document are likely to have any significant impacts on Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites, either alone or in combination with other projects and plans, in view of the sites’ conservation objectives. The Assessment:

�� Provides details of the DPD and its proposals;

�� Identifies Natura 2000 sites and Ramsar sites (in accordance with PPS9, para 6) within and outside the area that could potentially be affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD; Issues and Options 2.

�� Identifies the characteristics of these sites and their conservation objectives; and

�� Screens the DPD, in combination with other relevant plans or projects, to identify any likely significant effects on the sites.

The Assessment has been undertaken following a precautionary approach in accordance with the Habitats Directive.

OUTCOME OF ASSESSMENT

It has been objectively concluded by South Cambridgeshire District Council that options within the Issues and Options 2 stage of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD are not likely to have any significant effects on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites. The Council has therefore concluded as a result of this scoping report that there is no requirement to proceed to the next stage of an Appropriate Assessment.

This scoping report has been submitted to Natural England for consultation.

Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 2


INTRODUCTION

This report is an Assessment of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document, to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive. It focuses on the options for consultation included in the Issues and Options 2 Site Options and Policies Report. It has been prepared by South Cambridgeshire District Council, as the relevant competent authority and will be submitted to Natural England for consultation.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) sets out the requirement for Assessment of plans or projects affecting Natura 2000 sites. Article 6(3) establishes the requirement for Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and states:

“ (3) Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subject to Appropriate Assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.

Article 6(4) goes on to discuss alternative solutions and compensatory measures. It states:

(4) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.”

WHAT ARE NATURA 2000 SITES?

Natura 2000 is a Europe-wide network of sites of international importance for nature conservation established under the European Council Directive ‘on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora’ – (92/43/EEC ‘Habitats Directive’). This has been transposed into UK law as the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994; ‘Habitats Regulations’).

Natura 2000 sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC), which are designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), and Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the ‘Birds Directive’ (79/409/EEC).


In line with Government policy in PPS9 paragraph 6, this assessment also relates to Ramsar sites although these are not strictly part of Natura 2000. These sites support internationally important wetland habitats and are listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, 1971).

WHAT IS HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT?

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is an assessment of the potential effects of a proposed plan or project, which is not necessary for the management of the site and which is likely to have a significant effect, on one or more Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites, in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

There are 4 stages to the Habitats Regulations Assessment process set out in the European Commission guidance “Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Nature 2000 sites – Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC” (November 2001). Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive relates to Stages 1 to 3 and Article 6(4) to Stage 4, as follows:

First stage - Screening

The process, which identifies the likely impacts upon a Natura 2000 or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant.

Second stage - Appropriate Assessment

The consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the site’s structure and function and it’s conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts.

Third stage – Assessment of alternative solutions

The process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 or Ramsar site.

Fourth stage – Compensatory measures

As assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, it is deemed that the plan should proceed.


If it is concluded at the screening stage that there will be no significant impacts, there is no need to carry out subsequent stages. This Screening Report addresses the First Stage only of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON A NATURA 2000 SITE?

A judgement of the significance of effects on a Natura 2000 site should be undertaken in relation to the designated interest features and conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site (see Sections 4 and 5) using sound judgement, and with a scientific basis where available. If insufficient information is available to make a clear judgement, it should be assumed that a significant effect is possible in line with the precautionary principle.

STRUCTURE OF THE HRA REPORT

Section 1 Description of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD and explanation of the current Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document.

Section 2 Description of the relevant plans and projects to be considered “in combination”

Section 3 HRA Screening Methodology, sets out the approach used and specific tasks undertaken

Section 4 Identification of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites that could be potentially affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, including a description of the conservation objectives for each site and the potential sensitivities of the sites to adverse effects

Section 5 Screening Assessment to consider whether there are likely to be any significant effects of the'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, alone or in combination with other relevant plans and projects, on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites

Section 6 Consultations

Section 7 Conclusions, summarises the findings of the HRA Screening

The Precautionary Principle

Prudent action that avoids the possibility of irreversible environmental damage in situations where the scientific evidence is inconclusive but the potential damage could be significant.


SECTION 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE OF THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT AND EXPLANATION OF CURRENT ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2; SITE OPTIONS AND POLICIES DOCUMENT

South Cambridgeshire District Council is preparing the Gypsy and Traveller DPD. It forms part of the Local Development Framework (LDF).

The Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GTDPD), as part of the Council’s LDF, will form a vital tool for implementing the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Community Strategy, and will set out policies and proposals as they relate to planning for Gypsies and Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople in the district, covering the period 2006 – 2021.

The Gypsy and Traveller DPD is not directly connected to or necessary for the management of Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites.

PROPOSED VISION OF THE DPD

The following vision is proposed for the GTDPD:

South Cambridgeshire contributes fully to the regional provision of Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation, meeting the needs of existing and future generations. There will be a range and choice of accommodation, including at major growth areas, which will contribute to the improvement of living conditions. Occurrences of illegal and unplanned Travelling encampments and development will be reduced.

PROPOSED OBJECTIVES OF THE DPD

In order to achieve the vision, the plan will aim to implement the following objectives:

�� To address the full range of land-use and planning issues that need to be taken into account regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites and Travelling Showpeople sites.

�� To ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of sites to meet the numbers required by the East of England Plan in South Cambridgeshire.

�� To provide a clear framework for making decisions on planning applications regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites and Travelling Showpeople sites.

�� To minimise the number of unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments.

�� Contribute to achieving the aims of the South Cambridgeshire Gypsy and Traveller Community Strategy.


THE PURPOSE OF THE CURRENT ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2 STAGE OF THE DPD

The purpose of this 'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document is to consult on 20 potential site options for allocation as Gypsy and Traveller sites, as well as options for Transit sites and Travelling Showpeople sites, and to provide a further opportunity for site options to be suggested. It is also consulting on potential planning policies that could be included in the plan.

SUMMARY OF SITE OPTIONS

20 site options have been identified in the Issues and Options 2 document. The Council is now consulting on these options.

SiteNumber Source Location Address Number of

PitchesPotentialDelivery

1 Temporary Consent

Edge of Cambridge Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 28 By 2016

2 Temporary Consent

Edge of Cambridge

Plots 1, 3 & 5 Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 17 By 2016

3 MajorDevelopment

Edge of Cambridge Cambridge East 20

By 2016 or

2016-21

4 MajorDevelopment

Edge of Cambridge

North West Cambridge – Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road 10 By 2016

5 MajorDevelopment

Edge of Cambridge

North West Cambridge – Land between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road

(University Site) 10 2016-21

6 MajorDevelopment Northstowe Northstowe 20

By 2016or

2016-21

7 MajorDevelopment Cambourne Cambourne 10 By 2016

8 MajorDevelopment Fulbourn Ida Darwin Hospital 5 By 2016

9 Temporary Consent Willingham Grange Park, Foxes Meadow, Iram

Drove (off Priest Lane) 1 By 2016

10 Temporary Consent Willingham Plots 1 & 2 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 By 2016

11 New Site – Private Land Willingham Plots 3 & 4 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 By 2016

12 Temporary Consent Willingham Plots 5 & 6 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 By 2016

13 Temporary Consent Willingham Land to rear of Long Acre and Green

Acres, Meadow Road 3 By 2016

14 New Site – Private Land Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow

Road (1) 1 By 2016

15 Unauthorised Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow Road (2) 1 By 2016


SiteNumber Source Location Address Number of

PitchesPotentialDelivery

16 Temporary Consent Willingham Site of storage/agricultural buildings

east of Long Acre, Meadow Road 1 By 2016

17 Temporary Consent Willingham The Oaks, Meadow Road 1 By 2016

18New Site –

PubliclyOwned Land

Bassingbourn Land at Spring Lane 5 By 2016

19 Temporary Consent Swavesey Rose & Crown Road 8 By 2016

20 Expansion of Existing Site Whaddon New Farm, Old North Road 2 By 2016

TOTAL 149

Views are also being sought on whether the following site should be returned to a Transit site:

SiteNumber

Location Address Number of

Pitches

21Milton

(Edge of Cambridge)

Blackwell Traveller site, Milton - Transit Site option 10

Also views are being sought on the following Travelling Showpeople site option:

SiteNumber

Location Address Number of

Plots22 Meldreth Travelling Showpeople Site option 6

The Issues and Options 2 document also includes policy options to be consulted upon. These are as follows –

POLICY ELEMENT SUMMARY Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Green Belt

Policies to consider when sites are proposed for pitches in Green Belt locations

Sites at Major Development Sites

Policies to consider provision of pitches within the Major Development Sites – the delivery; location; design; size and phasing of these sites.

Existing policies for Travellers and Gypsies

Consideration of a saved policy from the Local Plan 2004 and whether it should be included in the DPD

Policy for considering planning applications and design issues relating to Traveller and Gypsy sites

Criteria based policy for considering planning applications for Traveller pitches. Also policy considering design of Traveller pitches.

Monitoring of policies Identification of indicators to monitor policies in DPD.


SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES TO BE CONSIDERED “IN COMBINATION”

The Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GTDPD) will provide a vision for the future of Gypsies and Travellers in South Cambridgeshire and will set out policies and proposals as they relate to planning for Gypsies and Travellers in the District. It sits within a wider policy context provided by the plans of the Council.

A Local Plans

The South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework (LDF) comprises a number of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) that set out policies and proposals for the development and use of land in the district. The first DPDs cover the period to 2016 and were submitted to the Secretary of State in January 2006. The DPDs submitted and their current status is as follows:

�� Core Strategy DPD – adopted January 2007

�� Development Control Policies DPD – adopted July 2007

�� Northstowe AAP – adopted July 2007

�� Cambridge East Area Action Plan (AAP) (being prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council) – adopted February 2008.

�� Cambridge Southern Fringe AAP – adopted February 2008.

�� Site Specific Policies DPD – examination held in December 2007 and January 2008. Further hearings to be held during 2009.

�� North West Cambridge Area Action Plan (AAP) (being prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council) – examinations held in November and December 2008. Further hearings to be held during 2009. .

The LDF includes a vision of the future of South Cambridgeshire and objectives and targets, which developments must meet to secure that vision. Once adopted, planning applications and other decisions will be made in accordance with it.

The Core Strategy 2007 sets the overall level of growth and the broad spatial locations for development, with 20,000 new homes required between 1999 and 2016. The Strategy is one of concentrating development on Cambridge through a number of urban extensions to the city, including land in South Cambridgeshire, and at the new town of Northstowe. These major developments are addressed in a series of Area Action Plans. They include development that will continue beyond 2016. The strategy also allows for limited development to meet local needs in Rural Centres and other villages. New development will be accompanied by the necessary employment, community and recreation space to support the development of sustainable communities.


The Core Strategy, Development Control Policies DPD and Northstowe, Cambridge Southern Fringe, Cambridge East and North West Cambridge Area Action Plans have also been subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment, and were found to have no likely significant effects on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites.

The Local Development Frameworks of the Council:

�� Take account of national, regional and strategic planning policies;

�� Identify sites for, and requirements of, major developments;

�� Provide the framework of policies for assessing all planning applications;

�� Enable infrastructure and service providers to bring forward their services when needed by new development;

�� Enable the public to be fully involved in developing local policies and proposals.

B. Regional Plans

South Cambridgeshire’s Core Strategy 2007 plans for the development proposed in Regional Planning Guidance 6 (RPG6, 2000), and subsequently the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003.

The East of England Plan (RSS) was published in May 2008. It incorporates and carries forward the requirements of RPG6 and the Structure Plan for the Cambridge Sub-Region for the period to 2016. This plan was subject to an initial Habitats Regulations Assessment, which concluded that the plan will not have a likely significant effect on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites, and hence Appropriate Assessment is not required for any of the policies in the RSS. This initial HRA states that the reasons for this include:

�� That the policies will not result in any development;

�� The policies make provision for development, but the exact location is to be selected following the consideration of options in lower tier plans (i.e. by local development plans, programmes and strategies);

�� The policy concentrates the development in urban areas away from Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites;

�� That the policies specifically state that development should avoid any adverse effects on the integrity of Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites;


�� Policy ENV3 states that local planning authorities should ‘ensure that...development does not have adverse effects on the integrity of sites of European or international importance’; and

�� Generic provisions have been made within the policies in the RSS (e.g. Policy ENV3) supported by more specific provisions to ensure that the integrity of Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites are not adversely affected by development (Policies SS9, E7, C2, and WAT2).

In the light of objections raised that challenge the findings of the HRA, the Government Office commissioned a new HRA of the Plan, which was published in October 2007. This review placed greater emphasis on an evidence-based assessment of risk of effects (applying the precautionary principle) than may have been the case in the previous work. It resulted in some sections within the RSS being subject to an Appropriate Assessment. As a result of this HRA further changes were proposed to the East of England Plan such that the current published RSS is now considered not likely to have any significant effect on Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites as a result its policies or the RSS itself in combination with other plans.

However, the RSS is a higher order spatial plan. South Cambridgeshire has a number of adopted DPDs that have been subject to HRA scoping and have been found to have no significant effect on Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites. The Gypsy and Traveller DPD is at a similar level of plan making to these DPDs.

C. Other Plans

The Gypsy and Traveller DPD Screening Assessment focuses on the “in-combination” effects of the DPD with other LDF level plans, including the other Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents produced by South Cambridgeshire District Council, district LDFs of nearby authorities, and minerals and waste plans for both South Cambridgeshire itself and for nearby authorities. The plans considered in the screening Assessment are listed below. A brief summary of each plan is set out in Appendix 1:

Countywide plans affecting South Cambridgeshire:

�� Cambridgeshire Waste Local Plan 2003 �� Cambridgeshire Aggregates (minerals) Local Plan 1991 �� Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste Development Plan Preferred Options 2

2008�� Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006 – 2011

Other Plans for Areas Outside the Area Action Plan area:

�� Cambridge City Core Strategy (DPD) – Issues and Options (Reg 25), 2007 �� Cambridge Local Plan 2004 �� Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 �� Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008 & Development

Control Policies DPD Issues & Options Report, 2007


�� East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 and Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008

�� Fenland Local Plan 1993; Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006 and Preferred Options 2 2007

�� Uttlesford Core Strategy – Preferred Options 2007 �� North Herts. Local Plan 1996 and Core Strategy & Development Policies

Preferred Options 2007 �� Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan 2005 & Core Strategy and Development Control

Policies DPD Preferred Options 2007 �� Forest Heath Local Plan 1995 and Core Strategy & Development Policies

Preferred Options Report October 2006 and Site Specific Policies and Allocations DPD Issues & Options Report 2006

�� St. Edmundsbury Local Plan 2006; Core Strategy and Policies DPD – Issues and options 2008.

�� King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 and Core Strategy- Issues and Options 2 2008 DC Policies Preferred Options 2007

�� Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2005 �� Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan –

Issues and Options (Jan 2006); Issues and Options 2 2008; Waste DPD – Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan 2006

�� Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan 1998 (and review adopted 2007) �� Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1998 �� Hertfordshire Minerals & Waste DPDs Issues & Options & Waste Core

Strategy Preferred Options Report, June 2007 �� Suffolk Minerals Local Plan 1999 & Minerals Core Strategy Submission 2007

& Minerals Specific Site Allocations DPD, April 2007 �� Suffolk Waste Local Plan 2006; Waste Issues Report 2007 �� Bedford Borough Local Plan 2006 and Bedford Core Strategy and Rural

Issues Plan Adopted 2008 �� Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005; Core Strategy – Preferred options 2007 �� Buckinghamshire County Council Waste Local Plan 1997; Buckinghamshire

Minerals DPD – Preferred options 2007; Buckinghamshire Waste DPD – Preferred options 2007

�� Milton Keynes Waste DPD Submission 2007 �� Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan 2006; Minerals DPD – preferred options

2007�� Norfolk Waste Local Plan 2000 �� Norfolk Minerals Local Plan 2004 �� Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Development Control

Document –preferred options stage 2008


SECTION 3: HRA SCREENING METHODOLOGY SETS OUT THE APPROACH USED AND SPECIFIC TASKS UNDERTAKEN

The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document ofthe Gypsy and Traveller DPD, has been undertaken in line with the European Commission’s guidance on the ‘Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Nature 2000 sites’, and seeks to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive.

South Cambridgeshire has a number of adopted DPDs, which have been assessed under the Habitats Directive, and it was concluded, using the same methodology, that they were unlikely to have significant impacts upon European Sites located within and in the vicinity of the District and that an Appropriate Assessment was therefore not required for these DPDs.

The tasks undertaken in preparing this Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report are:

Task 1: Identification of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites, which may be affected bythe'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD and the factors contributing to and defining the integrity of these sites

An initial investigation was undertaken to identify Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites within and outside the plan area with potential to be affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document. This involved the use of GIS data as well as consultation with the Natural England Four Counties team. In line with the precautionary approach, some sites at relatively significant distances from the district boundary were included in the study. The Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites identified as potentially affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2 are identified in Section 4. The attributes, which contribute to and define the integrity of these sites were identified and described (including the conservation objectives). Information was appropriate to inform a screening decision.

Task 2: Completion of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Matrix for the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, including ‘Assessment of Significance of Effects”

A Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Matrix was completed for the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document which looked at each European site in turn and included an ‘Assessment of Significance of Effects”, and is found at Section 5. The screening gives particular consideration given to the possible effects of the plan on features contributing to the integrity of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites (e.g. increased disturbance, changes in water quality, etc). A risk-based approach involving application of the precautionary principle was adopted in the assessment of likely effects, such that an assessment of ‘no significant effect’ was only made where it was considered unlikely, based on current knowledge and information available, that the options in the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2 could have a significant effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 / Ramsar site. The consideration of potential effects involved an


examination of potential ‘in-combination’ effects of the options included in the Issues and Options 2 of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD and other plans and projects.


SECTION 4: NATURA 2000 AND RAMSAR SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2; SITE OPTIONS AND POLICIES DOCUMENT OF THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER DPD

There is one Natura 2000 site within South Cambridgeshire District, which has been considered as part of this assessment:

�� Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC.

There are a number of other sites within the surrounding districts, which have also been considered as part of this Assessment, because of their proximity to South Cambridgeshire and / or the nature of their conservation interest:

�� Ouse Washes SAC and SPA

�� Fenland SAC

�� Portholme SAC

�� Devil’s Dyke SAC

Candidate SACs and potential SPAs should be considered in the same way as if they had already been classified or designated. There are no relevant sites.

For the purposes of this Assessment, Ramsar sites are included although they are not Natura 2000 sites. For the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, this does not introduce any additional sites, but two of the sites listed above are also Ramsar sites:

�� Ouse Washes

�� Fenland (Woodwalton Fen, Chippenham Fen, Wicken Fen)

Natural England confirmed that this list was comprehensive for the purposes of Habitats Regulations Assessment (by letter 9.11.06).

The conservation objectives for each SPA or SAC are designed to ensure that the qualifying interest of each site is maintained in the long term. Whilst these are specific to each site, there are some general principles including:

�� To maintain the population of the habitat / species as a viable component of the site;

�� To maintain the distribution of the habitat / species within site;

�� To maintain the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species;

�� To maintain the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and


�� To ensure that there is no significant disturbance of the species.

For Ramsar sites the main aims are to promote the conservation of the wetland to avoid deterioration of the wetland habitats of Ramsar interest and significant disturbance of associated species.

Details of the European Sites being assessed, and their relevant conservation objectives, is provided in Appendix 2 of this assessment. Maps of the sites are attached at Appendix 3.


SECTION 5: SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER DPD ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2;

There are a wide range of potential impacts of development plans on designated sites, but the impacts examined can be summarised as:

�� Land take by developments;

�� Impact on protected species found within but which travel outside the protected sites may be relevant where development could result in effects on qualifying interest species within the Natura 2000 or Ramsar site, for example through the loss of feeding grounds for an identified species.

�� Increased disturbance, for example from recreational use resulting from new housing development and / or improved access due to transport infrastructure projects;

�� Changes in water availability, or water quality as a result of development and increased demands for water treatment, and changes in groundwater regimes due to increased impermeable areas;

�� Changes in atmospheric pollution levels due to increased traffic, waste management facilities etc. Pollution discharges from developments such as industrial Developments, quarries and waste management facilities.

An HRA Screening Matrix, including an ‘Assessment of Significance of Effects”, is contained at Appendix 4, which assesses the potential impacts of the Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD as set out above on the conservation interests of European sites, taking account of the policy elements of the options in the plan.


SECTION 6: CONSULTATIONS

Natural England has been consulted on the HRA screening report. The results of their response will be included in the final version of this HRA.


SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

The Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2has been assessed to determine whether there are likely to be any significant effects arising from the options, in accordance with the Habitats Directive Articles 6(3) and (4).

The HRA has:

�� Provided details of the plan and its proposals;

�� Identified European Sites within and outside the plan area that may potentially be affected by the options in the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document;

�� Identified the characteristics of these European sites and their conservation objectives; and

�� Tested the plan, in combination with other relevant plans or programmes, to identify any significant impacts on the European Sites.

