This document summarizes a discussion meeting on assessing the impacts of development on habitats protected by the Habitats Directive. It describes a case study of Wealden District Council, which adopted a policy preventing development within 7km of Ashdown Forest due to recreational and air quality impacts. The policy was later challenged. There is ongoing debate around using the DMRB scoping criteria to assess impacts, the need for extensive monitoring in Appropriate Assessments, and defining "de minimis" impact levels. The meeting aims to discuss improving such assessments and potential new guidance.

1. Habitats Directive:
Air Quality and Ecological Impact
Assessment
Joint IAQM/CIEEM Discussion Meeting
16th July 2015
ARUP. London
1

2. Introduction
Dr Claire Holman
Brook Cottage Consultants Ltd
Vice-Chair IAQM
2

3. Brook Cottage Consultants 3

4. Wealden District Council: A Radical Authority
Brook Cottage Consultants 4
Ashdown Forest:
- SSSI
- SPA
- SAC
• Northern Atlantic wet
heaths with Erica
tetralix
• European dry heaths
One of the largest
continuous blocks of
lowland heath in SE
England
A “ban” on development
not in local plan within
7km of the SAC

5. WDC Core Strategy
Brook Cottage Consultants 5
Conclusion :
“No adverse effects on the ecological integrity
of any European site as a result of the
Wealden District Core Strategy in relation
atmospheric pollution at Ashdown Forest SAC”
Core Strategy results in up to 950 vehicles
per day
Less than DMRB scoping criteria (1000
vehicles per day)
No more detailed analysis undertaken

6. Core Strategy Inspector’s Report
Brook Cottage Consultants 6
“… I am satisfied that the DMRB methodology is the correct
approach to a scoping assessment of air quality and that, as
concluded in the HRA, the scale and distribution of
development proposed in the CS is acceptable in this regard. “
Mike Moore, Inspector, Examination of Wealden Core Strategy
Core Strategy Adopted in February 2013
High Court Challenge of CS failed February 2014
Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v SSCLG

7. Original Policy WSC12
Brook Cottage Consultants 7
…it is the Council's intention to reduce the recreational impact of visitors resulting
from new housing development within 7 kilometres of Ashdown Forest by creating an
exclusion zone of 400 metres for net increases in dwellings in the Delivery and Site
Allocations Development Plan Document. and requiring provision of Suitable
Alternative Natural Green Space and contributions to on-site visitor management
measures… Mitigation measures within 7 kilometres of Ashdown Forest for windfall
development, including provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space and
on-site visitor management measures will be contained within the Delivery and Sites
Allocation Development Plan Document and will be associated with the
implementation of the integrated green network strategy. In the meantime the Council
will work with appropriate partners to identify Suitable Alternative Natural Green
Space and on-site management measures at Ashdown Forest so that otherwise
acceptable development is not prevented from coming forward by the absence of
acceptable mitigation.
The Council will also undertake further investigation of the impacts of
nitrogen deposition on the Ashdown Forest Special Area of
Conservation so that its effects on development in the longer term
can be more fully understood and mitigated if appropriate.

8. Policy WCS12
• Several planning appeals refused
• Local plan examination
• Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP
challenged the Core Strategy
– All references to 7 kilometres of Ashdown Forest
deleted from policy
– New applications - Council will decide on need to an
Appropriate Assessment and whether there is likely to
be a significant effect on the SAC
Brook Cottage Consultants 8

9. Steel Cross: Reason for Refusal
• The development proposal, both alone and in combination
with other plans and proposals, would have an adverse
effect on the integrity of the SPA and SSSI, including
impact through pressures for increased recreational use
of the Ashdown Forest and the intensification of
nitrogen deposition in the protected area by additional
traffic generated. There are no suitable proposals to
mitigate this adverse effect...
• Development would result in 43 additional vehicles per
day on relevant road link.
Brook Cottage Consultants 9

10. Is 43 vehicles per day ‘de minimis’?
“Proposals having no, or de minimis, effects can be
progressed without further consideration under the
Habitats Regulations although reasons for reaching
this decision must be justified and recorded”
Habitats Regulations Guidance Note No. 3 English
Nature November 1999
43 vehicles is 0.26% of current traffic on A26, and
well within day to day variation
Brook Cottage Consultants 10

11. Brook Cottage Consultants 11

12. Appropriate Assessment
“Appropriate Assessment would be required to allow any
development beyond that in the Core Strategy… …Such an
assessment would require more monitoring and modelling
together with a detailed examination of the sensitivity of the
SAC to nitrogen inputs… Without such an Appropriate
Assessment the Council is not, in my view, in a position to
change its stance in relation to the Core Strategy allocations.
Source: Evidence of Prof D Laxen on behalf of Wealden District
Council to Steel Cross Inquiry
Brook Cottage Consultants 12

13. WDC Research Programme
• Vegetation / soil surveys started 2014
• Repeated annually until at least 2017 and potentially up
to 2027.
• On completion of the 2016/17 monitoring, the data
analysed to identify any potential relationship between
traffic levels and atmospheric pollution on vegetation
structure and composition should they be apparent.
Source: Evidence of Prof D Laxen to Steel Cross Inquiry
Brook Cottage Consultants 13

14. WDC Research Programme
• Vegetation / soil surveys started 2014
• Repeated annually until at least 2017 and potentially up
to 2027.
• On completion of the 2016/17 monitoring, the data
analysed to identify any potential relationship between
traffic levels and atmospheric pollution on vegetation
Brook Cottage Consultants 14
Source: Evidence of Prof D Laxen to Steel Cross Inquiry

15. Some Questions
DMRB
• Scoping criteria for
individual schemes or in-
combination?
• Is the criteria appropriate?
Habitats Regulations
• Designed to stop
development?
Appropriate Assessment
• Does it required extensive
and long term monitoring?
HRGNs
• Do HRGNs need updating?
• What is a ‘de-minimis
impact?
Brook Cottage Consultants 15

16. Discussion Meeting Aims
• Discuss how can the assessments can be
improved?
• Is new non statutory guidance required to assist
our members?
Brook Cottage Consultants 16

17. Agenda
• Introduction Dr Claire Holman FIAQM (Brook Cottage
Consultants)
• Quantification of the Air Quality Impact Dr Ben
Marner MIAQM (Air Quality Consultants)
• Ecological Assessment Dr James Riley MCIEEM
(AECOM)
• Natural England’s View Dr Alastair Burn (Natural
England)
• The Environment Agency’s View: Assessing the
impacts of aerial emissions on European Protected
Sites Kate Bayley MCIEEM (Environment Agency)
• Discussion
Brook Cottage Consultants 17