Habitat Regulations Assessment - National Infrastructure ... · Habitat Regulations Assessment for...

Habitat Regulations Assessment

Advice note ten: Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to nationallysignificantinfrastructureprojects

IntroductionWhenpreparinganapplicationfornationallysignificantinfrastructureprojects(NSIPs)underthePlanningAct2008,developersshouldconsiderthepotentialeffectsonprotectedhabitats.IfanNSIPislikelytoaffectaEuropeansiteand/oraEuropeanmarinesite1(hereafterEuropeansite)thedevelopermustprovideareportwiththeapplicationshowingtheEuropeansitethatmaybeaffectedtogetherwithsufficientinformationtoenablethedecisionmakertomakeanappropriateassessment,ifrequired.

Thepurposeofthisadvicenoteisto:

• provideabriefdescriptionofthelegislativeframeworkandobligationsplacedonboththedecisionmakeranddeveloperundertheHabitatsDirective2andtheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations2010(asamended),hereafterthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)3

• explaintheinterfacebetweentheprocessunderthePlanningAct2008andtheprocessundertheHabitatsDirective(knownastheHabitatsRegulationsAssessment(HRA))whichmustbefollowedtoensurecompliancewiththelegalrequirements

• clarifytheinformationtobeprovidedwithadevelopmentconsentorder(DCO)applicationasprescribedintheInfrastructurePlanning(Applications:PrescribedFormsandProcedures)Regulations2009(theAPFPRegulations),and

• highlighttherelevantbodiesthatshouldbeconsultedthroughouttheDCOapplicationprocess,thesuggestedtimingofengagementandrecommendedlevelofinterfacerequired.

HabitatRegulationsAssessmentfornationallysignificantinfrastructureprojectsApril2011

*Allfootnotescanbefoundonthelastpageofthisadvicenote


02

Thisadvicenotemakesreferencetotherequirementslaiddowninthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended),thePlanningAct2008andotherrelatedlegislation.However,theadvicenoteshouldnotbeseenasinterpretingoroverridingtheexistinglegislativeframeworkandthedevelopershouldseekitsownlegaladvicewhereitisconsiderednecessary.ThisadvicenoteshouldalsobereadinconjunctionwiththeHabitatsDirective,the2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended),relevantGovernmentPlanningPolicy4,GovernmentCirculars5,andrecognisedEuropeanguidance6.Specificdocumentsareitemisedintheendnotetoassistdevelopers,butitisthedeveloper’sresponsibilitytoensurethatallrelevantpolicy,legislationandguidancehasbeenconsidered.

Background and legal contextEC DirectiveTheUKisboundbythetermsoftheECHabitatsDirective(andECBirdsDirectiveandtheRamsarConvention).TheaimoftheHabitatsDirectiveistoconservenaturalhabitatsandwildspeciesacrossEuropebyestablishinganetworkofsitesknownasNatura2000sites(forthepurposeofthisadvicenote,andasdefinedunderthe2010HabitatsRegulations,thesearereferredtoasEuropeansite(s)).

UnderArticle6(3)oftheHabitatsDirective,anappropriateassessmentisrequiredwhereaplanorproject(inthiscaseanNSIPproposal)islikelytohaveasignificanteffectuponaEuropeansite,eitherindividuallyorincombinationwithotherprojects.

“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 or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives” Article 6(3)

ThisArticlehasbeeninterpretedasmeaningthatanyprojectistobesubjecttoanappropriateassessmentifitcannotbeproven,beyondreasonablescientificdoubt,thatthereisnosignificanteffectonthatsite(aprecautionaryapproach),eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects7.

Furthertothis,Article6(4)statesthatwhereanappropriateassessmenthasbeencarriedoutandresultsinanegativeassessment(inotherwords,anyproposedavoidanceormitigationmeasuresanticipatedareunabletoreducethepotentialimpactsoitisnolongersignificant)orifuncertaintyremainsoverthesignificanteffect,consentwillonlybegrantediftherearenoalternativesolutions,andthereareimperativereasonsofover-ridingpublicinterest(IROPI)forthedevelopment8andcompensatorymeasureshavebeensecured.