It has been objectively concluded by South Cambridgeshire District Council that the options within the Issues and Options 2 ; Site Options and Policies document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD are not likely to have any significant effects on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites. There is therefore in the Council’s opinion no requirement to proceed to the next stage of an Appropriate Assessment.

This scoping report has been submitted to Natural England for consultation.



APPENDIX 1

Summary of other relevant plans and strategies


SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES

OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES

SUMMARY

County-wide Plans affecting South Cambridgeshire:

Cambridgeshire Waste Local Plan 2003

Aims to provide a sustainable strategy and policy framework for waste management in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Includes site-specific proposals for waste management facilities.

Cambridgeshire Aggregates (minerals) Local Plan 1991

Sets policies for working minerals and safeguarding mineral deposits.

Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste DPD Preferred Options 2006

(1) A draft Core Strategy DPD to guide the spatial strategy vision for the future of mineral extraction and the delivery of high quality sustainable waste management facilities.

(2) A draft Site Allocations DPD with proposed allocations for waste management facilities and minerals workings.

The documents have been subject to initial appropriate assessment, which found there were likely to be no significant effects that could not be overcome by mitigation measures through policies in the plan.

Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste DPD Preferred Options 2 2008

A revised draft Core Strategy DPD and revised Site Allocations DPD.

As a result of the screening at this stage a number of allocations and policies are identified as having the potential to have an impact on European Sites of Importance and therefore must be assessed as part of a full Appropriate Assessment. Whilst it is not expected these will adversely affect a European Site it is needed to be assessed using the precautionary principle.

Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006 - 2011

The Local Transport Plan 2006 -11 for Cambridgeshire sets out how Government capital funding allocated for transport will be spent, and how this will be used to meet local and national targets.

Other Plans for Areas Outside the Plan area:

Cambridge Local Plan 2004 The land use strategy up to 2016 focuses growth in Cambridge on the Station area and four urban extensions comprising mixed use centres to the north, south, west and east of the City as a focus for future employment and residential expansion, connected to each other and to the City Centre by high quality public transport (includes sites



SUMMARY

that extend into South Cambridgeshire).Cambridge Core Strategy – Issues and Options 2007

The Core Strategy Issues and Options considers growth within Cambridge up to 2021.

Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995

The Local Plan 1995 provided for development up to 2006, and focused development onto larger settlements.

Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008 & Development Control Policies DPD Issues & Options Report, 2007

The Core Strategy will set the framework for how Huntingdonshire will develop up to 2026. It will contain strategic policies to manage growth and guide new development. The Development Control Policies DPD will set out local policies for managing development in Huntingdonshire. The policies in this document will be used to assess and determining applications for development in the district and cover topic areas including climate change, housing, economic development, quality of life and the environment.

East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 and Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008.

The Local Plan 2000 concentrates growth in housing, employment and service provision within Ely, Soham and Littleport, including the reuse of previously developed sites. Elsewhere within the District, growth will be limited and is likely to take the form of meeting existing commitments and allocations and, where appropriate, the infilling or redevelopment of sites within the built framework.

The Core Strategy aims to provide for growth in a sustainable manner, planning for 8,600 dwellings between 2001 and 2021

Fenland Local Plan 1993 and Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006; Preferred Options 2 2007

The Local Plan 1993 concentrates growth in housing, employment and service provision within existing centres, an aim, which is continued in the Core Strategy. 11,000 dwellings will be required in Fenland by 2021.

Uttlesford Core Strategy – Preferred Options 2007

Housing is to be concentrated in a limited number of settlements. 8,000 dwellings are to be planned for by 2021.

North Herts Local Plan 1996 and Core Strategy & Development Policies Preferred Options 2007

The local plan 1996 seeks to restrain development pressures, maintain the existing pattern of settlements and countryside, and enhance the character of existing land uses in urban and rural areas.

Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan 2005 & Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD Preferred Options 2007

The local plan directs housing and economic development to within and adjoining the main urban areas, and in the strategic transportation corridors South West of Bedford and in East Bedfordshire.

The Core Strategy issues and options explores how housing and jobs required in the area should be accommodated.

Forest Heath Local Plan 1995 The Local Plan and the LDF Preferred Options focus



SUMMARY

and Core Strategy & Development Policies Preferred Options Report October 2006 & Site Specific Policies & Allocations DPD Issues & Options Report 2006

development on existing towns. The Site Specific Policies and Allocations DPD will determine development boundaries for towns and villages and allocate sites for the required range of land-use and scale of development outlined in the Core Strategy.

St. Edmundsbury Local Plan 2006; Core Strategy and Policies DPD – Issues and options 2008

The Local Plan 1993 concentrates growth in housing, employment and service provision within existing urban areas. The Council has to make provision for 10,000 dwellings up to 2021.

King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 and Core Strategy Issues and Options 2 2008; DC Policies Preferred Options 2007

The Borough has to accommodate growth of 12,000 houses to be built up to 2021. The issues and options document aims to accommodate this development sustainably and is closely linked to the Sustainable Community Strategy.

Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2005;

Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction and waste sites, and allocates sites.

Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals DPD - Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan – Issues and Options (Jan 2006); issues and options 2 2008; Waste DPD – Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan

Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction and waste sites, and allocates sites.

Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan 1998 (and review adopted 2007)

Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction, and allocates sites.

Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1998

Sets policies regarding proposals for waste sites, and allocates sites.

Hertfordshire Minerals & Waste DPDs Issues & Options & Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options Report, June 2007

Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction and waste sites, and allocates sites. The Waste Core Strategy sets out the spatial vision and strategic objectives for waste planning in the county. This will contain core policies needed to implement the overall objectives and covers the period to 2020.

Suffolk Minerals Local Plan 1999 & Minerals Core Strategy Submission 2007 & Minerals Specific Site Allocations DPD, April 2007

Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction, and allocates sites. The Core Strategy sets out the key elements of minerals planning framework for the county based on an agreed vision followed by aims and strategic objectives. The document also contains a suite of generic development control policies. The site allocations document



SUMMARY

looks at 25 potential sites for new minerals and waste developments.

Suffolk Waste Local Plan 2006; Waste Issues Report 2007

Sets policies regarding proposals for waste, and allocates sites.

Bedford Borough Local Plan 2006 and Bedford Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan Adopted 2008

The local plan plans for 6349 new dwellings as well as other development. LDF provides a strategy for future development, principally in urban areas of key growth areas.

Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005; Core Strategy –preferred options 2007

Includes new development on the edge of Milton Keynes.

Buckinghamshire County Council Waste Local Plan 1997

Sets policies regarding proposals for waste, and allocates sites.

Buckinghamshire Minerals DPD – Preferred options 2007

Providing policies for planning for minerals

Buckinghamshire Waste DPD – Preferred options 2007

Providing policies for planning for waste.

Milton Keynes Waste DPD Submission 2007

Sets policies regarding proposals for waste.

Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan 2006; Minerals DPD – preferred options 2007


Norfolk Waste Local Plan 2000 Sets policies regarding proposals for waste, and allocates sites.

Norfolk Minerals Local Plan 2004


Norfolk Mineral and Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Document -Preferred options stage 2008

Sets out policies for both minerals and waste planning


APPENDIX 2

Information on the Natura 2000 sites



INFORMATION ON THE NATURA 2000 SITES

NAME: EVERSDEN AND WIMPOLE WOODS

Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK0030331 SSSI boundary is the same as the SAC

LocationThe site is located in South Cambridgeshire District, but outside the area covered by the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan. The site is located close to Wimpole Park.

Grid ref: TL 340526 Area: 66.48 ha.

Primary reason for selection of the site Presence of colony of Barbastelle bats Barbastella barbastellus for which it is considered to be one of the best areas in UK.

Conservation objective To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the population of Barbastelle bats.

General Site characteristicsBroadleaved deciduous woodland (100%)Soil and geology – Basic, Clay Geomorphology and Landscape – Lowland

SpeciesBarbastella barbastellus bats. This is one of the UK’s rarest mammals. The species is protected on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Site Description The site comprises a mixture of ancient coppice woodland (Eversden Wood) and high forest woods likely to be of more recent origin (Wimpole Wood). A colony of barbastelle bats is associated with the trees in Wimpole Woods. These trees are used as a summer maternity roost where the female bats gather to give birth and rear their young. Most of the roost sites are within tree crevices. The bats also use the site as a foraging area. Some of the woodland is also used as a flight path when bats forage outside the area.

Eversden Wood is species-rich example of ancient ash (Fraxinus excelsior) field maple (Acer campestre) – dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis) woodland and one of the largest remaining sites of this type on the Cambridgeshire chalky boulder-clay.

The woodland is predominantly relict coppice of ash and field maple over an understorey of hazel (Corylus avellana) with aspen (Populus tremula), birch (Betulasp) and small-leaved elm (Ulmus minor) also locally dominant.


The ground flora is characterised by dog’s mercury and bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), and the damp soil conditions are reflected in the local abundance of associated plants such as meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Many herbs typical of old woodlands are present including yellow archangel (Galeobdolon luteum), wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa) and the nationally scarce oxlip (Primula elatior) a species largely confined to damp chalky boulder-clay woods of eastern England. Other locally uncommon plants represented include herb-Paris(Paris quadrifolia), and, particularly on the drier wood banks, pignut (Conopodium majus) and hairy wood-rush (Luzula pilosa).

The woodland rides provide additional habitat diversity and support herbs such as ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi) and false fox-sedge (Carex otrubae).

Management and ownership The primary management principles used for this site are those that maintain a regime of minimum management with little disturbance in order to protect the roosting sites in the woodland for the barbastelle bats.

Wimpole Woods is owned and managed by the National Trust and their management is aimed at maintaining and where possible, enhancing the barbastelle population.

Eversden Wood is privately owned and the current management is considered compatible with the use of this wood as a foraging area / flight path by barbastelles.

AccessThere is public access to the woods. Public rights of way go through both areas of woodland.

Wimpole Wood is near to Wimpole Park where the National Trust provide car parking for visitors to their estate. This is around 1km as the crow flies from the start of the woodland. There is also a minor road that runs between Wimpole and Eversden Woods and this provides very limited on road parking available closer to Eversden Wood but still some 500m away. This is not signposted as available for parking.

Current condition Natural England compiled a conditions report on Eversden and Wimpole Wood SSSI in 2008 (April report) and found that the site is meeting 100% of its PSA targets.1

The area is 100% favourable.2

Barbastelle bats require minimal disturbance within 2 km of their roost. They can forage up to 20km from their roosts but more typically venture around 6-8km. Barbastelle bats’ foraging routes radiate out from their roosting sites using a limited number of main routes, which split into major limbs and then into small branches.3

The main area of importance for them is shown on proposals map 1 in the 1 PSA target – the Government’s Public Service agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of the SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. 2 Favourable condition means that the SSSI land is being adequately conserved and is meeting its conservation objectives. 3 Greenaway F (2004) Advice for the management of flightlines and foraging habitats of the barbastelle Bat Barbastella barbastellus, English Nature Research Report 657.


Biodiversity Strategy published by South Cambridgeshire District Council in August 2006. It reflects the landscape and habitat of known value to bats, and also where survey effort has been deployed to date.

Vulnerability The current use of the woods, including public access, is considered compatible with the barbastelle interest and should not affect the barbastelle population or their roosts.


NAME: DEVIL’S DYKE

Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK0030037

LocationThe site is located in East Cambridgeshire district and also extends into Forest Heath district in Suffolk.

Grid ref: TL 611622 Area: 8.02 ha.

Primary reason for selection of the site Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia). (important orchid sites)

Conservation Objective To maintain in favourable condition unimproved calcareous grassland with particular reference to semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (CG3 and CG5 grassland) and Himantoglossum hircinum lizard orchid.

General site characteristicsDry grassland. Steppes (100%) Soil and geology – Basic, Limestone. Geomorphology and landscape – Lowland

SpeciesCG3 Bromopsis erectaCG5 Bromopsis erecta – Brachypodium pinnatum calcareous grasslands Himantoglossum hircinum – lizard orchid Pulsatilla vulgaris - Pasque flower

Site Description This section is the most species rich of the Devil’s Dyke which as a whole stretches from the Fen Edge at Reach ending at Ditton Green. The section that is identified as a SAC is adjacent to Newmarket Heath. Devil’s Dyke consists of a mosaic of CG3 Bromopsis erecta and CG5 Bromopsis erecta – Brachypodium pinnatumcalcareous grasslands.

It is the only known UK semi-natural dry grassland site for lizard orchid Himantoglossum hircinum. Lizard orchid is nationally rare (i.e. occurring in 15 or fewer 10x10 km squares) and is vulnerable in Great Britain. It is restricted to calcareous grasslands and dunes in southern England.

Management and ownership The dyke is in private ownership. There is a Devil’s Dyke Restoration Project set up which is a partnership scheme involving Natural England, English Heritage, Cambridgshire Wildlife Trust and the Cambridgshire County Council working with landowners and managers and local people. The aim of the project is to restore the dyke and there is an agreed management plan. The species rich calcareous


grassland requires active management without which it rapidly becomes dominated by rank grasses which leads to the encroachment of scrub over time. Traditional management is by grazing.

The Pasque flower is a speciality of the dyke and a Local Species Action Plan has been produced for this plant.

AccessThere is a public right of way running along the dyke. There is parking available at the July Race course, Newmarket.

Current condition As grazing declined in the early part of the twentieth century scrub has encroached onto many areas of the dyke. In the SAC area there had been some scrub encroachment on the southern part of the site and some clearance work has been undertaken. Surveys have been carried out by Natural England of the Dyke - the latest being in July 2008 and a report compiled in December 2008 concluded that the dyke is in a favourable condition. However in May 2002 the site was meeting 100% of its PSA targets and this has now reduced to 86% of its targets.

Vulnerability Although clearance work has been undertaken there will need to be control over any regrowth of scrub and any weediness of this section.


NAME: FENLAND

Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK 0014782 There are three fens that together form the Fenland SAC

1. Wicken Fen 2. Chippenham Fen 3. Woodwalton Fen

Each site is also a Ramsar site.

LocationWicken Fen and Chippenham Fen are in East Cambridgeshire District; Woodwalton Fen is in Huntingdonshire District.

Grid ref: Wicken Fen TL 555700; Chippenham Fen TL 648697; Woodwalton Fen TL 230840

Area: 618.64 ha.

Primary reason for selection of site for SAC Molinia meadows on calcareous peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) – considered to be one of the best areas in UK.

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae – considered to be rare as its total extent in the UK is estimated to be less than 1,000 ha; considered to be one of the best areas in UK.

Conservation objective To maintain in favourable condition:

�� Molinia meadows on chalk and clay (Eu- Molinion community) �� Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus (great fen sedge) and species of the

Caricion davallianae vegetation community.

To maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the population of spined loach and great crested newts.

General site characteristicsBog. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (70%) Broadleaved deciduous woodland (20%) Inland water body (standing water, running water) (5%) Other arable land (5%)

Soil and geology – Basic, peat Geomorphology – Floodplain, Lowland

SpeciesMolinion caeruleae

Cladium mariscus


Caricion davallianae Cobitis taenia (Spined loach) Triturus cristatus (Great crested newt)

Current conditions The fenland grasslands are dependent upon traditional management practices of cutting and grazing by livestock. In recent decades scrub and woodland have spread at the expense of fen vegetation. Appropriate water management is vital to maintenance of the special feature. The three constituent sites are all National Nature Reserves and the site management plans include actions to address this problem.

DESCRIPTION OF EACH SITE THAT TOGETHER FORMS THE FENLAND SAC

1. WICKEN FEN

LocationThis site is in East Cambridgeshire District.

Area: 254 ha.

Reason for Ramsar allocation Criterion 1 – One of the most outstanding remnants of East Anglian peat fens. The area is one of the few, which has not been drained. Traditional management has created a mosaic of habitats from open water to sedge and litter fields.

Criterion 2 - The site supports one species of British Red Data Book plant fen violet Viola persicifolia which survives at only two other sites in Britain. It contains eight nationally scarce plants and 121 British Red Data invertebrates.

Site description This site is a marginal remnant of the original peat fenland of the East Anglian basin. It has been preserved as a flood catchment area, and its water level is controlled by sluice gates.

The original peat fen lies to the north of Wicken Lodge. The site here supports fen communities of carr and sedge. The carr scrub is largely of alder buckthorn Frangulaalnus, buckthorn Rhamnus catharticus and sallow over a sparse vegetation of fen plants and including marsh fen Thelypteris palustris. The more open areas of sedge fen are typically of tall grasses, saw sedge Cladium mariscus, purple moor grass Molina caerulea, sedges Carex spp and rushes Juncus spp.

Nationally important higher plants include Viola persicifolia, Lathyrus palustris, Myriophyllum verticillatum, Oenanthe fluviatilis and milk parsley Peucedanum palustre.


To the south of the Wicken Lode, the area is of rough pasture land, reedbed and pools which are attractive to breeding wetland birds and to wintering wildfowl, the area being subjected to winter flooding.

The dykes, abandoned claypits and other watercourses carry a great wealth of aquatic plants. Many, such as greater spearwort Ranunculus flammula and lesser water-plaintain Baldellia ranunculoides are now uncommon elsewhere.

Management and ownershipThe site is owned by the National Trust and managed by a local management committee, which reports to the East Anglian Regional Office of the National Trust.

The continuation of the historic systems of management and the effective monitoring and maintenance of water levels underlies the Fen’s ecology and are crucial for the success of all other management practices. The Fen is artificially protected from drying out by a water-retaining membrane.

AccessThere is a visitor centre and shop, nature trails, three hides and 16km of walking routes. Entry is by permit only to help control visitor numbers. Visitors are also managed by ‘zoning ‘ parts of the Fen near the entrance, leaving the more remote parts of the site relatively undisturbed. The Fen is open throughout the year from dawn to dusk.

Current conditions Natural England has compiled a report about the condition of the SSSI (December 2008). Only 36% of the site is meeting PSA targets. 53% is unfavourable declining.

Vulnerability The reason for the adverse conditions is related to inappropriate water levels in the fen, marsh and swamp areas.

Work carried out in the nearby river system to prevent flooding in the 1960s means that the site no longer receives the amount of winter water as it did in the past. This has brought about a lowering of the water table over the past 40 years (Ramsar Report 5.5.06).

2. CHIPPENHAM FEN

LocationThis site is in East Cambridgeshire District Council.

Area: 112 ha.

Reason for Ramsar allocation Criterion 1 - A spring-fed calcareous basin mire with a long history of management which is partly reflected in the diversity of the present-day vegetation.


Criterion 2 – The invertebrate fauna is very rich partly due to its transitional position between Fenland and Breckland. The species list is very long, including many rare and scarce invertebrates characteristics of ancient fenland sites in GB. Criterion 3 – The site supports diverse vegetation types, rare and scarce plants. The site is the stronghold of Cambridge milk parsley Selinum carvifolia

Site descriptionThe site comprises areas of tall and often rich fen, fen grassland and basic flush that have developed over shallow peat soils. The site also contains calcareous grassland, neutral grassland, woodland, mixed scrub and open water.

The site is in a shallow peat-filled depression underlain by a thick layer of marl which rises to the surface in places. The fen is fed by rainfall and springs from the chalk aquifer. There are several ponds on the site and a system of dykes take water from the springs, in the south of the reserve, to the Chippenham River, near its northern boundary.

The areas of tall fen are dominated by a mosaic of saw sedge Cladium mariscus and reed Phragmites australis are present with abundant purple moor grass Moliniacaerulea. A rich fen has developed in mown areas supporting the nationally rare Selinum carvifolia. In one area this merges into a species rich basic flush where black bog rush Schoenus nigricans becomes abundant. Dense and scattered scrub has developed. There are areas of chalk grassland that grade into the fen grassland. The damp neutral grassland meadows are developing a fen meadow flora. The ditches support a rich aquatic flora.

The water level is controlled within a series of ditches.

Because the fen contains such a wide range of habitats it supports a wide variety of breeding bird species, including hobby, short eared owl, nightingale and several species of warbler. It also forms the winter roosting for hen harriers.

Management and ownership Both the site and surrounding areas are privately owned. Part of the site is under unspecified tenure. The site is mainly used for nature conservation

The site is actively managed by Natural England through regular cutting and grazing with cattle. Encroaching scrub is being removed to restore fen where appropriate. A water compensation scheme has been instituted to ameliorate the effects of water abstraction. The Environment Agency monitors groundwater changes in the aquifer.

AccessThere are rights of way across the site. Access away from the paths is by permit only. The nearest car parking is in the villages of Fordham or Chippenham.

There is a low level of usage by local inhabitants using the rights of way through the middle of the site according to the Ramsar information sheet. Few people apply for permits for recreational purposes, they are mainly requested by naturalists.


Current conditions For reporting purposes the SSSI is divided into 17 units. 85.41% of the area is meeting the PSA target.