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. Article 6(4)


03

HRA processes HRAisarecognisedstepbystepprocesswhichhelpsdeterminelikelysignificanteffectand(whereappropriate)assessadverseimpactsontheintegrityofaEuropeansite,examinesalternativesolutions,andprovidesjustificationforIROPI.

Europeanguidance9describesafourstageprocesstoHRAandissummarisedinTable1belowandatFigure1.

TheHRAprocess,asappliedtoNSIPs,isillustratedinFigure2(page11)andatTable2(page21):

Table 1: Four stage process to the HRA

Stage 1: Screening TheprocesstoidentifythelikelyimpactsofaprojectuponaEuropeansite,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansandprojects,andconsiderwhethertheimpactsarelikelytobesignificant.

Stage 2: Appropriateassessment

TheconsiderationoftheimpactsontheintegrityoftheEuropeansite10,eitheraloneonincombinationwithotherplansandprojects,withregardtothesite’sstructureandfunctionanditsconservationobjectives.Wherethereareadverseimpacts,anassessmentofmitigationoptionsiscarriedouttodetermineadverseeffectontheintegrityofthesite.Ifthesemitigationoptionscannotavoidadverseeffectsthendevelopmentconsentcanonlybegivenifstages3and4arefollowed.

Stage 3: Assessmentofalternative solutions

ExaminingalternativewaysofachievingtheobjectivesoftheprojecttoestablishwhethertherearesolutionsthatwouldavoidorhavealessereffectonEuropeansites.

Stage 4: IROPI Thisistheassessmentwherenoalternativesolutionexistsandwhereadverseimpactsremain.TheprocesstoassesswhetherthedevelopmentisnecessaryforIROPIand,ifso,thepotentialcompensatorymeasuresneededtomaintaintheoverallcoherenceofthesiteorintegrityoftheEuropeansitenetwork.


04

TheprotectiongivenbytheHabitatsDirectiveistransposedintoUKlegislationthroughthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended).

The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)requirethecompetentauthority1112,beforedecidingtoauthoriseaprojectwhichislikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansite“tomakeanappropriateassessmentoftheimplicationsforthatsiteinviewofthatsite’sconservationobjectives”13.

Inaccordancewiththe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(2)anyoneapplyingfordevelopmentconsentforanNSIPmustprovidethecompetentauthoritywithsuchinformationasmayreasonablyberequired“forthepurposesoftheassessment”or“toenablethemtodeterminewhetheranappropriateassessmentisrequired”14.

Note-theAPFPRegulationscarryforwardtherequirementsofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)intotheapplicationprocessforNSIPsbyrequiringsufficientinformationtobeprovidedwithintheapplicationtoenableanappropriateassessmenttobecarriedout,ifrequired.15

Sitesaffordedprotectionunderthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)aredesignatedintheUKasSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs),candidateSpecial

Developersshouldbeawarethatifinsufficientinformationi.e.aboutHRA,asrequiredbytheAPFPRegulations,issubmittedwiththeapplication,theIPCmayrefusetoaccepttheapplication.Developersarethereforestronglyadvisedtousethepre-applicationconsultationprocesstoseekassurancesfromtherelevantstatutorybodiesthatallpotentialimpactshavebeenproperlyaddressedinsufficientdetailbeforetheapplicationissubmitted.

AreasofConservationandSpecialProtectionAreas(SPAs).AsamatterofpolicytheGovernmentalsoappliestheproceduresdescribedbelowtoRamsarsitesandpotentialSPAs.ThesesitesaregenerallyreferredtoasEuropeansites.


05

Aligning the NSIP process with statutory requirements of the 2010 Habitats Regulations (as amended)Thedevelopershouldcarryoutthenecessarypreparatoryworkduringpre-applicationtoalevelofdetailthatwillenablethecompetentauthoritytomeetitsdutyunderthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended).ThisworkshouldresultininformationwhichwillshowbeyondreasonabledoubtwhetheranyEuropeansitesarelikelytobeaffectedbytheNSIPproposal,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,describethelikelyimpactsontheconservationobjectivesoftheEuropeansites(whichmaybedirectorindirect,temporaryorpermanent,oracombinationofthese)anddescribewhethertheimpactsarelikelytobesignificantlyadverse.

Thepreparatorywork,assuggested,isrequiredtoensurethattheproceduralrequirementsoftheAPFPRegulations16canbemetaswellasallowingthecompetentauthoritytomeetitsdutyunderthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended).

Therefore,considerationofthelikelysignificanteffectsonEuropeansitesshouldcommence

atanearlystageofthepre-applicationprocessinconsultationwiththeappropriatenatureconservationbodies17(i.e.atEIAscoping,statutorys47ands42consultation,orsooner18)because:

• ifanapplicationdoesnotprovidesufficientinformationtoenableanappropriateassessmenttobecarriedout(ifrequired)theIPCmaybeunabletoaccepttheapplication,and

• thecompetentauthoritycannotmakeadeterminationthataprojectislikelytohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansiteandifnecessarycarryoutappropriateassessmentuntilafteranapplicationissubmitted.Thestricttimetable19forexaminationofapplicationsmeansthatifinsufficientassessmentworkhasbeendoneatthepre-applicationstagetheremaynotbeenoughtimeduringtheexaminationtocarryoutanyadditionalsurveysorcommissiondetailedtechnicalanalysisatthisstagetosupporttheappropriateassessment.Intheabsenceofsuchinformation,theexaminingauthority’sfindingsandconclusionsmaybethatthecompetentauthorityshouldrefusetoauthorisetheproject.


06

Figure 1: Consideration of projects affecting European sites20

Istheprojectlikelytohavesignificanteffectsonthesite?

Assessimplicationsforthesite’sconservationobjectives.

Willtheprojectadverselyaffecttheintegrityofthesite?

Aretherealternativesolutions?

Doesthesitehostapriorityhabitatorspecies?

Aretherehumanhealthorsafetyconsiderationsorimportantenvironmentalbenefits?

Authorisation may be granted.Compensationmeasuresaretaken.TheEuropeanCommissionisinformed.

Authorisation may be granted forotherimperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterest,followingconsultationbetweentheGovernmentandtheEuropeanCommission.Compensationmeasureshavetobetaken.

Authorisation may be granted.

Authorisation must not be granted.

Arethereimperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterest?

Redrafttheproject.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

NoNo


07

Roles and responsibilitiesThe competent authorityAlthoughthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)(andOffshoreMarineRegulations)donotspecifythemethodologyforcarryingouttheHRAtheydospecifytheobligationsofthecompetentauthorityandthedeveloper.

Theroleofthecompetentauthorityistodetermineiftherearelikelysignificanteffectsandcarryouttheappropriateassessment21,ifrequired,beforeadecisionismade.Theyarealsorequiredtoconsultwiththerelevantnatureconservationbodies(andthepublic,ifconsideredappropriate)beforedecidingtoauthorisetheNSIP,andwhereadverseeffectsremaintheymustundertakefurtherassessmentsonalternativesandprepareajustificationstatementforIROPI(seelatersectionsonthis).

Responsibility of the IPCIfthereisnorelevantnationalpolicystatementinrelationtotheapplication,theIPCwillnotitselfbethecompetentauthoritybutwillneverthelessensurethatsufficientinformationisprovidedtoenabletheSecretaryofState(SoS)tomeethis/herstatutorydutiesasthecompetentauthorityunderthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended).InformationprovidedwithintheDCOapplicationwillenabletheIPCtoundertakea‘shadow’assessmentfortheSoStoconsider.

Responsibilities of the developerItistheresponsibilityofthedevelopertoinclude‘sufficientinformation’withtheDCOapplicationatacceptancetoidentifytheEuropeansitesandtoenabletheappropriateassessmenttobemadeifrequired22 (pleaserefertolatersection‘Acceptanceofapplication’).

Therefore,itistheresponsibilityofthedevelopertocarryoutthenecessarypreparatoryworkandassembleevidenceinsupportoftheDCOapplicationtoenablethecompetentauthoritytocarryoutitsduties.TheIPCstronglyadvisesdeveloperstoshadowtheHRAprocessatthepre-applicationstagesothatthedeveloperisabletocompilealltheinformationnecessaryforthecompetentauthoritytomakeadeterminationduringtheexamination.