Chippenham Fen NNR has suffered from a changed hydrological regime due to abstraction from the underlying chalk aquifer. This problem is being addressed through supply of supplementary water together with a programme of vegetation and invertebrate population monitoring. This project is being taken forward by Natural England, the Environment Agency and Anglian Water Services plc.

Vulnerability There is considerable pressure in the region from the water abstraction that may affect the local springs and aquifer. Persistent drought is a potential threat as seven of nine years in the recent past have received well below average rainfall for the regions (Report dated 2002).

The habitats within the site are highly sensitive to inorganic fertilisers and pesticides, applications of which should be avoided both within the site itself and in adjacent surrounding areas.

3. WOODWALTON FEN

LocationThis fen is in Huntingdonshire District.

Area: 229.7 ha.

Reason for Ramsar allocation Criterion 1 – The site is within an area of one of the remaining parts of East Anglia which has not been drained.

Criterion 2 – The site supports two species of British Red Data Book plants - fen violet and fen wood rush.

Site descriptionThis fen holds a range of wetland plant communities once characteristic of large areas of the East Anglian fens. The site was once a raised bog associated with the former Whittlesey Mere and was dug for peat in the late 19th century when most of the acidic peat was removed, exposing the underlying fen peat. The vegetation of the area today largely reflects this historical use of the site. The open fen and swamp communities represented are of several types. A relict of the acid peat holds stands of purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea with ling Calluna vulgaris, bog myrtle Myrica gale, tormentil Potentilla erecta and the saw sedge Cladium mariscus. Afurther swamp community is dominated by purple small-reed Calamagrostis epigejos.Mixed fen covers a significant part of the site. This vegetation community is floristically rich and contains species such as meadow rue Thalictrum flavum, yellow iris Iris pseudacorus, swamp meadow-grass Poa palustris and great water dock Rumex hydrolapathum. Rare fen plants such as the fen wood-rush Luzulapallescens and fen violet Viola persicifolia occur.


Of particular note is the network of ditches on the site and these hold many water plants which are now relatively uncommon in Britain including bladderwort Urticulariavulgaris and water violet Hottonia palustris. In addition, two meres have been dug in order to increase the area of standing water on the site and these have proved valuable for aquatic plant and animal communities. Further habitats of significance on the site include marshy grassland, birch and alder woodland and fen carr. The carr is varied in composition and contains willow Salix spp., blackthorn Prunusspinosa, birch betula spp and guelder rose Viburnum opulus.

The whole site is a patchwork of wetland communities, providing a habitat for many uncommon plant and insect species-a number of which are confined to East Anglia.

Management and ownership The site was purchased by Hon Charles Rothschild in 1910 and donated to the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves (now the Royal Society for Nature Conservation) in 1919. Since the 1950s the pro-active management of the site has sought to reverse the drying out process and therefore conserve this crucial fenland habitat. The site is leased from the Wildlife Trust to Natural England.

The effective monitoring and maintenance of water levels underlies the Fen ecology and is crucial for the success of all other management practises. A Water Level Management Plan has been implemented and the site is flooded in winter in time of high water flows thus protecting low-lying farmland. However as a consequence nutrient levels in the water can be high due to agricultural runoff. Water inflows and outflows are strictly controlled. In the 1980s clay sealed banks were constructed around the perimeter of the reserve, this isolated water levels on the fen from that of the surrounding area.

The Great Fen project aims to link this nature reserve with Holme Fen.

AccessParking is limited at this site – some being available alongside the Great Raveley Drain. There are three marked trails around the fen following the rides. There are no public rights of way across the reserve but visitors are allowed access to the site. There is restricted access to some areas of the site and no dogs are allowed onto any part of the site.

Current condition Woodwalton Fen takes water in the summer months from the surrounding drains. In the winter months the fen is designed to be used as a flood storage area, although this occurs infrequently. In both these circumstances the water entering the Fen is high in nutrients from agricultural run-off. It is intended to undertake research to investigate what effects the flooding may be having on the site's interests.

Considerable work has been undertaken to help progress the reed beds towards favourable conditions including annual cutting and installation of windpump to control water levels. Further scrub removal is programmed to be carried out. Major scrub clearance and coppice management work is to be completed by 2008.


Vulnerability The area is meeting 100% of the PSA target. The quality of the water from the agricultural run-off needs to be monitored.


NAME: OUSE WASHES

Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site – UK0013011. The boundaries of the Ramsar site as extended are coincident with those of the Ouse Washes SSSI.

LocationThis site is located in East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and West Norfolk Districts.

Grid reference: TL 498895

Area: 2,403 ha. (Ramsar site and SSI site): 311.35 ha. (SAC site).

Primary reason for selection of this site as SAC Spined loach Cobitis taenia – This site is only one of four known outstanding localities in the UK.

Conservation objective: To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the populations of Annexe 1species (Bewicks swan, whooper swan, hen harrier, spotted crake, and ruff) migratory species of European importance (widgeon, gadwall, pintail, shoveler, pochard and black-tailed Godwit) and wintering waterfowl assemblage of European importance, with particular reference to grassland / marshy grassland with ditches and open water.

Also to maintain in favourable condition the habitat for spined loach.

General site characteristicsInland water bodies (standing water, running water) (50%) Bogs Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (20%) Improved grassland (30%)

Site Description The Ouse Washes represent spined loach populations within the River Ouse catchment. The Counter Drain with its clear water and abundant macrophytes is particularly important and a healthy population of spined loach is known to occur.

The site is an area of seasonally flooded washlands habitat managed in a traditional agricultural manner. The washlands support nationally and internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl and nationally important numbers of breeding waterfowl. The site is also of note for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities, which it holds, and for the richness of the aquatic flora within the associated watercourses.

Reasons for identification as a Ramsar Site The Ouse Washes Ramsar site and its proposed extension is a wetland of major international importance comprising seasonally flooded washlands, which are


agriculturally managed in a traditional manner. It provides breeding and winter habitats for important assemblages of wetland bird species, particularly wildfowl and waders.

Ramsar Criterion 1a - The site qualifies by being a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland characteristic of its biogeographical region. It is one of the most extensive areas of seasonally flooding washland of its type in Britain, and the wetland has high conservation value for many plant and animal groups.

Ramsar Criterion 2a - The site qualifies by supporting a number of rare species of plants and animals. The site holds several nationally scarce plants, including the whorled water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum, greater water parsnip Sium latifolium, river water-dropwort Oenanthe fluviatilis, fringed water-lily Nymphoidespeltata, long stalked pondweed Potamogeton praelongus, hair-like pondweed Potamogeton trichoides, grass-wrack pondweed Potamogeton compressus,tasteless water-pepper Polygonum mite, small water-pepper Polygonum minusand marsh dock Rumex palustris. Invertebrate records indicate that the site holds a good relict fenland fauna for several groups, reflecting the diversity of wetland habitats. Two rare Red Data Book insects have been recorded, the large darter dragonfly Libellula fulva and the riffle beetle Oulimnius major.

Ramsar Criterion 2a - The Ouse Washes also qualifies by supporting a diverse assemblage of rare breeding waterfowl associated with seasonally flooding wet grassland. This includes breeding migratory waders of lowland wet grassland: oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, redshank Tringa totanus, snipe Gallinagogallinago, ruff Phdomachus pugnax. lapwing Vanellus vanellus, and black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa, and a diverse assemblage of breeding wildfowl with mute swan Cygnus olor, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, gadwall Anas strepera, teal A.crecca, mallard A. platyritynchus, pintail A. acuta, garganey A. querquedu" shoveler A. clypeata, pochard Aythya ferina, tufted duck Aythya fuligulaa,moorhen Gallinula chloropus and coot Fulica atra occurring regularly. Many of these species are rare and much restricted in Britain and the European Community owing to habitat loss and degradation. The site thus has an important role in maintaining the ranges of several of these species, which have been affected by changes in habitat elsewhere in Britain. Breeding gadwall, mallard, garganey A. querquedula, shoveler and bar-tailed godwit are all present in nationally important numbers.

Ramsar Criterion 5 - The Ouse Washes qualifies as a wetland of international importance by virtue of regularly supporting over 20,000 waterfowl, with an average peak count of 60,950 birds recorded in the five winter periods 1986/7 to 1990/91.

Ramsar Criterion 6 - The Ouse Washes also qualifies by supporting, in winter, internationally important populations of the following species (figures given are average peak counts for the five winter period 1986/87 - 1990/91): 4,980 Bewick's swan Cygnus columbarius bewicki (29% of the north-west European wintering population); 590 whooper swans Cygnus Cygnus (3% of the


international population); 38,000 wigeon Anas penelope (5% of the north-west European population); 4,100 teal A. crecca (1% of NW European); 1,450 pintail Anas acuta (2% NW European); and 750 shoveler Anas clypeata (2% of NW European). Also notable are the following nationally important wintering populations: 270 cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (2% of the British wintering population); 490 mute swan Cygnus olor (3% of British); 320 gadwall Anasstrepera (5% of British); 2,100 pochard Aythya ferina (4% of British); 860 tufted duck Aythya fuligula (1 % of British); and 2,320 coot Fulica atra.

During severe winter weather elsewhere, the Ouse Washes can assume even greater national and international importance as wildfowl and waders from many other areas arrive, attracted by the relatively mild climate, compared with continental European areas, and the abundant food resources available.

The continued international importance of this site is dependant on the maintenance of a winter flooding regime and a high, but controlled summer water table.

Reasons for identification as a Special Protection Area The Ouse Washes Ramsar site and the Special Protection Area is a wetland of major international importance comprising seasonally flooded wash lands, which are agriculturally managed in a traditional manner. It provides breeding and winter habitats for important assemblages of wetland bird species, particularly wildfowl and waders.

The boundaries of the Special Protection Area are coincident with those of the Ouse Washes SSSI, apart from the exclusion of a section of the Old Bedford River in the north of the SSSI.

The Ouse Washes qualifies under Article 4.1 of the EC Birds Directive by supporting, in summer, a nationally important breeding population of ruff Philomachus pugnax, an Annex 1 species. In recent years an average of 57 individuals have been recorded, a significant proportion of the British population.

The site also qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting internationally or nationally important wintering populations of three Annex 1 species. During the five year period 1986/87 to 1990/91, the following average peak counts were recorded: 4,980 Bewick's swan Cygnus columbarius bewickii (29% of the north-west European wintering population, 70% of the British wintering population), and 590 whooper swans Cygnus Cygnus (3% of the international population, 10% of British). In addition, between 1982-87 an average of 12 wintering hen harrier Circus cyaneus was recorded, representing 2% of the British wintering population.

The Ouse Washes qualifies under Article 4.2 by supporting, in summer, in recent years, nationally important breeding populations of five migratory species: 111 pairs of gadwall Anas strepera (20% of the British breeding population); 850 pairs of mallard Anas platyrhynchus (2% of British); 14 pairs of garganey Anas querquedula (20% of British), 155 pairs of shoveler A. clypeata (12% of British), and 26 pairs of black-tailed godwits Limosa limosa (44% of British).


The site further qualifies under Article 42 as a wetland of international importance by virtue of regularly supporting over 20,000 waterfowl, with an average peak count of 60,950 birds recorded in the five winter period 1986/1 to 1990/'91. This total included-internationally or nationally important wintering populations of the following migratory waterfowl (figures given are average peak counts for the five winter period 1986/87 - 1990/91): 270 cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (296 of the British wintering population); 490 mute swan Cygnus olor (3% of British); 38,000 wigeon Anas penelope (596 of the north-west European population, 1596 of British); 320 gadwall Anas strepera (5% of British); 4,100 teal A. crecca (1% of NW European, 4% of British); 1,450 pintail Anas acuta (2% NW European, 6% of British); 750 shoveler Anas clvpeata (2% of NW European, 8% of British); 2,100 pochard Aythya ferina (4% of British): 860 tufted duck Aythya fuligula (1% of British); and 2,320 coot Fulica atra (l % of British).

The site also qualifies under Article 4.2 by virtue of regularly supporting, in summer, a diverse assemblage of the breeding migratory waders of lowland wet grassland including: oystercatcher Haematopus ostmlegus, redshank Tringa totanus, snipe Gallinago gallinago, Ruff Philomachus pugnax lapwing Vanellus vanellus, and black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa; and a diverse assemblage of breeding wildfowl with mute swan Cygnus olor, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, gadwall Anas strepera, teal A. crecca, mallard A. platvrhynchus, pintail A. acuta, garganey A. querquedula, shoveler A. clypeata, pochard Aythya farina, tufted duck Aythya fuligula, moorhen Gallinula chloropus and coot Fulica atra occurring regularly. Many of these species are rare and much restricted in Britain and the European Community owing to habitat loss and degradation. The site thus has an important role in maintaining the ranges of several of these species, which have been affected by changes in habitat elsewhere in Britain.

During severe winter weather elsewhere, the Ouse Washes can assume even greater national and international importance as wildfowl and waders from many other areas arrive, attracted by the relatively mild climate, compared with continental European areas, and the abundant food resources available.

The continued international importance of this site is dependant on the maintenance of a winter flooding regime and a high, but controlled summer water table.

Management and ownership Given the extent of the Ouse Washes there are a number of management techniques that need to be carried out in the washes. Wetland grassland requires active management if it is to retain its conservation interest this has traditionally been done by grazing. Partial winter flooding is required to maintain suitable habitat conditions for wintering birds. A mosaic of winter flooded grassland and permanently un-flooded grassland is desirable. Ditches are artificial habitats created by land drainage – if left unmanaged silt accumulates in the bottom of the ditches leading to the loss the range of aquatic plants and animals colonising the ditches. There needs to be a rotation undertaken on ditch management. Also the level of water in the ditches and its quality needs to be regulated to maintain the


optimum level for the plant and animal community. All the habitats are highly sensitive to inorganic fertilisers and pesticides.

Access There is a network of public rights of way in the Washes. The RSPB manage a nature reserve at Welches Dam where there is a visitor centre and a number of bird hides. The WWT manage a nature reserve at Welney, Norfolk also with a centre and hides.

Current condition Assessment work was carried out in 2003 and at this time many of the units that comprise the Washes were in an unfavourable state. Only 12.93% of the site meets the PSA target. The water quality regularly fails to meet total Phosphorus target of 0.1mg/l. Until this can be remedied the site will continue to remain unfavourable.

Vulnerability Two independent and parallel rivers comprise the SAC. The Counter Drain / Old Bedford (known also as the outer river) drains adjacent farmland. The Old Bedford / Delph (known also as the inner river) is sourced by the River Great Ouse. During the winter and increasingly during the spring and summer months as well, the inner river takes flood-water from the Great Ouse, and therefore has an important flood defence function. Issues of concern relate to water quantity, water quality, salinity, turbidity and sediment.

The need to ensure there is sufficient water for the rivers is addressed through the Water Level Management Plan agreed by the Environment Agency and partner organisations. The outer river is also a source of water for nearby arable land forming spray irrigation, but this abstraction is unmetered for the most part. Abstraction of water from the Great Ouse system to Essex via the Ely-Ouse Transfer Scheme is monitored through the Denver License Variation. Other proposals for water abstraction, e.g. to Rutland Water by Anglia Water, have been the subject of assessment, but there are no current proposals.

Water quality is a major issue of concern. Increases in two plant nutrients - nitrogen and particularly phosphorus (thought to be derived from sewage treatment works) - are leading to changes in the macrophyte communities, shown by a decline in species diversity and the loss of species together with an increase in species tolerant of eutrophic conditions. This is particularly apparent in the inner river. There is evidence that agricultural inputs are a minor component. In addition, blanket-weed (aquatic algae) poses problems to navigation and angling, leading to issues of timing and frequency of aquatic weed-cutting. Water quality issues are currently the subject of debate between the Environment Agency and Natural England. Three sewage treatment works in the Great Ouse will be covered by the Urban Waste Water Directive, but there remain more than 90 smaller works. These will be subject to the Review of Consents to be undertaken by the Environment Agency within the next four years. A case could be prepared and submitted to OFWAT and the Water Industries AMP 4 Programme commencing 2005, in order to strip phosphates from all relevant sewage treatment works in the system.


In addition, flood water draining off the adjacent Ouse Washes into the inner river can be of a very poor quality (particularly in warm weather) leading to problems of deoxygenation with resultant fish-kills. The frequency of increased spring and summer flooding on the Ouse Washes is currently being studied to ascertain ways of ameliorating its effects.

Saline intrusion through the northernmost tidal lock gate may be contributing to an increase in salinity levels of the outer river.

Conditions must be applied to planning permissions for gravel extraction from quarries near to the SAC, to ensure that drainage water from de-watering and washings does not affect the turbidity and sediment levels in the outer river.


NAME: PORTHOLME

Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK0030054.

LocationThis site is within Huntingdonshire District.

Grid reference: TL 237708 Area: 91.93 ha.

Primary reason for selection of this site Lowland hay meadows MG4Alopecurus pratensis Sanguisorba officinalis – considered to be one of the best areas in UK.

Conservation objectives To maintain in favourable condition the lowland hay meadow. General site characteristicsHumid grassland (100%) Soil and geology – Alluvial, Neutral Geomorphology and landscape – Floodplain, Lowland.

SpeciesAlopecurus pratensis Sanguisorba officinalis Fritillaria meleagrisLibellula fulva.

Site Description It is the largest surviving traditionally managed meadow in the UK with an area of 104 ha. of alluvial flood meadow (7% of the total UK resource). It is almost completely surrounded by water. There has been a long history of favourable management on traditional lines as a ‘lammas’ meadow and very little of the site has suffered from agricultural improvement, and so it demonstrates good conservation of structure and function. It supports a small population of fritillary (Fritillaria meleagris).Watercourses on the periphery of the site have populations of some uncommon invertebrates including one dragonfly, which is of a nationally restricted distribution.

The grassland communities are characterised by the presence of such grasses as Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, yellow oat-grass Trisetum flavescens, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis,and meadow fescue Festuca pratensis. The range of herbs present, typical of such meadows, includes lady’s bedstraw Galium verum, pepper-saxifrage Silaum silaus and great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis. A number of locally rare and one nationally rare plant are also present.

Channels of the River Ouse surround the meadow, and the Alconbury Brook is close by. These water bodies are important for dragonflies (Odonata) in particular the restricted dragonfly Libellula fulva.


Large flocks of waders use this site in winter.

Management and ownership The London Anglers Association owns the site and is advised on the management of the site by Natural England.

Neutral grassland requires active management if it is to retain its conservation interest. In order to maintain a species rich sward, each year’s growth of vegetation must be removed; otherwise the sward becomes progressively dominated by tall and vigorous grasses. These, together with an associated build up of dead plant matter, suppress less vigorous species and reduce the botanical diversity of the site.

The traditional management of this site, which still continues, is by cutting for hay followed by grazing of the aftermath in later summer until the autumn. In winter and early spring Portholme is inundated by floodwaters. This provides natural fertilising of the soil and it is this seasonal flooding coupled with the traditional management that maintains the diversity of the natural plant communities.

Part of the site is subject to a Countryside Stewardship agreement aimed at maintaining the alluvial flood meadow. The Environment Agency has produced a Water Level Management plan, which aims to maintain the current water level management regime in the long term and recommends improvements in data collection on water levels and flooding frequency. The recommendation will be incorporated in the relevant Local Environment Agency Plan (due to go to consultation in 1999).

In the past MAFF had sponsored dipwell monitoring of the meadows. Water table levels are vital to the management of this site. Currently no monitoring is being carried out. Anglian Water Services (AWS) is required to produce a statutory water company drought plan under the requirements of the new s39B of the Water Industry Act 1991 as introduced by the Water Act 2003. For each site, potential changes arising from the drought actions have been identified and the existence and adequacy of current monitoring programmes has been provisionally assessed. For the most part, existing monitoring are adequate for monitoring the effects of the drought actions. In relation to Portholme it recommends in the 2006 Drought Plan the following:

‘One site (Portholme Meadow) has been monitored in the past and this work is probably sufficient to determine a baseline. However, no monitoring is currently being undertaken. Previous modelling studies suggest that reductions in river water levels are likely to be very small and are therefore unlikely to have any effect on riparian water table levels in adjacent meadows or water levels in adjacent gravel pits.’

AccessThere are three main entrances to the meadow and visitors can walk around the site on the extensive footpaths, which lead off the main entrances. The footpaths form a triangle across the meadow and each footpath is approximately 1.6km in length.


Current condition The units of the site were assessed in June 2005 and 2006 and it was found to have inappropriate cutting / mowing regimes and inappropriate weed control. The site was not meeting the PSA target at all. 90.92% of the area was seen to be in unfavourable but remaining unchanged i.e. not in decline. Overall the sward composition and structure were well within the criteria recommended for MG4 grassland however the unit failed on the frequency of Rumex crispus.

Vulnerability Without a controlled management plan the site will not retain its conservation interest.



APPENDIX 3

Maps



MAPS

CONTENTS

Site maps for each Natura 2000 site

Map 1 Eversden and Wimpole Woods Map 2 Devil’s Dyke Map 3 Fenland - Wicken Fen Map 4 Fenland - Chippenham Fen Map 5 Fenland - Woodwalton Fen Map 6 Ouse Washes - North Map 7 Ouse Washes – South Map 8 Portholme

Map 9 Major Development Sites

Maps showing the extent of SAC sites; SPA sites and Ramsar sites in relation to the Traveller and gypsy sites proposed within South Cambridgeshire District including a 5km radius from each designated site. Index of sites in table below

Map 10 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Map 11 Special Protection Areas (SPA) Map 12 Ramsar sites

Table showing index of sites

SiteNumber Location Address Number of

Pitches

1 Edge of Cambridge Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 28

2 Edge of Cambridge Plots 1, 3 & 5 Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 17

3 Edge of Cambridge Cambridge East 20

4 Edge of Cambridge

North West Cambridge – Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road 10

5 Edge of Cambridge

North West Cambridge – Land between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road (University Site) 10

6 Northstowe Northstowe 20 7 Cambourne Cambourne 10 8 Fulbourn Ida Darwin Hospital 5

9 Willingham Grange Park, Foxes Meadow, Iram Drove (off Priest Lane) 1

10 Willingham Plots 1 & 2 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 11 Willingham Plots 3 & 4 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 12 Willingham Plots 5 & 6 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2

13 Willingham Land to rear of Long Acre and Green Acres, Meadow Road 3


SiteNumber Location Address Number of

Pitches

14 Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow Road (1) 1

15 Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow Road (2) 1

16 Willingham Site of storage/agricultural buildings east of Long Acre, Meadow Road 1

17 Willingham The Oaks, Meadow Road 1

18 Bassingbourn Land at Spring Lane 5

19 Swavesey Rose & Crown Road 8

20 Whaddon New Farm, Old North Road 2

21Milton

(Edge of Cambridge)

Blackwell Traveller site, Milton - Transit Site option 10

22 Meldreth Travelling Showpeople Site option 6


























APPENDIX 4

Habitats Directive Assessment Screening Matrix


App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

81

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

APP

END

IX 4

- H

AB

ITA

TS R

EGU

LATI

ON

S A

SSES

SMEN

T SC

REE

NIN

G M

ATR

IX

SCR

EEN

ING

MA

TRIX

For

Eve

rsde

n an

d W

impo

le W

ood

SAC

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f N

atur

a 20

00 s

ite

Ever

sden

and

Wim

pole

Woo

ds (g

rid lo

catio

n TL

340

526)

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

SA

C –

Pre

senc

e of

col

ony

of

Bar

bast

elle

bat

s (B

arba

stel

la b

arba

stel

lus

)

Thes

e w

oods

com

pris

e a

mix

ture

of a

ncie

nt c

oppi

ce w

oodl

and

(Eve

rsde

n W

ood)

and

hig

h fo

rest

woo

ds li

kely

to b

e of

mor

e re

cent

orig

in (W

impo

le W

oods

). A

col

ony

of b

arba

stel

le b

ats

is

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e tre

es in

Wim

pole

Woo

ds.

Thes

e tre

es a

re

used

as

a su

mm

er m

ater

nity

roos

t whe

re th

e fe

mal

e ba

ts g

athe

r to

give

birt

h an

d re

ar th

eir y

oung

. M

ost o

f the

roos

t site

s ar

e w

ithin

tre

e cr

evic

es.

The

bats

als

o us

e th

e si

te a

s fo

ragi

ng a

rea.

Som

e of

the

woo

dlan

d is

als

o us

ed a

s a

fligh

t pat

h w

hen

bats

fora

ge

outs

ide

the

site

. Th

is is

one

of t

he U

K’s

rare

st m

amm

als.

This

site

is lo

cate

d in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Dis

trict

.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 c

ould

affe

ct E

vers

den

and

Wim

pole

Woo

d?

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Doc

umen

t (G

TDP

D)

will

pro

vide

a v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re o

f Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd w

ill s

et o

ut p

olic

ies

and

prop

osal

s as

th

ey re

late

to p

lann

ing

for G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in th

e D

istri

ct.

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge id

entif

ies

site

opt

ions

for G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler p

itche

s an

d Tr

avel

ling

Sho

wpe

ople

Plo

ts, a

nd d

raft

polic

ies

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e fin

al D

PD

.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge, o

ne

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

82

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

AA

P fo

r a n

ew s

ettle

men

t at N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, i

nclu

ding

allo

catio

ns o

f lan

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

: ��

Cam

brid

ge C

ity C

ore

Stra

tegy

(DP

D) –

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

(Reg

25)

, 200

7 ��

Cam

brid

ge L

ocal

Pla

n 20

04

��H

untin

gdon

shire

Loc

al P

lan

1995

��

Hun

tingd

onsh

ire C

ore

Stra

tegy

Sub

mis

sion

Dra

ft 20

08 &

D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

Issu

es &

Opt

ions

R

epor

t, 20

07

��C

ambr

idge

shire

and

Pet

erbo

roug

h M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 –

Sep

tem

ber 2

008.

��

Bed

ford

shire

and

Lut

on M

iner

als

and

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 20

05��

Bed

ford

shire

and

Lut

on M

iner

als

Cor

e S

trate

gy a

nd S

ite

Allo

catio

n P

lan

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

(Jan

200

6); I

ssue

s an

d O

ptio

ns 2

200

8; W

aste

DP

D –

Cor

e S

trate

gy a

nd S

ite

Allo

catio

n P

lan

2006

��

Her

tford

shire

Min

eral

s Lo

cal P

lan

1998

(and

revi

ew

adop

ted

2007

) ��

Her

tford

shire

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 19

98

��H

ertfo

rdsh

ire M

iner

als

& W

aste

DP

Ds

Issu

es &

Opt

ions

&

Was

te C

ore

Stra

tegy

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns R

epor

t, Ju

ne 2

007

��B

edfo

rd B

orou

gh L

ocal

Pla

n 20

06 a

nd B

edfo

rd C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

Rur

al Is

sues

Pla

n A

dopt

ed 2

008

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

83

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t pro

pose

any

opt

ions

that

will

take

land

from

Wim

pole

an

d E

vers

den

Woo

ds, a

nd w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

fra

gmen

tatio

n of

hab

itats

.

No

othe

r pla

ns p

ropo

se d

evel

opm

ent t

hat w

ould

take

land

fro

m th

is s

ite.

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

or o

ther

pla

ns, w

hich

di

rect

ly im

pact

, on

the

woo

ds b

y pr

opos

ing

deve

lopm

ent.

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

Eve

rsde

n an

d W

impo

le W

oods

are

hom

e to

the

Bar

bast

elle

B

at.

The

bats

can

fora

ge u

p to

20k

m fr

om th

eir r

oost

s bu

t m

ore

typi

cally

ven

ture

aro

und

6-8k

m.

Bar

bast

elle

bat

s re

quire

min

imal

dis

turb

ance

with

in 2

km

of t

heir

roos

t. Th

e m

ain

‘are

a of

impo

rtanc

e’ fo

r the

bat

s ha

s be

en e

xam

ined

in

the

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Bio

dive

rsity

Stra

tegy

, and

is

show

n on

map

1 a

ttach

ed.

This

map

is in

clud

ed in

the

Bio

dive

rsity

SP

D.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t con

tain

opt

ions

that

wou

ld n

egat

ivel

y im

pact

on

the

bats

. A

ll th

e si

te o

ptio

ns a

re o

f a li

mite

d sc

ale

and

wou

ld

not a

ffect

the

fora

ging

are

as o

f the

bat

s. T

he n

eare

st s

ite

optio

n do

es n

ot fa

ll w

ithin

the

mai

n ‘a

rea

of im

porta

nce’

for

the

bats

. Ad

ditio

nally

this

site

opt

ion

is o

f suc

h sm

all s

cale

th

at it

wou

ld n

ot im

pact

on

the

bats

or t

heir

roos

ting

area

s in

th

e w

oods

.

Look

ing

at th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

O

ptio

ns 2

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns, n

one

of th

e m

ajor

dev

elop

men

ts id

entif

ied

in th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

fall

with

in e

ither

the

area

of m

inim

al d

istu

rban

ce o

r the

mai

n

The

woo

ds a

re re

lativ

ely

isol

ated

, and

not

loca

ted

near

to a

ny o

f the

loca

tions

for m

ajor

de

velo

pmen

t ide

ntifi

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

. Th

e cl

oses

t maj

or d

evel

opm

ent w

ill b

e on

e of

the

urba

n ex

tens

ions

pro

pose

d to

Cam

brid

ge.

Thes

e ar

e no

t spe

cifie

d in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, b

ut th

e S

truct

ure

Pla

n id

entif

ies

the

Cam

brid

ge s

outh

ern

fring

e an

d no

rthw

est C

ambr

idge

as

two

loca

tions

fo

r dev

elop

men

t. A

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n ha

s be

en

adop

ted

for t

he fo

rmer

and

is a

t the

Sub

mis

sion

st

age

for t

he la

tter.

The

se a

re o

ver 8

km

dis

tant

. Th

e ne

w to

wn

of N

orth

stow

e is

ove

r 13

km

dist

ant.

The

se a

re s

ome

dist

ance

from

the

‘are

a of

impo

rtanc

e’ id

entif

ied

in th

e B

iodi

vers

ity S

PD

.

The

woo

ds a

re a

lso

som

e di

stan

ce fr

om a

ny

villa

ges

whe

re s

mal

l-sca

le w

indf

all d

evel

opm

ent

coul

d ta

ke p

lace

und

er th

e ru

ral s

ettle

men

t po

licie

s of

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy.

How

ever

, any

suc

h de

velo

pmen

t wou

ld b

e w

ithin

vill

age

fram

ewor

ks

and

wou

ld n

ot in

volv

e th

e us

e of

gre

enfie

ld la

nd in

th

e co

untry

side

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

84

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

‘are

a of

impo

rtanc

e’.

The

dra

ft C

ambr

idge

shire

Min

eral

s an

d W

aste

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 (

Sep

t 20

08) p

ropo

ses

an e

xten

sion

to B

arrin

gton

Qua

rry,

whi

ch

lies

with

in th

e ‘a

rea

of im

porta

nce’

. Th

e in

itial

scr

eeni

ng

show

ed th

at th

ere

was

a re

mot

e po

ssib

ility

that

the

min

eral

ex

tract

ion

wou

ld im

pact

on

the

bats

hab

itat a

nd th

eref

ore

the

Cou

nty

is in

tend

ing

to c

arry

out

a fu

ll A

ppro

pria

te

Ass

essm

ent (

AA

). W

hils

t it i

s no

t exp

ecte

d th

is p

olic

y w

ith

site

allo

catio

n w

ill a

dver

sely

affe

ct th

e si

te it

nee

ds to

be

asse

ssed

usi

ng th

e pr

ecau

tiona

ry p

rinci

ple.

Fol

low

ing

on

from

the

full

AA

the

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n w

ill b

e re

vise

d by

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

to e

nsur

e th

at th

e P

lan

does

not

hav

e an

ad

vers

e im

pact

on

any

Eur

opea

n si

te p

rior t

o its

sub

mis

sion

to

the

Sec

reta

ry o

f Sta

te.

Alth

ough

out

side

the

'are

a of

impo

rtanc

e', t

he c

lose

st a

rea

of n

ew d

evel

opm

ent i

dent

ified

by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy is

at

Cam

bour

ne, w

hich

is a

pre

viou

sly

plan

ned

new

set

tlem

ent

of 3

,300

dw

ellin

gs th

at is

6km

from

the

woo

ds a

nd h

ad

outli

ne p

lann

ing

perm

issi

on in

199

3. M

ore

than

2,0

00

dwel

lings

hav

e al

read

y be

en c

ompl

eted

. Th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

pr

opos

es th

at th

e vi

llage

is b

uilt

out a

t cur

rent

min

imum

de

nsiti

es o

f 30d

ph, w

hich

wou

ld g

ener

ate

an a

dditi

onal

700

dw

ellin

gs w

ithin

the

exis

ting

plan

ned

foot

prin

t.

All

the

site

opt

ions

in th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2

repo

rt a

re o

f suc

h a

smal

l sca

le th

at th

ey w

ill n

ot

impa

ct o

n th

e w

oods

.

The

min

eral

ext

ract

ion

prop

osed

at B

arrin

gton

ha

s a

rem

ote

poss

ibili

ty o

f affe

ctin

g th

e ba

ts

habi

tat.

How

ever

as

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

inte

nd to

en

sure

that

thei

r Pla

n do

es n

ot h

ave

an a

dver

se

affe

ct o

n an

y E

urop

ean

site

s in

the

subm

issi

on

vers

ion

of th

e P

lan

it ha

s be

en c

onsi

dere

d th

at

this

is n

ot o

f sig

nific

ance

to th

is s

cree

ning

.

The

maj

or d

evel

opm

ent p

ropo

sed

at C

ambo

urne

w

ill ta

ke p

lace

with

in th

e ex

istin

g pl

anne

d fo

otpr

int,

whi

ch a

lso

lies

outs

ide

the

‘are

a of

im

porta

nce’

iden

tifie

d in

the

Bio

dive

rsity

SP

D, a

nd

ther

efor

e th

ere

will

be

no a

dditi

onal

impa

ct.

Rec

reat

iona

lP

ress

ure

and

Dis

turb

ance

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

scal

e of

dev

elop

men

t, an

d 22

pot

entia

l site

opt

ions

, whi

ch a

re o

f suc

h a

smal

l sca

le

that

they

will

not

impa

ct o

n th

e w

oods

.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

The

Eas

t of E

ngla

nd R

egio

nal S

patia

l Stra

tegy

H

abita

ts D

irect

ive

Ass

essm

ent s

tate

s th

at in

dr

awin

g up

loca

l dev

elop

men

t pla

ns,

cons

ider

atio

n sh

ould

be

give

n to

car

ry o

ut

scre

enin

g w

here

Nat

ura

2000

and

Ram

sar s

ites

fall

with

in a

5km

radi

us o

f any

pro

pose

d ne

w

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ents

to re

duce

the

risk

of

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

85

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

coul

d in

crea

se d

eman

d fo

r cou

ntry

side

recr

eatio

n. N

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy o

r any

oth

er p

lan

are

with

in 5

km o

f the

site

.

Not

with

stan

ding

this

, Wim

pole

Woo

ds, a

nd e

ven

mor

e so

E

vers

den

Woo

ds, d

oes

not a

ttrac

t a la

rge

num

ber o

f vi

sito

rs.

Its re

mot

enes

s, re

lativ

e to

maj

or c

entre

s of

po

pula

tion

(exi

stin

g an

d pr

opos

ed),

limits

its

attra

ctiv

enes

s co

mpa

red

to o

ther

ava

ilabl

e ru

ral l

ocat

ions

. Th

e cl

oses

t m

ajor

dev

elop

men

t loc

atio

n is

ove

r 8 k

m d

ista

nt a

nd th

e cl

oses

t dev

elop

men

t is

at C

ambo

urne

, whi

ch is

6 k

m a

way

.

The

recr

eatio

n ro

le o

f the

woo

ds is

as

part

of a

cou

ntry

wal

k of

som

e di

stan

ce, u

sing

foot

path

s pa

ssin

g th

roug

h th

e w

oods

as

part

of th

e w

ider

cou

ntry

side

foot

path

net

wor

k.

By

virtu

e of

thei

r for

m a

nd c

hara

cter

, tog

ethe

r with

thei

r re

lativ

e in

acce

ssib

ility

from

car

par

king

or p

ublic

tran

spor

t fa

cilit

ies,

they

are

not

are

as th

at p

eopl

e w

ould

be

likel

y to

m

ake

a vi

sit f

or p

icni

cs o

r inf

orm

al p

lay.

Acc

ess

to th

e si

tes

is m

ainl

y fro

m th

e ca

r par

k at

Wim

pole

H

all.

Whi

lst t

he s

tart

of a

pat

h th

roug

h W

impo

le W

ood

is

only

aro

und

1km

as

the

crow

file

s fro

m th

e ca

r par

k, a

w

alki

ng ro

ute

is li

kely

to b

e ne

arer

dou

ble

this

, whi

ch, t

akin

g ac

coun

t une

ven

terr

ain,

is li

kely

to b

e m

ore

than

a h

alf h

our

wal

k. T

he m

ajor

ity o

f vis

itors

to W

impo

le H

all a

re li

kely

to

focu

s th

eir v

isit

on th

e H

all,

mod

el fa

rm, a

nd th

e la

ndsc

aped

pa

rkla

nd, w

hich

incl

udes

attr

activ

e fe

atur

es s

uch

as tw

o la

kes,

a C

hine

se B

ridge

and

a h

illto

p fo

lly, r

athe

r tha

n th

is

perip

hera

l woo

dlan

d w

alk.

This

app

lies

to a

n ev

en g

reat

er e

xten

t to

Eve

rsde

n W

ood,

recr

eatio

nal d

istu

rban

ce e

ffect

s to

Nat

ura

2000

an

d R

amsa

r site

s fro

m w

alke

rs, d

ogs,

cat

s an

d ot

her r

ecre

atio

nal u

ses

that

can

resu

lt fro

m

addi

tiona

l hou

sing

and

ass

ocia

ted

deve

lopm

ent.

Th

ere

are

not l

ikel

y to

be

any

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

s us

ing

this

test

as

no d

evel

opm

ent o

r ind

eed

prop

osed

Tra

velle

r site

is w

ithin

this

dis

tanc

e.

Not

with

stan

ding

, acc

ordi

ng to

the

Nat

ura

2000

D

ata,

the

curr

ent u

se o

f the

woo

ds, i

nclu

ding

pu

blic

acc

ess,

is c

onsi

dere

d co

mpa

tible

with

the

barb

aste

lle b

ats’

inte

rest

and

sho

uld

not a

ffect

the

barb

aste

lle p

opul

atio

n or

thei

r roo

sts.

The

exis

ting

right

s of

way

thro

ugh

the

woo

ds

allo

w fo

r som

e lim

ited

acce

ss to

the

woo

ds b

ut

the

bats

roos

t in

the

trees

, for

agin

g at

su

nset

/nig

ht s

o ar

e no

t dis

turb

ed b

y da

y vi

sito

rs

and

num

bers

will

con

tinue

to b

e lim

ited

due

to th

e w

oods

rela

tive

inac

cess

ibili

ty b

oth

from

cen

tres

of

popu

latio

n an

d fro

m c

ar p

arki

ng c

lose

to th

e w

oods

.

In v

iew

of t

he li

mite

d ad

ditio

nal r

ecre

atio

nal u

se

that

will

occ

ur o

f the

woo

ds, t

here

are

not

co

nsid

ered

to b

e an

y lik

ely

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

s.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

86

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

whi

ch is

not

sho

wn

on th

e W

impo

le W

alks

leaf

let p

rodu

ced

by th

e N

atio

nal T

rust

. A

wal

k of

aro

und

3km

from

the

NT

car p

ark

is li

kely

to b

e re

quire

d to

reac

h th

e w

oods

. Th

ere

is v

ery

limite

d pa

rkin

g av

aila

ble

on th

e ro

adsi

de n

ear t

o E

vers

den

Woo

d (p

erha

ps o

ne o

r tw

o ca

rs).

Thi

s is

stil

l ove

r 70

0m fr

om th

e m

ain

part

of th

e w

ood.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

ther

e ar

e ot

her c

ount

rysi

de

acce

ss o

ppor

tuni

ties,

exi

stin

g or

pro

pose

d, a

vaila

ble

in

mor

e ac

cess

ible

loca

tions

to th

e m

ajor

cen

tres

of

popu

latio

n. T

hese

are

spe

cific

ally

des

igne

d to

pro

vide

a

coun

trysi

de re

crea

tion

expe

rienc

e, a

nd w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

the

focu

s fo

r tha

t use

by

exis

ting

and

new

com

mun

ities

, ra

ther

than

mor

e re

mot

e lo

catio

ns s

uch

as W

impo

le a

nd

Eve

rsde

n W

oods

. Th

is is

par

ticul

arly

dem

onst

rate

d by

the

Cam

brid

gesh

ire H

oriz

ons

Gre

en In

frast

ruct

ure

Stra

tegy

, an

d th

e S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire R

ecre

atio

n S

tudy

, whi

ch

take

forw

ard

the

prop

osal

s of

the

Cam

brid

gesh

ire S

truct

ure

Pla

n.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he w

oods

w

ill in

crea

se g

reat

ly a

s a

resu

lt of

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2, a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith

othe

r pla

ns.

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Not

rele

vant

for t

he c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f thi

s si

te.

Not

rele

vant

.

Cha

nges

in

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

87

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es a

ver

y lim

ited

scal

e of

dev

elop

men

t, an

d 22

pot

entia

l site

opt

ions

, whi

ch a

re a

ll ad

jace

nt to

ex

istin

g or

pro

pose

d se

ttlem

ents

.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e ca

r jou

rney

s ge

nera

ted

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

opt

ions

will

not

resu

lt in

a

chan

ge in

pol

lutio

n le

vels

, as

they

are

sm

all i

n sc

ale,

and

w

ould

cou

nt to

war

ds th

e ov

eral

l cor

e st

rate

gy fi

gure

.