Thereisnospecificpointorstatutoryrequirementduringpre-applicationthatrequiresdeveloperstoinitiatetheHRAprocess.Itisforthedevelopertoconsiderhowbesttomeetpre-applicationrequirementsandgivecarefulconsiderationtothepointwhentheresultsofthedeveloper’sownHRAreportcouldbeusefullypresentedforconsultationi.e.onlikelysignificanteffects,mitigationsolutions,reasonablealternatives,andpotentialcompensatorymeasures.

Thedevelopermaywishtotakethenatureconservationbodyandlocalplanningauthority’sadviceabouthowtoincorporateHRAconsultationintothepublishedSoCCsothateveryoneisawareoftheiropportunitytomakecomments.

Itislikelytobeinthedeveloper’sbestintereststoundertakebothformalandinformalconsultationwiththestatutorynatureconservationorganisationsatanearlystageofthepre-applicationprocess.Furtherguidanceonpre-applicationrequirementsisprovidedintheIPC’sstatutoryguidancenote1andadvicenoteseven:EIAscreeningandscoping.

Carefulconsiderationshouldbegiventoanyspecificsurveysandinvestigationsnecessaryastheremaybelittletimetoobtainfurtherinformationduringexamination(see‘Requiringfurtherinformation’).Developersmaywishtomakeuseoftheconsultationreportorastatementofcommongroundtoidentifymatterswhichhavebeenagreedwiththenatureconservationbodiesandtoflagareaswhichremainindispute.ThiswouldhelptheExaminingauthority,iftheapplicationisaccepted,toassesstheissuesandtodecidehowtocarryouttheexamination.

Responsibilities of the statutory nature conservation bodiesTheformalinputofthenatureconservationbodies(orprescribedconsultees)duringpre-applicationwouldbeinresponsetothedeveloper’ss42consultationandtheIPC’sEIAscopingopinionprocess,ifoneisrequested23.TheIPCnonethelessrecommendsthatdialoguetakesplacebetweenthedeveloperandthenatureconservationbodiesaboutHRAissuesthroughoutthepre-applicationstageandasearlyaspossible.Informaldiscussionswiththedevelopermayincludeadvisingonlikelysignificanteffectsandmitigationproposals.

Developersshoulddiscussandagreeworkingarrangementswiththerelevantnatureconservationbodiesi.e.NaturalEngland(schemessolelywithinEngland),CountrysideCouncilforWales(schemessolelywithinWales),andtheJointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC)(schemesbeyond12nauticalmiles).

Thedeveloperisalsoadvisedtoagreewiththerelevantorganisationswhoshouldactastheleadnatureconservationbodywheretheproposalfallswithintheresponsibilitiesoftwoormorenatureconservationbodies.


08


09

Relationship with environmental impact assessment (EIA)ThemajorityofNSIPproposalswillrequireanEIAandaHRA.AlthoughtheHRAandEIAareseparateanddistinctelementsoftheDCOapplicationprocessbothareintegraltothedecisionmakingprocess.AmongstotherimpactswhichtheEIAwillassess,itmustincludeinformationaboutsignificanteffectsonfloraandfauna24; informationwhichislikelytosupportthedeveloper’sHRAassessment.

However,theEIAandHRAhavedifferentapproachestodecision-making:

• theEnvironmentalStatement(ES)informsthedecision(itsfindingsmustbe‘takenintoconsideration’25),whereas

• theDCOcanonlybemadeifthedecisionmakerhasfollowedthestagesprescribedbythe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)(See Figure1).

ItislikelythatthedesignatedfeaturesofaEuropeansitepotentiallyimpactedbytheproposeddevelopmentwillbeidentifiedduringpre-applicationconsultationi.e.duringsiteselectionandscopingoftheproposedoptions.Althoughthereisno

requirementtodoso,thedevelopermaywishtoformallyconsultonitsownHRAscreeningassessmentthroughtheEIAscopingreport,usingformalscopingconsultationbytheIPC26tocommunicateitsapproachonscreeningofEuropeansitese.g.thedevelopercouldincludeinformationaboutitsownHRAsurveysandapproachinthescopingreport.