The

Cor

e S

trate

gy fo

cuse

s de

velo

pmen

t ont

o C

ambr

idge

an

d ar

eas

acce

ssib

le b

y pu

blic

tran

spor

t, pr

ovid

ing

acce

ss

to jo

bs a

nd s

ervi

ces

by m

eans

oth

er th

an th

e ca

r. T

his

will

he

lp to

min

imis

e le

vels

of c

ar u

se a

nd c

orre

spon

ding

po

llutio

n. W

hils

t the

act

ual i

mpa

ct o

f the

Cor

e S

trate

gy o

n ai

r qua

lity

alon

e or

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns is

di

fficu

lt to

qua

ntify

, the

loca

tion

of th

e si

te is

not

in c

lose

pr

oxim

ity to

the

maj

or d

evel

opm

ents

pro

pose

d or

maj

or

trans

port

rout

es.

The

draf

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 (

Sep

t 200

8)

prop

oses

an

exte

nsio

n to

Bar

ringt

on Q

uarr

y, s

ome

4 km

fro

m th

e si

te.

The

Initi

al s

cree

ning

of t

hat p

lan

indi

cate

s th

at a

full

App

ropr

iate

Ass

essm

ent (

AA

) mus

t be

carr

ied

out

on th

is a

lloca

tion

polic

y us

ing

the

prec

autio

nary

prin

cipl

es.

How

ever

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

has

stat

ed th

at it

will

ens

ure

the

polic

ies

in th

e fin

al s

ubm

issi

on v

ersi

on o

f the

Min

eral

s

does

not

har

m th

e id

entif

ied

Eur

opea

n S

ites

and

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

The

prop

osed

min

eral

ext

ract

ion

at B

arrin

gton

is

not l

ikel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt a

ffect

on

the

woo

ds

due

to th

e fa

ct th

at th

e C

ount

y C

ounc

il in

tend

to

miti

gate

aga

inst

any

adv

erse

impa

cts

of th

e pr

opos

als

As

the

site

is n

ot in

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to th

e m

ajor

de

velo

pmen

ts p

ropo

sed

by th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

or

maj

or tr

ansp

ort r

oute

s, it

is n

ot c

onsi

dere

d th

at

ther

e is

like

ly to

be

any

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

on

thei

r na

ture

con

serv

atio

n ob

ject

ives

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

88

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Pla

n w

ill ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt th

e re

sults

of t

he A

A.

The

Cou

nty

will

revi

se th

e pl

an to

ens

ure

that

its

polic

ies

do n

ot

have

any

adv

erse

impa

ct o

n an

y E

urop

ean

Site

s. T

his

will

be

ass

iste

d by

the

quar

ry b

eing

dow

nwin

d of

the

SA

C in

te

rms

of th

e pr

evai

ling

win

ds,w

hich

are

from

the

sout

hwes

t.

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

n C

S29

Air

Qua

lity

prop

oses

that

new

m

iner

als

and

was

te d

evel

opm

ent w

ill b

e pe

rmitt

ed w

here

em

issi

ons

will

be

min

imis

ed.

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

n C

S32

(B

iodi

vers

ity) p

ropo

ses

that

new

min

eral

s an

d w

aste

de

velo

pmen

t will

onl

y be

per

mitt

ed w

here

it is

dem

onst

rate

d th

at th

ere

will

be

no li

kely

sig

nific

ant a

dver

se im

pact

s on

si

tes

of n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n im

porta

nce.

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Res

pons

e to

Con

sulta

tion

Aw

aitin

g re

spon

se.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns, w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n E

vers

den

and

Wim

pole

Woo

ds a

nd it

was

con

clud

ed th

at th

ere

are

no li

kely

si

gnifi

cant

effe

cts

on th

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

of t

he s

ite.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

89

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Map

1 B

arba

stel

le b

at -

area

of i

mpo

rtanc

e fo

r E

vers

den

and

Wim

pole

Woo

ds S

peci

al A

rea

of C

onse

rvat

ion

(SA

C) (

sour

ce: S

outh

C

ambr

idge

shire

Bio

dive

rsity

Stra

tegy

Aug

ust

2006

)

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

90

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

SCR

EEN

ING

MA

TRIX

For

Dev

il’s

Dyk

e SA

C

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f Nat

ura

2000

site

D

evil’

s D

yke

(Grid

Ref

TL6

1162

2)

Rea

sons

for d

esig

natio

n as

SA

C –

Sem

i-nat

ural

dry

gra

ssla

nds

and

scru

blan

d fa

cies

on

calc

areo

us s

ubst

rate

s (F

estu

co-

Bro

met

alia

)

Dev

il’s

Dyk

e co

nsis

ts o

f a m

osai

c of

cal

care

ous

gras

slan

ds

(CG

3B

rom

us e

rect

us a

nd C

G5

Bro

mus

ere

ctus

– B

rach

ypod

ium

pi

nnat

um.)

It i

s th

e on

ly k

now

n U

K s

emi-n

atur

al d

ry g

rass

land

si

te fo

r liz

ard

orch

id (H

iman

togl

ossu

m h

ircin

um.)

This

site

is lo

cate

d in

Eas

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istri

ct o

utsi

de th

e di

stric

t of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 c

ould

affe

ct D

evil’

s D

yke?

Th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n D

ocum

ent (

GTD

PD

) w

ill p

rovi

de a

vis

ion

for t

he fu

ture

of G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

and

will

set

out

pol

icie

s an

d pr

opos

als

as

they

rela

te to

pla

nnin

g fo

r Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

the

Dis

trict

. Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

iden

tifie

s si

te o

ptio

ns fo

r Gyp

sy

and

Trav

elle

r pitc

hes

and

Trav

ellin

g S

how

peop

le P

lots

, and

dra

ft po

licie

s fo

r inc

lusi

on in

the

final

DP

D.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r the

urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge,

one

AA

P fo

r a n

ew s

ettle

men

t at N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, i

nclu

ding

allo

catio

ns o

f lan

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

: ��

Cam

brid

ge C

ity C

ore

Stra

tegy

(DP

D)–

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

91

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

(Reg

25)

, 200

7 ��

Cam

brid

ge L

ocal

Pla

n 20

04

��E

ast C

ambr

idge

shire

Loc

al P

lan

2000

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy

Sub

mis

sion

Dra

ft 20

08��

Fore

st H

eath

Loc

al P

lan

1995

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy &

D

evel

opm

ent P

olic

ies

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns R

epor

t Oct

ober

20

06 a

nd S

ite S

peci

fic P

olic

ies

and

Allo

catio

ns D

PD

Is

sues

& O

ptio

ns R

epor

t 200

6 ��

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd P

eter

boro

ugh

Min

eral

s an

d W

aste

D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

–S

epte

mbe

r 200

8.

��S

uffo

lk M

iner

als

Loca

l Pla

n 19

99 &

Min

eral

s C

ore

Stra

tegy

S

ubm

issi

on 2

007

& M

iner

als

Spe

cific

Site

Allo

catio

ns

DP

D, A

pril

2007

��

Suf

folk

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 20

06; W

aste

Issu

es R

epor

t 200

7

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t pro

pose

any

opt

ions

that

will

take

land

from

Dev

il’s

Dyk

e, a

nd w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

frag

men

tatio

n of

ha

bita

ts.

No

othe

r pla

ns p

ropo

se d

evel

opm

ent t

hat w

ould

take

land

fro

m th

is s

ite.

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

or o

ther

pla

ns, w

hich

di

rect

ly im

pact

on

the

Dev

il’s

Dyk

e.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

92

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

The

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es re

late

to s

peci

es o

f pla

nt w

ithin

th

e gr

assl

and.

The

refo

re th

ere

are

no s

peci

es li

sted

as

impo

rtant

to th

e in

tegr

ity o

f the

site

that

trav

el to

fora

ge

outs

ide

the

site

.

Due

to th

e di

stan

ce o

f the

site

from

the

Dis

trict

an

d as

ther

e ar

e no

spe

cies

list

ed a

s im

porta

nt to

th

e in

tegr

ity o

f the

site

that

trav

el to

fora

ge o

utsi

de

the

site

ther

e is

not

like

ly to

be

any

sign

ifica

nt

effe

ct.

Rec

reat

iona

lP

ress

ure

and

Dis

turb

ance

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent,

and

22 s

ite

optio

ns, w

hich

are

all

adja

cent

to e

xist

ing

or p

ropo

sed

settl

emen

ts a

nd a

re o

f suc

h a

smal

l sca

le th

at th

ey w

ill n

ot

impa

ct o

n th

e dy

ke.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

incr

ease

dem

and

for c

ount

rysi

de re

crea

tion.

Tha

t gr

owth

will

be

regu

late

d by

pol

icie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n. H

owev

er, n

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy o

r an

y ot

her p

lan

are

with

in 5

km o

f the

site

.

Dev

ils D

yke

is a

cces

sed

via

a lo

ng d

ista

nce

foot

path

that

ru

ns th

e le

ngth

of t

he d

yke.

The

re is

par

king

ava

ilabl

e at

th

e Ju

ly R

ace

cour

se, N

ewm

arke

t. Th

e si

te is

ove

r 10k

m

from

the

deve

lopm

ent p

ropo

sed

at C

ambr

idge

Eas

t. It

is

not c

onsi

dere

d th

at th

e le

vel o

f pub

lic u

se o

f the

Dev

il’s

Dyk

e fo

otpa

ths

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler D

PD

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

or

othe

r pla

ns.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r

The

Eas

t of E

ngla

nd R

egio

nal S

patia

l Stra

tegy

H

abita

ts D

irect

ive

Ass

essm

ent s

tate

s th

at in

dr

awin

g up

loca

l dev

elop

men

t pla

ns,

cons

ider

atio

n sh

ould

be

give

n to

car

ry o

ut

scre

enin

g w

here

Nat

ura

2000

and

Ram

sar s

ites

fall

with

in a

5km

radi

us o

f the

any

pro

pose

d ne

w

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent t

o re

duce

the

risk

of

recr

eatio

nal d

istu

rban

ce e

ffect

s to

Nat

ura

2000

an

d R

amsa

r site

s fro

m w

alke

rs, d

ogs,

cat

s an

d ot

her r

ecre

atio

nal u

ses

that

can

resu

lt fro

m

addi

tiona

l hou

sing

and

ass

ocia

ted

deve

lopm

ent.

Th

ere

are

not l

ikel

y to

be

any

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

s us

ing

this

test

as

no d

evel

opm

ent i

s w

ithin

this

di

stan

ce.

Not

with

stan

ding

, the

impa

ct o

f pub

lic a

cces

s is

no

t lis

ted

in th

e vu

lner

abili

ties

rela

ting

to th

e si

te.

In v

iew

of t

he li

mite

d ad

ditio

nal r

ecre

atio

nal u

se

that

will

occ

ur o

f the

site

, as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler D

PD

opt

ions

alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

ther

e ar

e no

t co

nsid

ered

to b

e an

y lik

ely

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

s.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

93

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 th

ere

are

othe

r cou

ntry

side

ac

cess

opp

ortu

nitie

s, e

xist

ing

or p

ropo

sed,

ava

ilabl

e in

m

ore

acce

ssib

le lo

catio

ns to

the

maj

or c

entre

s of

po

pula

tion.

The

se a

re s

peci

fical

ly d

esig

ned

to p

rovi

de a

co

untry

side

recr

eatio

n ex

perie

nce,

and

will

con

tinue

to b

e th

e fo

cus

for t

hat u

se b

y ex

istin

g an

d ne

w c

omm

uniti

es,

rath

er th

an m

ore

rem

ote

loca

tions

suc

h as

the

Dev

il’s

Dyk

e.

This

is p

artic

ular

ly d

emon

stra

ted

by th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

H

oriz

ons

Gre

en In

frast

ruct

ure

Stra

tegy

, and

the

Sou

th

Cam

brid

gesh

ire R

ecre

atio

n S

tudy

, whi

ch ta

ke fo

rwar

d th

e pr

opos

als

of th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Stru

ctur

e P

lan.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he d

yke

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

ot

her p

lans

.

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Not

rele

vant

for t

he c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f thi

s si

te.

Not

rele

vant

.

Cha

nges

in

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

of t

he G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es v

ery

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t, 22

site

op

tions

hav

e be

en id

entif

ied,

whi

ch a

re a

ll ad

jace

nt to

ex

istin

g or

pro

pose

d se

ttlem

ents

. The

pro

pose

d si

tes

are

also

of a

sm

all s

cale

and

ther

efor

e w

ill n

ot im

pact

on

the

dyke

.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e ca

r jou

rney

s ge

nera

ted.

Tha

t gro

wth

will

be

guid

ed b

y

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t do

es n

ot h

arm

the

iden

tifie

d E

urop

ean

Site

s, a

nd

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

Ther

e ar

e no

t lik

ely

to b

e an

y si

gnifi

cant

impa

cts

from

add

ition

al tr

affic

usi

ng th

e pa

rt of

the

A14

cr

ossi

ng th

e si

te a

s a

resu

lt of

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 in

co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

94

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

polic

ies

in th

e D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD, u

nles

s sp

ecifi

ed in

an

Are

a A

ctio

n P

lan.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

opt

ions

will

not

resu

lt in

a

sign

ifica

nt c

hang

e in

pol

lutio

n le

vels

, as

they

are

sm

all i

n sc

ale,

and

wou

ld c

ount

tow

ards

the

over

all h

ousi

ng

deve

lopm

ent r

equi

red

by th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

the

Eas

t of

Eng

land

Pla

n.

The

Cor

e S

trate

gy fo

cuse

s de

velo

pmen

t ont

o C

ambr

idge

an

d ar

eas

acce

ssib

le b

y pu

blic

tran

spor

t, pr

ovid

ing

acce

ss

to jo

bs a

nd s

ervi

ces

by m

eans

oth

er th

an th

e ca

r. T

his

will

he

lp to

min

imis

e le

vels

of c

ar u

se a

nd c

orre

spon

ding

po

llutio

n. W

hils

t the

act

ual i

mpa

ct o

f the

Cor

e S

trate

gy o

n ai

r qua

lity

alon

e or

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns is

di

fficu

lt to

qua

ntify

, the

loca

tion

of th

e si

te is

not

in c

lose

pr

oxim

ity to

the

maj

or d

evel

opm

ents

pro

pose

d.

It is

adj

acen

t to

the

A14

, but

this

is a

t rou

ghly

righ

t ang

les

to

the

road

and

ther

efor

e on

ly a

lim

ited

part

of th

e dy

ke is

cl

ose

to a

maj

or tr

ansp

ort r

oute

. Th

e po

licie

s of

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy e

ndea

vour

to li

mit

traffi

c as

par

t of d

evel

opm

ent

prop

osal

s an

d th

e ov

eral

l stra

tegy

has

the

obje

ctiv

e of

re

duci

ng c

omm

utin

g to

Cam

brid

ge fr

om o

utsi

de b

y fo

cusi

ng

maj

or d

evel

opm

ent i

n an

d on

the

edge

of C

ambr

idge

and

in

the

new

tow

n of

Nor

thst

owe

to th

e no

rth w

est o

f C

ambr

idge

. A

s su

ch, i

t is

cons

ider

ed th

at th

ere

are

not

likel

y to

be

any

sign

ifica

nt in

crea

ses

in tr

affic

usi

ng th

is p

art

of th

e A

14 in

this

loca

tion

as a

resu

lt of

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D, i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

95

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Res

pons

e to

C

onsu

ltatio

n A

wai

ting

resp

onse

.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n D

evil’

s D

yke

and

it w

as c

oncl

uded

that

ther

e ar

e no

like

ly s

igni

fican

t effe

cts

on

the

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es o

f the

site

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

96

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

SCR

EEN

ING

MA

TRIX

For

Fen

land

SA

C a

nd R

amsa

r Site

s

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f Nat

ura

2000

site

Fe

nlan

d –

com

pris

es 3

site

s:��

Wic

ken

Fen

��C

hipp

enha

m F

en��

Woo

dwal

ton

Fen

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

SA

C –

a)

Mol

inia

mea

dow

on

calc

areo

us, p

eaty

or c

laye

y si

lt la

den

soils

(M

olin

ion

caer

ulae

)b)

Cal

care

ous

fens

with

Cla

dium

mar

iscu

s an

d sp

ecie

s of

Car

icio

n da

valli

anae

c)

Sig

nific

ant p

rese

nce

of S

pine

d lo

ach

(Cob

itis

taen

ia)

d)P

rese

nce

of G

reat

Cre

sted

New

ts (T

ritur

us c

rista

tus)

Fenl

and

cont

ains

, par

ticul

arly

at C

hipp

enha

m F

en, o

ne o

f the

m

ost e

xten

sive

exa

mpl

es o

f the

tall

herb

-ric

h E

ast A

nglia

n ty

pe

of fe

n-m

eado

w (M

olin

ia c

aeru

lea

– C

irsiu

m d

isse

ctum

). It

is

impo

rtant

for t

he c

onse

rvat

ion

of th

e ge

ogra

phic

al a

nd e

colo

gica

l ra

nge

of th

e ha

bita

t typ

e, a

s th

is ty

pe o

f fen

-mea

dow

is ra

re a

nd

ecol

ogic

ally

dis

tinct

ive

in E

ast A

nglia

.

The

indi

vidu

al s

ites

with

in F

enla

nd e

ach

hold

larg

e ar

eas

of

calc

areo

us fe

ns, w

ith a

long

and

wel

l-doc

umen

ted

hist

ory

of

regu

lar m

anag

emen

t. Th

ere

is a

full

rang

e fro

m s

peci

es-p

oor

Cla

dium

-dom

inat

ed fe

n to

spe

cies

-ric

h fe

n w

ith a

low

er p

ropo

rtion

of

Cla

dium

and

con

tain

ing

such

spe

cies

as

blac

k bo

g-ru

sh

(Sch

oenu

s ni

gric

ans,

torm

entil

Pot

entil

la e

rect

a)an

d m

eado

w

this

tle(C

irsiu

m d

isse

ctum

). Th

ere

are

good

tran

sitio

ns to

pur

ple

moo

r-gr

ass

(Mol

inia

cae

rule

a) a

nd ru

sh p

astu

res,

all

set w

ithin

a

mos

aic

of re

ed b

eds

and

wet

pas

ture

s.

The

fens

als

o su

ppor

t a s

igni

fican

t pre

senc

e of

spi

ned

loac

h (C

obiti

s ta

enia

) and

gre

at c

rest

ed n

ewts

(Trit

urus

cris

tatu

s ).

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

97

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

thre

e se

para

te F

enla

nd s

ites

are

som

e di

stan

ce a

part.

Eac

h si

te is

ther

efor

e as

sess

ed s

epar

atel

y. E

ach

site

is a

lso

a R

amsa

r si

te a

nd th

e su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f eac

h si

te

unde

r thi

s de

sign

atio

n is

giv

en b

elow

.

(a) F

enla

nd –

Wic

ken

Fen

- SA

C a

nd R

amsa

r site

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f R

amsa

r site

W

icke

n Fe

n- G

rid R

efer

ence

: TL

5557

00

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

Ram

sar s

ite -

One

of t

he m

ost o

utst

andi

ng re

mna

nts

of E

ast A

nglia

n pe

at fe

ns.

Sup

ports

one

spe

cies

of B

ritis

h R

ed D

ata

Boo

k pl

ant f

en v

iole

t V

iola

per

sici

folia

, whi

ch s

urvi

ves

at o

nly

two

othe

r site

s in

Brit

ain.

It

cont

ains

eig

ht n

atio

nally

sca

rce

plan

ts a

nd 1

21 B

ritis

h R

ed D

ata

inve

rtebr

ates

.

This

is lo

cate

d in

Eas

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istri

ct.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 c

ould

affe

ct W

icke

n Fe

n?

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Doc

umen

t (G

TDP

D)

will

pro

vide

a v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re o

f Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd w

ill s

et o

ut p

olic

ies

and

prop

osal

s as

th

ey re

late

to p

lann

ing

for G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in th

e D

istri

ct.

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge id

entif

ies

site

opt

ions

for G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler p

itche

s an

d Tr

avel

ling

Sho

wpe

ople

Plo

ts, a

nd d

raft

polic

ies

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e fin

al D

PD

.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r the

urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge,

one

AA

P fo

r a n

ew s

ettle

men

t at N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

98

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Stra

tegy

, inc

ludi

ng a

lloca

tions

of l

and

for d

evel

opm

ent.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

: ��

Cam

brid

ge C

ity C

ore

Stra

tegy

(DP

D) –

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

(Reg

25)

, 200

7 ��

Cam

brid

ge L

ocal

Pla

n 20

04

��E

ast C

ambr

idge

shire

Loc

al P

lan

2000

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy

Sub

mis

sion

Dra

ft 20

08��

Fenl

and

Loca

l Pla

n 19

93; C

ore

Stra

tegy

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns

2006

and

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

200

7 ��

Fore

st H

eath

Loc

al P

lan

1995

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy &

D

evel

opm

ent P

olic

ies

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns R

epor

t Oct

ober

20

06 a

nd S

ite S

peci

fic P

olic

ies

and

Allo

catio

ns D

PD

Is

sues

& O

ptio

ns R

epor

t 200

6.