Ifrequestedtodoso,theIPCwillconsultonthedeveloper’sscopingreportwiththerelevantconsultationbodiestodeterminetheinformationtobeincludedintheES.ThisformalelementofEIAscopingconsultationmayhelpdevelopersidentifythepotentialissuesandmuchofthebaselinedataneededtosatisfytheHRArequirements,helpwritetheHRAscreeningassessmentandensureanyissuesareidentifiedatthisstage.IfthisapproachtoHRAscreeningisfollowed,thedevelopermaywishtosetoutitsscreeningapproachasaseparateannexwithintheEIAscopingreport,whichtheIPCwillconsulton.

ConsiderationshouldbegiventothetimingofanEIAscopingrequestandconsultationrequiredtosupportthedeveloper’sHRAassessmentasthismayimpactonthepre-applicationprogramme.


10

Co-ordinating parallel consents and other appropriate assessmentsNSIPs,byvirtueoftheirscaleandcomplexity,arelikelytorequireseparatelicencesorpermitsunderotherregulatoryregimes.ActivitiesrequiringconsentnotincludedorcapableofbeingincludedinanapplicationfordevelopmentconsentunderthePlanningAct2008,mayalsohaveasignificanteffectonaEuropeansiteandmayalsorequireappropriateassessmentbyadifferentdecisionmaker(orcompetentauthority)underotherregulatoryregimesbeforeitcanbeauthorised.Developersareencouragedtoconsultothercompetentauthoritiesaboutthelevelofinformationtheywillrequiretoundertaketheirappropriateassessment,ifrequired,ortoenablethemtoadoptthereasoningorconclusionsoftheappropriateassessmentcarriedoutbythecompetentauthorityunderthePlanningAct2008.

Itshouldbeclearthatanylikelysignificanteffectsoftheproposeddevelopment,whichmayberegulatedbyothercompetentauthorities,shouldhavebeenproperlytakenintoaccountinthedeveloper’sHRAfortheDCOapplication27.

Ifthedeveloperdecidestoapplyforconsentsunderotherregulatoryregimeswhichthemselvesrequireanappropriateassessment,considerationshouldbegiventothelikelihoodoftheotherlicenceconsentbeingauthorised.Thedevelopershouldalsoconsiderthetimingoftherelevantauthority’sdecision,andtheimpactthismayhaveontheexaminationoftheDCOapplicationandthepreparationofitsappropriateassessment,andtoany‘incombination’effects.

Asthecompetentauthoritymustseektheviewsofothercompetentauthoritiesbeforemakingadecisionitisrecommendedthatdeveloperssubmitwiththeapplication,ifpossible,relevantcomments/viewsofothercompetentauthoritiesobtainedduringpre-applicationconsultation.

Table2summarisesthekeystagesoftheDCOapplicationprocessandthepointsatwhichthereisinterfacewiththeHRAprocess.FurtheradviceisprovidedbelowonhowtheHRAfitswitheachstageoftheIPCprocess,andthestepsthedeveloperisrecommendedtoconsiderwhenshadowingtheHRAprocess.


11

Figure 2: Flow chart illustrating the relationship between DCO applications and HRA processes

Pre-application Acceptance Pre-examination Examination Recommendation/Decision

IPC

Proc

ess

HRA

STAG

E (R

eg 6

1)HR

A ST

AGE

(Reg

62)

In a

ntic

ipat

ion

of a

neg

ativ

e ap

prop

riate

ass

essm

ent

Completedbythedeveloper

Completedbythecompetentauthority

Stage 1:ScreeningPreparationofthedeveloper’sHRAreportOr Statementof‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’

Consultationa)Statementofnoalternativesb)StatementofIROPIc)Statementofcompensatorymeasures

Decisionwhetherornottoacceptapplication28

Stage 1: DeterminationoflikelysignificanteffectsStage 2: AppropriateassessmentandconsultationAssessmentofmitigation measures