��C

ambr

idge

shire

and

Pet

erbo

roug

h M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 –

Sep

tem

ber 2

008.

��

Suf

folk

Min

eral

s Lo

cal P

lan

1999

& M

iner

als

Cor

e S

trate

gy

Sub

mis

sion

200

7 &

Min

eral

s S

peci

fic S

ite A

lloca

tions

D

PD

, Apr

il 20

07

��S

uffo

lk W

aste

Loc

al P

lan

2006

; Was

te Is

sues

Rep

ort 2

007

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ct

How

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2

(alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

) is

likel

y to

af

fect

the

Euro

pean

site

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t pro

pose

any

dev

elop

men

t tha

t will

take

land

from

W

icke

n Fe

n, a

nd w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

frag

men

tatio

n of

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

or o

ther

pla

ns, w

hich

dire

ctly

impa

ct o

n W

icke

n Fe

n.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

99

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ct

How

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2

(alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

) is

likel

y to

af

fect

the

Euro

pean

site

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

habi

tats

.

No

othe

r pla

ns p

ropo

se d

evel

opm

ent t

hat w

ould

take

land

fro

m th

is s

ite.

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

The

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es re

late

to s

peci

es o

f pla

nt w

ithin

th

e fe

n, a

nd s

peci

es o

f inv

erte

brat

es.

Th

e G

ypsy

and

Tr

avel

ler D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

will

not

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt a

dver

se im

pact

on

spec

ies

liste

d as

impo

rtant

to

the

inte

grity

of t

he s

ite s

ince

the

site

is o

utsi

de o

f the

dis

trict

of

Sou

th C

ambs

.

Due

to th

e di

stan

ce o

f the

site

from

the

Dis

trict

it

is n

ot c

onsi

dere

d th

at th

ere

is li

kely

to b

e a

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

from

the

plan

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

.

Rec

reat

iona

lP

ress

ure

and

Dis

turb

ance

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent i

n th

at 2

0 si

tes

have

bee

n pr

opos

ed fo

r Tra

velle

r pitc

hes,

whi

ch a

re

all a

djac

ent t

o ex

istin

g or

pro

pose

d se

ttlem

ents

. The

pr

opos

ed s

ites

are

also

of a

sm

all s

cale

that

will

not

impa

ct

the

fen.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

incr

ease

dem

and

for c

ount

rysi

de re

crea

tion.

Tha

t gr

owth

will

be

regu

late

d by

pol

icie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n. H

owev

er, n

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

polic

y el

emen

ts

of th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

or a

ny o

ther

pla

n ar

e w

ithin

5km

of t

he

site

.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of W

icke

n

The

Eas

t of E

ngla

nd R

egio

nal S

patia

l Stra

tegy

H

abita

ts D

irect

ive

Ass

essm

ent s

tate

s th

at in

dr

awin

g up

loca

l dev

elop

men

t pla

ns,

cons

ider

atio

n sh

ould

be

give

n to

car

ry o

ut

scre

enin

g w

here

Nat

ura

2000

and

Ram

sar s

ites

fall

with

in a

5km

radi

us o

f the

any

pro

pose

d ne

w

resi

dent

ial d

evel

opm

ent t

o re

duce

the

risk

of

recr

eatio

nal d

istu

rban

ce e

ffect

s to

Nat

ura

2000

an

d R

amsa

r site

s fro

m w

alke

rs, d

ogs,

cat

s an

d ot

her r

ecre

atio

nal u

ses

that

can

resu

lt fro

m

addi

tiona

l hou

sing

and

ass

ocia

ted

deve

lopm

ent.

Th

ere

are

not l

ikel

y to

be

any

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

s us

ing

this

test

as

no d

evel

opm

ent i

s w

ithin

this

di

stan

ce.

Not

with

stan

ding

, the

Nat

iona

l Tru

st m

anag

es

publ

ic a

cces

s to

Wic

ken

Fen.

The

re is

a v

isito

r

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

100

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ct

How

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2

(alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

) is

likel

y to

af

fect

the

Euro

pean

site

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Fen

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tr

avel

ler D

PD

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

. In

an

y ev

ent,

acce

ss a

way

from

pub

lic ri

ghts

of w

ay is

by

perm

it on

ly a

nd c

an th

eref

ore

be c

ontro

lled.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

ther

e ar

e ot

her c

ount

rysi

de

acce

ss o

ppor

tuni

ties,

exi

stin

g or

pro

pose

d, a

vaila

ble

in

mor

e ac

cess

ible

loca

tions

to th

e m

ajor

cen

tres

of

popu

latio

n. T

hese

are

spe

cific

ally

des

igne

d to

pro

vide

a

coun

trysi

de re

crea

tion

expe

rienc

e, a

nd w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

the

focu

s fo

r tha

t use

by

exis

ting

and

new

com

mun

ities

, ra

ther

than

mor

e re

mot

e lo

catio

ns s

uch

as W

icke

n Fe

n.

This

is p

artic

ular

ly d

emon

stra

ted

by th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

H

oriz

ons

Gre

en In

frast

ruct

ure

Stra

tegy

, and

the

Sou

th

Cam

brid

gesh

ire R

ecre

atio

n S

tudy

, whi

ch ta

ke fo

rwar

d th

e pr

opos

als

of th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Stru

ctur

e P

lan

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he fe

n w

ill

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er

plan

s.

cent

re a

nd s

hop,

nat

ure

trails

, thr

ee h

ides

and

16

km o

f wal

king

rout

es.

Ent

ry is

by

perm

it on

ly to

he

lp c

ontro

l vis

itor n

umbe

rs.

Vis

itors

are

als

o m

anag

ed b

y ‘z

onin

g ‘ p

arts

of t

he F

en n

ear t

he

entra

nce,

leav

ing

the

mor

e re

mot

e pa

rts o

f the

si

te re

lativ

ely

undi

stur

bed.

The

site

is o

ver 1

2km

fro

m th

e ne

ares

t maj

or d

evel

opm

ent p

ropo

sed

by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, a

t Nor

thst

owe.

The

impa

ct o

f pub

lic a

cces

s is

not

list

ed in

the

vuln

erab

ilitie

s re

latin

g to

the

site

.

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Dev

elop

men

t cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly h

ave

an im

pact

on

wat

er

quan

tity,

thro

ugh

run

off f

rom

dev

elop

men

t site

s, o

r wat

er

use.

It c

ould

als

o ha

ve a

n im

pact

on

wat

er q

ualit

y, th

roug

h

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd

Opt

ions

2 in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

ap

prop

riate

ly a

ddre

sses

wat

er is

sues

, and

is n

ot

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

101

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

addi

tiona

l was

te p

rodu

cts

prod

uced

.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

onl

y pr

opos

es a

ver

y sm

all a

mou

nt o

f dev

elop

men

t and

giv

en

this

lim

ited

scal

e w

ill n

ot a

ffect

wat

er q

ualit

y in

the

area

.

The

Cam

brid

ge W

ater

Cyc

le S

trate

gy is

cur

rent

ly b

eing

pr

epar

ed b

y C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s. P

hase

1 o

f the

pr

ojec

t has

rece

ntly

bee

n co

mpl

eted

and

it a

ims

to e

nsur

e su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t of w

ater

reso

urce

s (s

uppl

y an

d di

spos

al) a

s th

e ar

ea is

dev

elop

ed, i

nclu

ding

ens

urin

g pr

otec

tion

of in

tern

atio

nally

des

igna

ted

cons

erva

tion

site

s.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DP

D in

clud

es a

sui

te o

f po

licie

s to

add

ress

the

impa

ct o

f dev

elop

men

t on

wat

er

quan

tity

and

qual

ity.

likel

y to

resu

lt in

sig

nific

ant i

mpa

cts

on th

e na

ture

co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

Cha

nges

in

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

of t

he G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es v

ery

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t, an

d 22

site

op

tions

, w

hich

are

all

of li

mite

d sc

ale.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e ca

r jou

rney

s ge

nera

ted.

Tha

t gro

wth

will

be

regu

late

d by

po

licie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DPD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

es D

PD

incl

udes

pol

icie

s to

pr

otec

t Eur

opea

n bi

odiv

ersi

ty s

ites,

and

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

opt

ions

will

not

resu

lt in

a

sign

ifica

nt c

hang

e in

pol

lutio

n le

vels

, as

they

are

sm

all i

n

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t do

es n

ot h

arm

the

iden

tifie

d E

urop

ean

Site

s, a

nd

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

As

the

site

is n

ot in

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to m

ajor

pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ents

, the

re a

re li

kely

to b

e no

si

gnifi

cant

impa

cts

on th

eir n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

102

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

scal

e, a

nd w

ould

cou

nt to

war

ds th

e ov

eral

l hou

sing

de

velo

pmen

t req

uire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy a

nd th

e E

ast o

f E

ngla

nd P

lan.

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

R

espo

nse

to

Con

sulta

tion

Aw

aitin

g re

spon

se.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns, w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n W

icke

n Fe

n an

d it

was

con

clud

ed th

at th

ere

are

no li

kely

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

s on

th

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

of t

he s

ite.

(b) F

enla

nd- C

hipp

enha

m F

en- S

AC

and

Ram

sar s

ite

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f R

amsa

r site

C

hipp

enha

m F

en –

(Grid

Ref

TL

6486

97 )

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

Ram

sar s

ite -

A s

prin

g–fe

d ca

lcar

eous

bas

in m

ire w

ith a

long

his

tory

of

man

agem

ent,

whi

ch is

par

tly re

flect

ed in

the

dive

rsity

of t

he

pres

ent-d

ay v

eget

atio

n. T

he in

verte

brat

e fa

una

is v

ery

rich

partl

y du

e to

its

trans

ition

al p

ositi

on b

etw

een

Fenl

and

and

Bre

ckla

nd.

The

spec

ies

list i

s ve

ry lo

ng, i

nclu

ding

man

y ra

re a

nd s

carc

e in

verte

brat

es c

hara

cter

istic

s of

anc

ient

fenl

and

site

s in

GB

. Th

e si

te s

uppo

rts d

iver

se v

eget

atio

n ty

pes,

rare

and

sca

rce

plan

ts.

The

site

is th

e st

rong

hold

of C

ambr

idge

milk

par

sley

Sel

inum

carv

ifolia

.

This

is lo

cate

d in

Eas

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istri

ct.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Doc

umen

t (G

TDP

D)

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

103

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 c

ould

affe

ct C

hipp

enha

m

Fen?

will

pro

vide

a v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re o

f Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd w

ill s

et o

ut p

olic

ies

and

prop

osal

s as

th

ey re

late

to p

lann

ing

for G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in th

e D

istri

ct.

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge id

entif

ies

site

opt

ions

for G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler p

itche

s an

d Tr

avel

ling

Sho

wpe

ople

Plo

ts, a

nd d

raft

polic

ies

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e fin

al D

PD

.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r the

urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge,

one

AA

P fo

r a n

ew s

ettle

men

t at N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, i

nclu

ding

allo

catio

ns o

f lan

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

:

��C

ambr

idge

City

Cor

e S

trate

gy (D

PD

) – Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

(R

eg 2

5), 2

007

��C

ambr

idge

Loc

al P

lan

2004

��

Eas

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire L

ocal

Pla

n 20

00 a

nd C

ore

Stra

tegy

S

ubm

issi

on D

raft

2008

��Fe

nlan

d Lo

cal P

lan

1993

; Cor

e S

trate

gy P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

20

06 a

nd P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 2

007

��S

t. E

dmun

dsbu

ry L

ocal

Pla

n 20

06; C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

P

olic

ies

DPD

– Is

sues

and

opt

ions

200

8.

��C

ambr

idge

shire

and

Pet

erbo

roug

h M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 –

Sep

tem

ber 2

008.

��

Suf

folk

Min

eral

s Lo

cal P

lan

1999

& M

iner

als

Cor

e S

trate

gy

Sub

mis

sion

200

7 &

Min

eral

s S

peci

fic S

ite A

lloca

tions

D

PD

, Apr

il 20

07

��S

uffo

lk W

aste

Loc

al P

lan

2006

; Was

te Is

sues

Rep

ort 2

007

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

104

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd o

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t pro

pose

any

opt

ions

that

will

take

land

from

C

hipp

enha

m F

en, a

nd w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

fra

gmen

tatio

n of

hab

itats

.

No

othe

r pla

ns p

ropo

se d

evel

opm

ent t

hat w

ould

take

land

fro

m th

is s

ite.

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

or o

ther

pla

ns w

hich

dire

ctly

impa

ct o

n C

hipp

enha

m F

en.

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

The

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es re

late

to s

peci

es o

f pla

nt w

ithin

th

e fe

n, a

nd s

peci

es o

f inv

erte

brat

es. D

ue to

the

dist

ance

of

the

site

from

the

Dis

trict

ther

e is

like

ly to

be

no e

ffect

.

Due

to th

e di

stan

ce fr

om th

e D

istri

ct, i

t is

not

cons

ider

ed th

ere

will

be

any

impa

ct o

n br

eedi

ng

bird

spe

cies

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

fen.

The

refo

re,

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

2 al

one

or in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

is n

ot

likel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

on

spec

ifies

lis

ted

as im

porta

nt to

the

inte

grity

of t

he s

ite.

Rec

reat

iona

lP

ress

ure

and

Dis

turb

ance

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent,

22 s

ite

optio

ns h

ave

been

iden

tifie

d, w

hich

are

of a

sm

all s

cale

.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

incr

ease

dem

and

for c

ount

rysi

de re

crea

tion.

Tha

t gr

owth

will

be

regu

late

d by

pol

icie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n. H

owev

er, n

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

polic

y el

emen

ts

of th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

or a

ny o

ther

pla

n ar

e w

ithin

5km

of t

he

site

.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of

Chi

ppen

ham

Fen

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

O

ptio

ns 2

alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er

plan

s an

d th

at th

ere

will

ther

efor

e be

no

likel

y si

gnifi

cant

effe

cts

on th

e si

te.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

105

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Bot

h th

e fe

n an

d su

rrou

ndin

g ar

eas

are

priv

atel

y ow

ned.

P

art o

f the

site

is u

nder

uns

peci

fied

tenu

re.

The

site

is

mai

nly

used

for n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n. T

here

are

righ

ts o

f w

ay a

cros

s th

e si

te.

Acc

ess

away

from

the

path

s is

by

perm

it on

ly.

The

near

est c

ar p

arki

ng is

in th

e vi

llage

s of

Fo

rdha

m o

r Chi

ppen

ham

. Th

ere

is a

low

leve

l of u

sage

by

loca

l inh

abita

nts

usin

g th

e rig

hts

of w

ay th

roug

h th

e m

iddl

e of

the

site

acc

ordi

ng to

the

Ram

sar i

nfor

mat

ion

shee

t. F

ew

peop

le a

pply

for p

erm

its fo

r rec

reat

iona

l pur

pose

s, th

ey a

re

mai

nly

requ

este

d by

nat

ural

ists

.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

. Th

ere

are

othe

r cou

ntry

side

ac

cess

opp

ortu

nitie

s, e

xist

ing

or p

ropo

sed,

ava

ilabl

e in

m

ore

acce

ssib

le lo

catio

ns to

the

maj

or c

entre

s of

po

pula

tion.

The

se a

re s

peci

fical

ly d

esig

ned

to p

rovi

de a

co

untry

side

recr

eatio

n ex

perie

nce,

and

will

con

tinue

to b

e th

e fo

cus

for t

hat u

se b

y ex

istin

g an

d ne

w c

omm

uniti

es,

rath

er th

an m

ore

rem

ote

loca

tions

suc

h as

Chi

ppen

ham

Fe

n. T

his

is p

artic

ular

ly d

emon

stra

ted

by th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s G

reen

Infra

stru

ctur

e St

rate

gy,

and

the

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Rec

reat

ion

Stu

dy, w

hich

ta

ke fo

rwar

d th

e pr

opos

als

of th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Stru

ctur

e P

lan

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he fe

n w

ill

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er

plan

s.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

106

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Dev

elop

men

t cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly h

ave

an im

pact

on

wat

er

quan

tity,

thro

ugh

run

off f

rom

dev

elop

men

t site

s, o

r wat

er

use.

It c

ould

als

o ha

ve a

n im

pact

on

wat

er q

ualit

y, th

roug

h ad

ditio

nal w

aste

pro

duct

s pr

oduc

ed.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

onl

y pr

opos

es a

sm

all n

umbe

r of o

ptio

ns a

nd g

iven

this

lim

ited

scal

e w

ill n

ot a

ffect

wat

er q

ualit

y in

the

area

.

The

Cam

brid

ge W

ater

Cyc

le S

trate

gy is

cur

rent

ly b

eing

pr

epar

ed b

y C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s. P

hase

1 o

f the

pr

ojec

t has

rece

ntly

bee

n co

mpl

eted

and

it a

ims

to e

nsur

e su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t of w

ater

reso

urce

s (s

uppl

y an

d di

spos

al) a

s th

e ar

ea is

dev

elop

ed, i

nclu

ding

ens

urin

g pr

otec

tion

of in

tern

atio

nally

des

igna

ted

cons

erva

tion

site

s.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DP

D in

clud

es a

sui

te o

f po

licie

s to

add

ress

the

impa

ct o

f dev

elop

men

t on

wat

er

quan

tity

and

qual

ity.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd

Opt

ions

2 in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

ap

prop

riate

ly a

ddre

sses

wat

er is

sues

, and

is n

ot

likel

y to

resu

lt in

sig

nific

ant i

mpa

cts

on th

e na

ture

co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

Cha

nges

in

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

of t

he G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es v

ery

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t, 22

site

op

tions

hav

e be

en id

entif

ied,

whi

ch a

re o

f a s

mal

l sca

le.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e ca

r jou

rney

s ge

nera

ted.

Tha

t gro

wth

will

be

regu

late

d by

po

licie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DPD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n.

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t do

es n

ot h

arm

the

iden

tifie

d E

urop

ean

Site

s, a

nd

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

As

the

site

is n

ot in

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to m

ajor

pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ents

, the

re a

re li

kely

to b

e no

si

gnifi

cant

impa

cts

on th

eir n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

107

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

es D

PD

incl

udes

pol

icie

s to

pr

otec

t Eur

opea

n bi

odiv

ersi

ty s

ites,

and

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

opt

ions

will

not

resu

lt in

a

sign

ifica

nt c

hang

e in

pol

lutio

n le

vels

, as

they

are

sm

all i

n sc

ale,

and

wou

ld c

ount

tow

ards

the

over

all h

ousi

ng

deve

lopm

ent r

equi

red

by th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

the

Eas

t of

Eng

land

Pla

n.

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Res

pons

e to

C

onsu

ltatio

n A

wai

ting

resp

onse

.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n C

hipp

enha

m F

en a

nd it

was

con

clud

ed th

at th

ere

are

no li

kely

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

son

the

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es o

f the

site

.

(c) F

enla

nd -

Woo

dwal

ton

Fen

– SA

C a

nd R

amsa

r site

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f R

amsa

r site

W

oodw

alto

n Fe

n - (

Grid

Ref

TL

2308

40)

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

108

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

Ram

sar s

ite -

The

site

is w

ithin

an

area

of o

ne o

f the

rem

aini

ng p

arts

of E

ast

Ang

lia, w

hich

has

not

bee

n dr

aine

d. T

he s

ite s

uppo

rts tw

o sp

ecie

s of

Brit

ish

Red

Dat

a B

ook

plan

ts- f

en v

iole

t and

fen

woo

d ru

sh.

This

is lo

cate

d in

Hun

tingd

onsh

ire D

istri

ct.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 c

ould

affe

ct W

oodw

alto

n Fe

n?

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Doc

umen

t (G

TDP

D)

will

pro

vide

a v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re o

f Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd w

ill s

et o

ut p

olic

ies

and

prop

osal

s as

th

ey re

late

to p

lann

ing

for G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in th

e D

istri

ct.

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge id

entif

ies

site

opt

ions

for G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler p

itche

s an

d Tr

avel

ling

Sho

wpe

ople

Plo

ts, a

nd d

raft

polic

ies

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e fin

al D

PD

.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r the

urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge,

one

AA

P fo

r a n

ew s

ettle

men

t at N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, i

nclu

ding

allo

catio

ns o

f lan

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

: ��

Cam

brid

ge C

ity C

ore

Stra

tegy

(DP

D) –

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

(Reg

25)

, 200

7 ��

Cam

brid

ge L

ocal

Pla

n 20

04

��H

untin

gdon

shire

Loc

al P

lan

1995

��

Hun

tingd

onsh

ire C

ore

Stra

tegy

Sub

mis

sion

Dra

ft 20

08 &

D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

Issu

es &

Opt

ions

R

epor

t, 20

07

��Fe

nlan

d Lo

cal P

lan

1993

; Cor

e S

trate

gy P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

109

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

2006

and

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

200

7 ��

Uttl

esfo

rd C

ore

Stra

tegy

– P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

200

7 ��

St.

Edm

unds

bury

Loc

al P

lan

2006

; Cor

e S

trate

gy a

nd

Pol

icie

s D

PD –

Issu

es a

nd o

ptio

ns 2

008.

��

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd P

eter

boro

ugh

Min

eral

s an

d W

aste

D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

–S

epte

mbe

r 200

8.

��S

uffo

lk M

iner

als

Loca

l Pla

n 19

99 &

Min

eral

s C

ore

Stra

tegy

S

ubm

issi

on 2

007

& M

iner

als

Spe

cific

Site

Allo

catio

ns

DP

D, A

pril

2007

��

Suf

folk

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 20

06; W

aste

Issu

es R

epor

t 200

7

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t pro

pose

any

opt

ions

that

will

take

land

from

W

oodw

alto

n Fe

n, a

nd w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

fra

gmen

tatio

n of

hab

itats

.

No

othe

r pla

ns p

ropo

se d

evel

opm

ent t

hat w

ould

take

land

fro

m th

is s

ite.

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

or o

ther

pla

ns, w

hich

di

rect

ly im

pact

on

Woo

dwal

ton

Fen.

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

The

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es re

late

to s

peci

es o

f pla

nt w

ithin

th

e fe

n. D

ue to

the

dist

ance

of t

he s

ite fr

om th

e D

istri

ct it

is

likel

y th

at th

ere

will

be

no e

ffect

.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

2 al

one

or in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

will

not

be

like

ly to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

on

spec

ies

liste

d as

impo

rtant

to th

e in

tegr

ity o

f the

site

.

Rec

reat

iona

lP

ress

ure

and

Dis

turb

ance

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent,

and

22 s

ite

optio

ns, w

hich

are

of a

sm

all s

cale

.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of

Woo

dwal

ton

Fen

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

110

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

incr

ease

dem

and

for c

ount

rysi

de re

crea

tion.

Tha

t gr

owth

will

be

regu

late

d by

pol

icie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n. H

owev

er, n

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy o

r an

y ot

her p

lan

are

with

in 5

km o

f the

site

.

Par

king

is li

mite

d at

Woo

dwal

ton

Fen

– so

me

bein

g av

aila

ble

alon

gsid

e th

e G

reat

Rav

eley

Dra

in.

Ther

e ar

e th

ree

mar

ked

trails

aro

und

the

fen

follo

win

g th

e rid

es.

Ther

e ar

e no

pub

lic ri

ghts

of w

ay a

cros

s th

e re

serv

e bu

t vi

sito

rs a

re a

llow

ed a

cces

s to

the

site

alth

ough

som

e ar

eas

are

rest

ricte

d.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

ther

e ar

e ot

her c

ount

rysi

de

acce

ss o

ppor

tuni

ties,

exi

stin

g or

pro

pose

d, a

vaila

ble

in

mor

e ac

cess

ible

loca

tions

to th

e m

ajor

cen

tres

of

popu

latio

n. T

hese

are

spe

cific

ally

des

igne

d to

pro

vide

a

coun

trysi

de re

crea

tion

expe

rienc

e, a

nd w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

the

focu

s fo

r tha

t use

by

exis

ting

and

new

com

mun

ities

, ra

ther

than

mor

e re

mot

e lo

catio

ns s

uch

as W

oodw

alto

n Fe

n. T

his

is p

artic

ular

ly d

emon

stra

ted

by th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s G

reen

Infra

stru

ctur

e St

rate

gy,

and

the

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Rec

reat

ion

Stu

dy, w

hich

ta

ke fo

rwar

d th

e pr

opos

als

of th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Stru

ctur

e P

lan

Opt

ions

2 a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns

and

that

ther

e w

ill th

eref

ore

be n

o lik

ely

sign

ifica

nt

effe

cts

on th

e si

te.

Not

with

stan

ding

, pub

lic a

cces

s to

the

site

is

cont

rolle

d an

d is

rest

ricte

d in

som

e ar

eas.

The

im

pact

of p

ublic

acc

ess

is n

ot li

sted

in th

e vu

lner

abili

ties

rela

ting

to th

e si

te.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

111

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he fe

n w

ill

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

.

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Dev

elop

men

t cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly h

ave

an im

pact

on

wat

er

quan

tity,

thro

ugh

run

off f

rom

dev

elop

men

t site

s, o

r wat

er

use.

It c

ould

als

o ha

ve a

n im

pact

on

wat

er q

ualit

y, th

roug

h ad

ditio

nal w

aste

pro

duct

s pr

oduc

ed.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

onl

y pr

opos

es a

ver

y sm

all a

mou

nt o

f dev

elop

men

t and

giv

en

this

lim

ited

scal

e w

ill n

ot a

ffect

wat

er q

ualit

y in

the

area

.

The

Cam

brid

ge W

ater

Cyc

le S

trate

gy is

cur

rent

ly b

eing

pr

epar

ed b

y C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s. P

hase

1 o

f the

pr

ojec

t has

rece

ntly

bee

n co

mpl

eted

and

it a

ims

to e

nsur

e su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t of w

ater

reso

urce

s (s

uppl

y an

d di

spos

al) a

s th

e ar

ea is

dev

elop

ed, i

nclu

ding

ens

urin

g pr

otec

tion

of in

tern

atio

nally

des

igna

ted

cons

erva

tion

site

s.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DP

D in

clud

es a

sui

te o

f po

licie

s to

add

ress

the

impa

ct o

f dev

elop

men

t on

wat

er

quan

tity

and

qual

ity:

Giv

en th

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2, t

aken

to

geth

er w

ith th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f oth

er le

gisl

atio

n,

alon

e or

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns, t

he p

lan

is n

ot li

kely

to re

sult

in s

igni

fican

t im

pact

s on

the

site

.

Cha

nges

in

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

of t

he G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es v

ery

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t, 22

site

op

tions

hav

e be

en id

entif

ied,

whi

ch a

re o

f a s

mal

l sca

le.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t do

es n

ot h

arm

the

iden

tifie

d E

urop

ean

Site

s, a

nd

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

As

the

site

is n

ot in

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to m

ajor

pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ents

, the

re a

re li

kely

to b

e no

si

gnifi

cant

impa

cts

on th

eir n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

112

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

car j

ourn

eys

gene

rate

d. T

hat g

row

th w

ill b

e re

gula

ted

by

polic

ies

in th

e D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD, u

nles

s sp

ecifi

ed in

an

Are

a A

ctio

n P

lan.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

opt

ions

will

not

resu

lt in

a

sign

ifica

nt c

hang

e in

pol

lutio

n le

vels

, as

they

are

sm

all i

n sc

ale,

and

wou

ld c

ount

tow

ards

the

over

all h

ousi

ng

deve

lopm

ent r

equi

red

by th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

the

Eas

t of

Eng

land

Pla

n.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

es D

PD

incl

udes

pol

icie

s to

pr

otec

t Eur

opea

n bi

odiv

ersi

ty s

ites,

and

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Res

pons

e to

C

onsu

ltatio

n A

wai

ting

resp

onse

.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns, w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n W

oodw

alto

n Fe

n an

d it

was

con

clud

ed th

at th

ere

are

no li

kely

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

s on

the

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es o

f the

site

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

113

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

SCR

EEN

ING

MA

TRIX

For

Ous

e W

ashe

s SA

C, S

PA a

nd R

AM

SAR

site

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f Nat

ura

2000

and

Ram

sar s

ite

The

Ous

e W

ashe

s (G

rid R

ef T

L498

895)

The

Ous

e W

ashe

s is

a w

etla

nd o

f maj

or in

tern

atio

nal i

mpo

rtanc

e co

mpr

isin

g se

ason

ally

floo

ded

was

hlan

ds, w

hich

are

agr

icul

tura

lly

man

aged

in a

trad

ition

al m

anne

r. It

pro

vide

s br

eedi

ng a

nd w

inte

r ha

bita

ts fo

r im

porta

nt a

ssem

blag

es o

f wet

land

bird

spe

cies

, pa

rticu

larly

wild

fow

l and

wad

ers.

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

a S

AC

- S

igni

fican

t pre

senc

e of

spi

ned

loac

h(C

obiti

s ta

enia

) pop

ulat

ions

w

ithin

the

Riv

er O

use

catc

hmen

t. Th

e C

ount

er D

rain

, with

its

clea

r w

ater

and

abu

ndan

t mac

roph

ytes

, is

parti

cula

rly im

porta

nt, a

nd a

he

alth

y po

pula

tion

of s

pine

d lo

ach

is k

now

n to

occ

ur.

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

SPA

-

The

Ous

e W

ashe

s is

a w

etla

nd o

f maj

or in

tern

atio

nal i

mpo

rtanc

e co

mpr

isin

g se

ason

ally

floo

ded

was

hlan

ds, w

hich

are

agr

icul

tura

lly

man

aged

in a

trad

ition

al m

anne

r. It

pro

vide

s br

eedi

ng a

nd w

inte

r ha

bita

ts fo

r im

porta

nt a

ssem

blag

es o

f wet

land

bird

spe

cies

, pa

rticu

larly

wild

fow

l and

wad

ers.

R

easo

n fo

r des

igna

tion

as R

amsa

r site

-

a)

Par

ticul

arly

goo

d ex

ampl

e of

a n

atur

al o

r nea

r-na

tura

l w

etla

nd c

hara

cter

istic

of i

ts b

ioge

ogra

phic

al re

gion

. b)

Th

e si

te s

uppo

rts a

num

ber o

f rar

e sp

ecie

s of

pla

nts

and

anim

als

c)

The

site

sup

ports

a d

iver

se c

olle

ctio

n of

rare

bre

edin

g w

ater

fow

l ass

ocia

ted

with

sea

sona

lly fl

oodi

ng w

et

gras

slan

d.d)

Th

e W

ashe

s ar

e of

inte

rnat

iona

l im

porta

nce

by v

irtue

of

regu

larly

sup

porti

ng o

ver 2

0,00

0 w

ater

fow

l. e)

Th

e W

ashe

s ar

e im

porta

nt in

tern

atio

nally

for s

uppo

rting

in

win

ter c

erta

in s

peci

es.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

114

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

boun

darie

s of

the

SPA

and

Ram

sar s

ite v

arie

s sl

ight

ly fr

om

thos

e of

the

Ous

e W

ashe

s S

AC

.

The

Ous

e W

ashe

s ar

e pr

imar

ily lo

cate

d in

Eas

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire

Dis

trict

, and

Kin

g's

Lynn

and

Wes

t Nor

folk

Dis

trict

.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 c

ould

affe

ct th

e O

use

Was

hes?

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Doc

umen

t (G

TDP

D)

will

pro

vide

a v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re o

f Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd w

ill s

et o

ut p

olic

ies

and

prop

osal

s as

th

ey re

late

to p

lann

ing

for G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in th

e D

istri

ct.

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge id

entif

ies

site

opt

ions

for G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler p

itche

s an

d Tr

avel

ling

Sho

wpe

ople

Plo

ts, a

nd d

raft

polic

ies

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e fin

al D

PD

.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r the

urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge,

one

AA

P fo

r a n

ew s

ettle

men

t at N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, i

nclu

ding

allo

catio

ns o

f lan

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

: ��

Cam

brid

ge C

ity C

ore

Stra

tegy

(DP

D) –

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

(Reg

25)

, 200

7 ��

Cam

brid

ge L

ocal

Pla

n 20

04

��H

untin

gdon

shire

Loc

al P

lan

1995

��

Hun

tingd

onsh

ire C

ore

Stra

tegy

Sub

mis

sion

Dra

ft 20

08 &

D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

Issu

es &

Opt

ions

R

epor

t, 20

07

��E

ast C

ambr

idge

shire

Loc

al P

lan

2000

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy

Sub

mis

sion

Dra

ft 20

08

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

115

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

��Fe

nlan

d Lo

cal P

lan

1993

; Cor

e S

trate

gy P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

20

06 a

nd P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 2

007

��M

id B

edfo

rdsh

ire L

ocal

Pla

n 20

05 &

Cor

e S

trate

gy a

nd

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DP

D P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

20

07��

Fore

st H

eath

Loc

al P

lan

1995

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy &

D

evel

opm

ent P

olic

ies

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns R

epor

t Oct

ober

20

06 a

nd S

ite S

peci

fic P

olic

ies

and

Allo

catio

ns D

PD

Is

sues

& O

ptio

ns R

epor

t 200

6

��K

ing’

s Ly

nn &

Wes

t Nor

folk

Loc

al P

lan

1998

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy- I

ssue

s an

d O

ptio

ns 2

200

8 D

C P

olic

ies

Pre

ferr

ed

Opt

ions

200

7 ��

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd P

eter

boro

ugh

Min

eral

s an

d W

aste

D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

–S

epte

mbe

r 200

8.

��B

edfo

rdsh

ire a

nd L

uton

Min

eral

s an

d W

aste

Loc

al P

lan

2005

��B

edfo

rdsh

ire a

nd L

uton

Min

eral

s C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

Site

A

lloca

tion

Pla

n –

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns (J

an 2

006)

; Iss

ues

and

Opt

ions

2 2

008;

Was

te D

PD

– C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

Site

A

lloca

tion

Pla

n 20

06

��B

edfo

rd B

orou

gh L

ocal

Pla

n 20

06 a

nd B

edfo

rd C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

Rur

al Is

sues

Pla

n A

dopt

ed 2

008

��M

ilton

Key

nes

Loca

l Pla

n 20

05; C

ore

Stra

tegy

– P

refe

rred

op

tions

200

7 ��

Buc

king

ham

shire

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 19

97;

Buc

king

ham

shire

Min

eral

s D

PD

– P

refe

rred

opt

ions

200

7;

Buc

king

ham

shire

Was

te D

PD

– P

refe

rred

opt

ions

200

7 ��

Milt

on K

eyne

s W

aste

DP

D S

ubm

issi

on 2

007

��M

ilton

Key

nes

Min

eral

s Lo

cal P

lan

2006

; Min

eral

s D

PD

–

pref

erre

d op

tions

200

7 ��

Nor

folk

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 20

00

��N

orfo

lk M

iner

als

Loca

l Pla

n 20

04

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

116

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

��N

orfo

lk M

iner

als

and

Was

te C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Doc

umen

t –pr

efer

red

optio

ns s

tage

20

08

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t inc

lude

any

site

opt

ions

that

will

take

land

from

the

Ous

e W

ashe

s, a

nd w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

frag

men

tatio

n of

hab

itats

.

No

othe

r pla

ns p

ropo

se d

evel

opm

ent t

hat w

ould

take

land

fro

m th

is s

ite.

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

, whi

ch a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns d

irect

ly im

pact

on

the

Ous

e W

ashe

s.

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

will

not

ha

ve a

sig

nific

ant a

dver

se im

pact

on

spec

ies

liste

d as

im

porta

nt to

the

inte

grity

of t

he s

ite s

ince

the

Ous

e W

ashe

s as

a s

ite is

out

side

of t

he d

istri

ct o

f Sou

th C

ambs

. Th

ere

are

som

e si

te o

ptio

ns th

at a

re ju

st w

ithin

5 k

m o

f the

W

ashe

s in

Will

ingh

am b

ut g

iven

the

smal

l sca

le o

f de

velo

pmen

t pro

pose

d on

thes

e si

tes,

and

that

mos

t of

them

are

exi

stin

g si

tes

with

tem

pora

ry c

onse

nt, t

heir

impa

ct

will

be

limite

d an

d no

t affe

ct th

e pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

from

the

was

hes.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns

2, a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns w

ill n

ot

be li

kely

to h

ave

a si

gnifi

cant

impa

ct o

n sp

ecie

s lis

ted

as im

porta

nt to

the

inte

grity

of t

he s

ite.

Rec

reat

iona

lP

ress

ure

and

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent,

22 s

ite

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of

the

Ous

e W

ashe

s w

ill in

crea

se g

reat

ly a

s a

resu

lt

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

117

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Dis

turb

ance

op

tions

hav

e be

en id

entif

ied,

whi

ch a

re a

ll ad

jace

nt to

ex

istin

g or

pro

pose

d se

ttlem

ents

and

are

of a

sm

all s

cale

.

Ther

e ar

e so

me

site

opt

ions

that

are

just

with

in 5

km

of t

he

Ous

e W

ashe

s in

Will

ingh

am.

Sin

ce th

ese

are

of s

uch

a sm

all s

cale

, and

are

mai

nly

exis

ting

site

s w

ith te

mpo

rary

pl

anni

ng p

erm

issi

on, t

hey

will

not

impa

ct o

n th

e w

ashe

s by

in

crea

sing

the

usag

e of

the

site

.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

incr

ease

dem

and

for c

ount

rysi

de re

crea

tion.

Tha

t gr

owth

will

be

regu

late

d by

pol

icie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n. H

owev

er, n

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

polic

y el

emen

ts

of th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

or a

ny o

ther

pla

n ar

e w

ithin

5km

of t

he

site

.

Ther

e is

a n

etw

ork

of p

ublic

righ

ts o

f way

in th

e W

ashe

s.

The

RS

PB

man

age

a na

ture

rese

rve

at W

elch

es D

am

whe

re th

ere

is a

vis

itor c

entre

and

a n

umbe

r of b

ird h

ides

. Th

e W

WT

man

age

a na

ture

rese

rve

at W

elne

y, N

orfo

lk a

lso

with

a c

entre

and

hid

es.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

ther

e ar

e ot

her c

ount

rysi

de

acce

ss o

ppor

tuni

ties,

exi

stin

g or

pro

pose

d, a

vaila

ble

in

mor

e ac

cess

ible

loca

tions

to th

e m

ajor

cen

tres

of

popu

latio

n. T

hese

are

spe

cific

ally

des

igne

d to

pro

vide

a

coun

trysi

de re

crea

tion

expe

rienc

e, a

nd w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D is

sues

and

O

ptio

ns 2

alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

an

d th

at th

ere

will

ther

efor

e be

no

likel

y si

gnifi

cant

ef

fect

s on

the

site

. N

otw

ithst

andi

ng, t

he im

pact

of

pub

lic a

cces

s is

not

list

ed in

the

vuln

erab

ilitie

s re

latin

g to

the

site

.

The

prop

osal

s co

ntai

ned

with

in th

e M

iner

als

and

Was

te D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

are

not l

ikel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt a

ffect

on

the

Was

hes

due

to th

e fa

ct

that

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

inte

nd to

miti

gate

aga

inst

an

y ad

vers

e im

pact

s of

thes

e pr

opos

als.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

118

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

the

focu

s fo

r tha

t use

by

exis

ting

and

new

com

mun

ities

, ra

ther

than

mor

e re

mot

e lo

catio

ns s

uch

as th

e O

use

Was

hes.

Thi

s is

par

ticul

arly

dem

onst

rate

d by

the

Cam

brid

gesh

ire H

oriz

ons

Gre

en In

frast

ruct

ure

Stra

tegy

, an

d th

e S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire R

ecre

atio

n S

tudy

, whi

ch

take

forw

ard

the

prop

osal

s of

the

Cam

brid

gesh

ire S

truct

ure

Pla

n.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he O

use

Was

hes

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tr

avel

ler D

PD

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

.

The

draf

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 (

Sep

t 200

8)

prop

oses

an

Ear

ith /

Mep

al A

ctio

n Ar

ea P

lan,

stra

tegi

c al

loca

tions

for s

and

and

grav

el e

xtra

ctio

n at

Cot

tenh

am a

s w

ell a

s an

allo

catio

n at

Nee

ding

wor

th a

nd e

xten

sive

m

iner

als

safe

guar

ding

are

as a

cros

s th

e D

istri

ct.

All

thes

e pr

opos

als

coul

d ha

ve a

n im

pact

thro

ugh

nois

e of

traf

fic a

nd

oper

atio

n of

pla

nt a

nd th

eref

ore

crea

te a

pot

entia

l di

stur

banc

e. H

owev

er, a

fter t

he in

itial

scr

eeni

ng o

f the

pla

n th

e C

ount

y C

ounc

il ha

s st

ated

a fu

ll A

sses

smen

t A

ppro

pria

te w

ill b

e ca

rrie

d ou

t on

the

plan

and

that

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

will

ens

ure

that

the

final

sub

mis

sion

ver

sion

of

the

plan

will

not

con

tain

pol

icie

s th

at h

ave

an a

dver

se

affe

ct o

n an

y E

urop

ean

Site

s.

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Dev

elop

men

t cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly h

ave

an im

pact

on

wat

er

quan

tity,

thro

ugh

run

off f

rom

dev

elop

men

t site

s, o

r wat

er

use.

It c

ould

als

o ha

ve a

n im

pact

on

wat

er q

ualit

y, th

roug

h ad

ditio

nal w

aste

pro

duct

s pr

oduc

ed.

Giv

en th

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2, t

aken

to

geth

er w

ith th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f oth

er le

gisl

atio

n,

alon

e or

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns, t

he p

lan

is n

ot li

kely

to re

sult

in s

igni

fican

t im

pact

s on

the

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

119

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent,

22 s

ite

optio

ns h

ave

been

iden

tifie

d, w

hich

are

of a

sm

all s

cale

and

th

eref

ore

this

will

not

cre

ate

a ch

ange

in w

ater

qua

lity.

The

Cam

brid

ge W

ater

Cyc

le S

trate

gy is

cur

rent

ly b

eing

pr

epar

ed b

y C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s. P

hase

1 o

f the

pr

ojec

t has

rece

ntly

bee

n co

mpl

eted

and

it a

ims

to e

nsur

e su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t of w

ater

reso

urce

s (s

uppl

y an

d di

spos

al) a

s th

e ar

ea is

dev

elop

ed, i

nclu

ding

ens

urin

g pr

otec

tion

of in

tern

atio

nally

des

igna

ted

cons

erva

tion

site

s.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DP

D in

clud

es a

sui

te o

f po

licie

s to

add

ress

the

impa

ct o

f dev

elop

men

t on

wat

er

quan

tity

and

qual

ity.

The

draf

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 (S

ept 2

008)

pr

opos

es a

n E

arith

/ M

epal

Act

ion

Area

Pla

n, s

trate

gic

allo

catio

ns fo

r san

d an

d gr

avel

ext

ract

ion

at C

otte

nham

as

wel

l as

an a

lloca

tion

at N

eedi

ngw

orth

and

ext

ensi

ve

min

eral

s sa

fegu

ardi

ng a

reas

acr

oss

the

Dis

trict

, whi

ch

coul

d ha

ve a

n im

pact

on

hydr

olog

y an

d w

ater

reso

urce

s.

How

ever

, afte

r the

initi

al s

cree

ning

of t

he p

lan

the

Cou

nty

has

stat

ed a

full

Ass

essm

ent A

ppro

pria

te w

ill b

e ca

rrie

d ou

t on

the

plan

and

that

the

Cou

nty

will

ens

ure

that

the

final

su

bmis

sion

ver

sion

of t

he p

lan

will

not

con

tain

pol

icie

s th

at

have

an

adve

rse

affe

ct o

n an

y E

urop

ean

Site

s

site

.

The

prop

osal

s co

ntai

ned

with

in th

e M

iner

als

and

Was

te D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

are

not l

ikel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt a

ffect

on

the

Was

hes

due

to th

e fa

ct

that

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

inte

nd to

miti

gate

aga

inst

an

y ad

vers

e im

pact

s of

thes

e pr

opos

als.

Cha

nges

in

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

of t

he G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es v

ery

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t, an

d 22

site

op

tions

, whi

ch a

re a

ll ad

jace

nt to

exi

stin

g or

pro

pose

d

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t do

es n

ot h

arm

the

iden

tifie

d E

urop

ean

Site

s, a

nd

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

120

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

settl

emen

ts.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e ca

r jou

rney

s ge

nera

ted.

Tha

t gro

wth

will

be

regu

late

d by

po

licie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DPD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

es D

PD

incl

udes

pol

icie

s to

pr

otec

t Eur

opea

n bi

odiv

ersi

ty s

ites,

and

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

The

draf

t Cam

brid

gesh

ire M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 (

Sep

t 200

8)

prop

oses

an

Ear

ith /

Mep

al A

ctio

n Ar

ea P

lan,

stra

tegi

c al

loca

tions

for s

and

and

grav

el e

xtra

ctio

n at

Cot

tenh

am a

s w

ell a

s an

allo

catio

n at

Nee

ding

wor

th a

nd e

xten

sive

m

iner

als

safe

guar

ding

are

as a

cros

s th

e D

istri

ct, w

hich

co

uld

have

an

impa

ct o

n em

issi

ons.

How

ever

, afte

r the

in

itial

scr

eeni

ng o

f the

pla

n th

e C

ount

y ha

s st

ated

a fu

ll A

sses

smen

t App

ropr

iate

will

be

carr

ied

out o

n th

e pl

an a

nd

that

the

Cou

nty

will

ens

ure

that

the

final

sub

mis

sion

ver

sion

of

the

plan

will

not

con

tain

pol

icie

s th

at h

ave

an a

dver

se

affe

ct o

n an

y E

urop

ean

Site

s

As

the

site

is n

ot in

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to m

ajor

pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ents

, the

re a

re li

kely

to b

e no

si

gnifi

cant

impa

cts

on th

eir n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

The

prop

osal

s co

ntai

ned

with

in th

e M

iner

als

and

Was

te D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

are

not l

ikel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt a

ffect

on

the

Was

hes

due

to th

e fa

ct

that

the

Cou

nty

Cou

ncil

inte

nd to

miti

gate

aga

inst

an

y ad

vers

e im

pact

s of

thes

e pr

opos

als.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

121

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Res

pons

e to

C

onsu

ltatio

n A

wai

ting

resp

onse

.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n th

e O

use

Was

hes

and

it w

as c

oncl

uded

that

ther

e ar

e no

like

ly s

igni

fican

t effe

cts

on th

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

of t

he s

ite.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

122

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

SCR

EEN

ING

MA

TRIX

For

Por

thol

me

SAC

Nam

e, lo

catio

n an

d su

mm

ary

of c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

es o

f Nat

ura

2000

site

Po

rtho

lme

(Grid

ref T

L237

708)

Rea

son

for d

esig

natio

n as

SA

C -

Bes

t exa

mpl

e of

low

land

hay

m

eado

ws

in e

aste

rn E

ngla

nd.(A

lope

curu

s pr

aten

sis,

San

guis

orba

of

ficin

alis

)

This

site

is o

ver 9

0 he

ctar

es in

siz

e. It

is th

e la

rges

t sur

vivi

ng

tradi

tiona

lly m

anag

ed m

eado

w in

the

UK

of a

lluvi

al fl

ood

mea

dow

(7

% o

f the

tota

l UK

reso

urce

). Th

ere

has

been

a lo

ng h

isto

ry o

f fa

vour

able

man

agem

ent a

nd v

ery

little

of t

he s

ite h

as s

uffe

red

from

agr

icul

tura

l im

prov

emen

t, an

d so

it d

emon

stra

tes

good

co

nser

vatio

n of

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n. It

sup

ports

a s

mal

l po

pula

tion

of fr

itilla

ry (F

ritill

aria

mel

eagr

is).

The

site

is lo

cate

d in

Hun

tingd

onsh

ire D

istri

ct.

Are

ther

e ot

her p

roje

cts

or p

lans

that

toge

ther

with

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D c

ould

affe

ct P

orth

olm

e?

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

evel

opm

ent P

lan

Doc

umen

t (G

TDP

D)

will

pro

vide

a v

isio

n fo

r the

futu

re o

f Gyp

sies

and

Tra

velle

rs in

S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire a

nd w

ill s

et o

ut p

olic

ies

and

prop

osal

s as

th

ey re

late

to p

lann

ing

for G

ypsi

es a

nd T

rave

llers

in th

e D

istri

ct.

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge id

entif

ies

site

opt

ions

for G

ypsy

an

d Tr

avel

ler p

itche

s an

d Tr

avel

ling

Sho

wpe

ople

Plo

ts, a

nd d

raft

polic

ies

for i

nclu

sion

in th

e fin

al D

PD

.

The

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy p

rovi

des

the

over

all

spat

ial s

trate

gy fo

r dev

elop

men

t in

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

. Th

ere

are

othe

r pla

ns in

the

Sout

h C

ambr

idge

shire

LD

F, in

clud

ing

vario

us A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

ns fo

r the

urb

an e

xten

sion

s to

Cam

brid

ge,

an A

AP

for t

he n

ew s

ettle

men

t of N

orth

stow

e an

d th

e S

ite S

peci

fic

DP

D, w

hich

cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly in

dire

ctly

affe

ct th

e si

te.

Thes

e pl

ans

prov

ide

deta

il to

the

fram

ewor

k pr

ovid

ed in

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy, i

nclu

ding

allo

catio

ns o

f lan

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t.

Oth

er re

leva

nt p

lans

:

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

123

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

��C

ambr

idge

City

Cor

e S

trate

gy (D

PD

) – Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

(R

eg 2

5), 2

007

��C

ambr

idge

Loc

al P

lan

2004

��

Hun

tingd

onsh

ire L

ocal

Pla

n 19

95

��H

untin

gdon

shire

Cor

e S

trate

gy S

ubm

issi

on D

raft

2008

&

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DP

D Is

sues

& O

ptio

ns

Rep

ort,

2007

��

Fenl

and

Loca

l Pla

n 19

93; C

ore

Stra

tegy

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns

2006

and

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

200

7 ��

Nor

th H

erts

Loc

al P

lan

1996

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy &

D

evel

opm

ent P

olic

ies

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

007

��

Mid

Bed

ford

shire

Loc

al P

lan

2005

& C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

Pre

ferr

ed O

ptio

ns 2

007

��K

ing’

s Ly

nn &

Wes

t Nor

folk

Loc

al P

lan

1998

and

Cor

e S

trate

gy- I

ssue

s an

d O

ptio

ns 2

200

8 D

C P

olic

ies

Pre

ferr

ed

Opt

ions

200

7 ��

Her

tford

shire

Min

eral

s Lo

cal P

lan

1998

(and

revi

ew

adop

ted

2007

) ��

Her

tford

shire

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 19

98

��C

ambr

idge

shire

and

Pet

erbo

roug

h M

iner

als

and

Was

te

Dev

elop

men

t Pla

n P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

2 –

Sep

tem

ber 2

008.

��

Her

tford

shire

Min

eral

s &

Was

te D

PD

s Is

sues

& O

ptio

ns &

W

aste

Cor

e S

trate

gy P

refe

rred

Opt

ions

Rep

ort,

June

200

7 ��

Bed

ford

Bor

ough

Loc

al P

lan

2006

and

Bed

ford

Cor

e S

trate

gy a

nd R

ural

Issu

es P

lan

Ado

pted

200

8 ��

Milt

on K

eyne

s Lo

cal P

lan

2005

; Cor

e S

trate

gy –

Pre

ferr

ed

optio

ns 2

007

��B

ucki

ngha

msh

ire C

ount

y C

ounc

il W

aste

Loc

al P

lan

1997

; B

ucki

ngha

msh

ire M

iner

als

DP

D –

Pre

ferr

ed o

ptio

ns 2

007;

B

ucki

ngha

msh

ire W

aste

DP

D –

Pre

ferr

ed o

ptio

ns 2

007

��M

ilton

Key

nes

Was

te D

PD

Sub

mis

sion

200

7 ��

Milt

on K

eyne

s M

iner

als

Loca

l Pla

n 20

06; M

iner

als

DP

D –

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

124

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

pref

erre

d op

tions

200

7 ��

Nor

folk

Was

te L

ocal

Pla

n 20

00

��N

orfo

lk M

iner

als

Loca

l Pla

n 20

04

��N

orfo

lk M

iner

als

and

Was

te C

ore

Stra

tegy

and

D

evel

opm

ent C

ontro

l Doc

umen

t –pr

efer

red

optio

ns s

tage

20

08

The

asse

ssm

ent o

f sig

nific

ance

of e

ffect

s:

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Land

Tak

e by

D

evel

opm

ent

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

doe

s no

t pro

pose

any

opt

ions

that

will

take

land

from

Por

thol

me,

an

d w

ill n

ot re

sult

in th

e di

rect

frag

men

tatio

n of

hab

itats

. N

o ot

her p

lans

pro

pose

dev

elop

men

t tha

t wou

ld ta

ke la

nd

from

this

site

.

Ther

e ar

e no

opt

ions

in th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

or o

ther

pla

ns w

hich

di

rect

ly im

pact

on

Por

thol

me.

Impa

ct o

n pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

outs

ide

the

prot

ecte

d si

tes

The

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es re

late

to s

peci

es o

f pla

nt w

ithin

th

e ha

y m

eado

w.

Due

to th

e di

stan

ce o

f the

site

from

the

Dis

trict

ther

e w

ill b

e no

effe

ct.

The

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd

Opt

ions

2 a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pl

ans

will

not

be

likel

y to

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt im

pact

on

spe

cies

list

ed a

s im

porta

nt to

the

inte

grity

of

the

site

. R

ecre

atio

nal

Pre

ssur

e an

d D

istu

rban

ce

The

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

sta

ge o

f the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller

DP

D o

nly

prop

oses

ver

y lim

ited

deve

lopm

ent,

22 s

ite

optio

ns h

ave

been

iden

tifie

d, w

hich

are

of a

sm

all s

cale

.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

incr

ease

dem

and

for c

ount

rysi

de re

crea

tion.

Tha

t gr

owth

will

be

regu

late

d by

pol

icie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t C

ontro

l Pol

icie

s D

PD

, unl

ess

s pec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of

Por

thol

me

will

incr

ease

gre

atly

as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DP

D Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2,

alon

e or

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns.

Als

o,

the

impa

ct o

f pub

lic a

cces

s is

not

list

ed in

the

vuln

erab

ilitie

s re

latin

g to

the

site

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

125

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

Pla

n. H

owev

er, n

o m

ajor

pro

posa

ls in

the

polic

y el

emen

ts

of th

e C

ore

Stra

tegy

or a

ny o

ther

pla

n ar

e w

ithin

5km

of t

he

site

.

Eve

n th

ough

due

to th

e na

ture

and

dis

tanc

e of

the

site

from

th

e ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

it is

not

ant

icip

ated

that

ther

e w

ill b

e in

crea

sed

usag

e as

a re

sult

of th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

ther

e ar

e ot

her c

ount

rysi

de a

cces

s op

portu

nitie

s,

exis

ting

or p

ropo

sed,

ava

ilabl

e in

mor

e ac

cess

ible

loca

tions

to

the

maj

or c

entre

s of

pop

ulat

ion.

The

se a

re s

peci

fical

ly

desi

gned

to p

rovi

de a

cou

ntry

side

recr

eatio

n ex

perie

nce,

an

d w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

the

focu

s fo

r tha

t use

by

exis

ting

and

new

com

mun

ities

, rat

her t

han

mor

e re

mot

e lo

catio

ns s

uch

as P

orth

olm

e. T

his

is p

artic

ular

ly d

emon

stra

ted

by th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s G

reen

Infra

stru

ctur

e St

rate

gy,

and

the

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

Rec

reat

ion

Stu

dy, w

hich

ta

ke fo

rwar

d th

e pr

opos

als

of th

e C

ambr

idge

shire

Stru

ctur

e P

lan.

It is

not

con

side

red

that

the

leve

l of p

ublic

use

of t

he h

ay

mea

dow

s w

ill in

crea

se g

reat

ly a

s a

resu

lt of

the

Gyp

sy a

nd

Trav

elle

r DP

D, a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns.

Wat

er Q

uant

ity a

nd

Qua

lity

Dev

elop

men

t cou

ld th

eore

tical

ly h

ave

an im

pact

on

wat

er

quan

tity,

thro

ugh

run

off f

rom

the

site

s, o

r wat

er u

se.

It co

uld

also

hav

e an

impa

ct o

n w

ater

qua

lity,

thro

ugh

addi

tiona

l was

te p

rodu

cts

prod

uced

. H

owev

er, t

he im

pact

of

the

plan

, alo

ne o

r in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er p

lans

is n

ot

cons

ider

ed s

igni

fican

t.

The

Cam

brid

ge W

ater

Cyc

le S

trate

gy is

cur

rent

ly b

eing

pr

epar

ed b

y C

ambr

idge

shire

Hor

izon

s. P

hase

1 o

f the

New

dev

elop

men

t pro

pose

d in

the

dist

rict i

s lo

cate

d to

o fa

r to

be li

kely

to h

ave

sign

ifica

nt

effe

cts

on th

e ha

y m

eado

ws

and

is lo

cate

d do

wn

stre

am o

n th

e R

iver

Ous

e ca

tchm

ent.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

126

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

Nat

ure

of p

oten

tial

impa

ctH

ow th

e G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

(a

lone

or i

n co

mbi

natio

n w

ith o

ther

pla

ns) i

s lik

ely

to

affe

ct th

e Eu

rope

an s

ite

Why

thes

e ef

fect

s ar

e no

t con

side

red

sign

ifica

nt

proj

ect h

as re

cent

ly b

een

com

plet

ed a

nd it

aim

s to

ens

ure

sust

aina

ble

man

agem

ent o

f wat

er re

sour

ces

(sup

ply

and

disp

osal

) as

the

area

is d

evel

oped

, inc

ludi

ng e

nsur

ing

prot

ectio

n of

inte

rnat

iona

lly d

esig

nate

d co

nser

vatio

n si

tes.

Cha

nges

in

Pol

lutio

n Le

vels

Th

e Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2 s

tage

of t

he G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r D

PD

onl

y pr

opos

es v

ery

limite

d de

velo

pmen

t, 22

site

op

tions

hav

e be

en id

entif

ied,

whi

ch a

re o

f a s

mal

l sca

le.

How

ever

, inc

reas

ing

the

dwel

ling

stoc

k in

the

dist

rict b

y 20

,000

dw

ellin

gs a

s re

quire

d by

the

Cor

e S

trate

gy D

PD

co

uld

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d le

vels

of a

tmos

pher

ic p

ollu

tion,

th

roug

h th

e em

issi

ons

crea

ted

by d

evel

opm

ent,

or fr

om th

e ca

r jou

rney

s ge

nera

ted.

Tha

t gro

wth

will

be

regu

late

d by

po

licie

s in

the

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

ies

DPD

, unl

ess

spec

ified

in a

n A

rea

Act

ion

Pla

n.

The

Dev

elop

men

t Con

trol P

olic

es D

PD

incl

udes

pol

icie

s to

pr

otec

t Eur

opea

n bi

odiv

ersi

ty s

ites,

and

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

Ther

e ar

e po

licy

requ

irem

ents

that

dev

elop

men

t do

es n

ot h

arm

the

iden

tifie

d E

urop

ean

Site

s, a

nd

to a

ddre

ss a

ir qu

ality

.

As

the

site

is n

ot in

clo

se p

roxi

mity

to m

ajor

pr

opos

ed d

evel

opm

ents

, the

re a

re li

kely

to b

e no

si

gnifi

cant

impa

cts

on th

eir n

atur

e co

nser

vatio

n ob

ject

ives

.

Age

ncie

s co

nsul

ted

Nat

ural

Eng

land

Res

pons

e to

C

onsu

ltatio

n A

wai

ting

resp

onse

.

Ove

rall

Con

clus

ions

of S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire D

istr

ict C

ounc

il

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

127

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

The

optio

ns w

ithin

the

Gyp

sy a

nd T

rave

ller D

PD

Issu

es a

nd O

ptio

ns 2

Rep

ort,

alon

e an

d in

com

bina

tion

with

oth

er D

PD

s in

the

LDF

and

othe

r rel

evan

t pla

ns w

ere

asse

ssed

for i

mpa

ct o

n P

orth

olm

e an

d it

was

con

clud

ed th

at th

ere

are

no li

kely

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

s on

the

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es o

f the

site

.

App

endi

x 4

– G

ypsy

and

Tra

velle

r DPD

– Is

sues

and

Opt

ions

2: S

ite O

ptio

ns

128

Hab

itat R

egul

atio

ns A

sses

smen

t – J

uly

2009

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D T

O C

AR

RY

OU

T TH

E A

SSES

SMEN

T.

Who

car

ries

out t

he

asse

ssm

ent?

Sour

ces

of d

ata

Leve

l of a

sses

smen

t co

mpl

eted

Whe

re c

an th

e fu

ll re

sults

of t

he

asse

ssm

ent b

e ac

cess

ed a

nd v

iew

ed

Offi

cers

of S

outh

C

ambr

idge

shire

Dis

trict

C

ounc

il w

ith th

e as

sist

ance

of N

atur

al

Eng

land

Con

sulta

tion

with

N

atur

al E

ngla

ndD

eskt

op s

tudy

. S

outh

Cam

brid

gesh

ire is

co

nfid

ent w

ith th

e re

sults

of

the

asse

ssm

ent.

Sou

th C

ambr

idge

shire

D

istri

ct C

ounc

il of

fices

an

d on

line

at

ww

w.s

cam

bs.g

ov.u

k/ld

f .

Planning ServicesSouth Cambridgeshire District CouncilCambourne Business ParkCambourneCambridgeshire CB23 6EA

t: 08450 450 500

www.scambs.gov.uk