Stage 3: AssessmentofalternativesStage 4: Assessmentwhereno alternative solutionexistsandwhereadverseimpactsremain(IROPI)andconsultation.SeekingopinionofEuropeanCommissionandothercompetentauthorities as requiredandjustificationofIROPIIdentificationofcompensatorymeasures

NotificationofproposeddecisiontoSecretaryofState


12

Pre-application (no prescribed timeframe)Screening for significant effect(s) on European site(s)WhenconsideringwhetheraproposalhasthepotentialtosignificantlyaffectEuropeansitesitisadvisedthatthedeveloperdoesthisinconsultationwiththerelevantnatureconservationbodyattheearliestpointinthepre-applicationprocess.Thisisthedeveloper’sresponsibilitybutinduecoursethecompetentauthoritywillneedtobesatisfiedthatitagreeswiththedeveloper’sconclusion.

IssuesforthedevelopertoconsiderandincludewithintheirHRAscreeningassessmentmayinclude:

• Adetaileddescriptionofthedevelopment,processesandmethodofworkproposedaspartoftheNSIP

• AdescriptionoftheEuropeansiteanditsqualifyingfeaturespotentiallyaffectedwithreferencetothesite’sconservationobjectives

• Anoutlineandinterpretationofbaselinedata,proportionatetothedevelopment

• Anappraisalofanyotherplansorprojectslikelytohaveasignificanteffect,incombinationwiththeproposeddevelopment29

• Anevaluationofthepotentialfortheschemetorequiretwoormoreappropriateassessmentsbydifferentcompetentauthorities,and

• AstatementwhichspecifieswherethesiteboundariesoftheschemeoverlapintodevolvedassembliesorotherEuropeanmemberstates.

TheIPCrecommendsthatdevelopersrefertotheHRAscreeningchecklistprovidedinAppendix1(linkopensAppendicesasWorddocument)asaguidewhendeterminingtherelevantelementsneededtosupportthisstageoftheprocess.Thedeveloper’sownscreeningmatrixshouldbeincludedwiththedeveloper’sHRAreport(andHRAscreeningchecklist),submittedaspartoftheDCOapplication.

ThegeneralapproachtakentoHRAthroughoutpreparationoftheDCOapplicationshouldbeiterativetoensurearobustassessmentofthelikelysignificantimpactsiscarriedout.Thereshouldbeacontinuousevaluationoftheassessmentfindingsagainstthresholdsoflikelysignificanteffect.IfatanytimetheHRAassessmentdetermines‘nosignificantimpact(aloneorin-combination)’beyondreasonabledoubtthentheassessmentcanbeconcluded.ThedevelopershouldthenprovidetheresultsoftheirHRAwiththeDCOapplicationintheformofa‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’(seelaterfordetails).

Pre-application consultationIngeneral,developersarestronglyadvisedtotakeadvantageofpre-applicationconsultationtoagreeandnegotiateissueswithconsulteesandtominimisethenumberofissuesthatmightotherwiseneedtobeconsideredduringexamination.

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Advice-note-10-HRA_Appendices.doc


13

Consultationonsignificantimpactsshouldevolvethroughoutpre-application.ThismayincludeconsultationwithstatutoryconsulteesprescribedunderSchedule1oftheAPFPRegulations,otherprescribedbodiesandpersonsundersection42ofthePlanningAct,communitywideconsultationundersection47ofthePlanningAct2008,and/orthedeveloper’snon-statutoryEIAscopingconsultation.

Thedeveloperisadvisedtoutiliseallpre-applicationconsultationopportunitiestoengagewiththeappropriatenatureconservationbodywhichwhenconsultedwillbeabletogiveadviceabouttherelevantscreeningandappropriateassessmentmattersinrelationtotheproposedDCOapplication.

Thenatureconservationbodies,ifrequested,mayalsoprovideadviceoncompensatorymeasuresandtheireffects,whereappropriate.

Thedeveloperwillneedtoconcludefrombaselineinformationandconsultationresponsesreceivedthat:

1. ThereisnopotentiallikelysignificanteffectonEuropeansites,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojectsandthereforenofurtherassessmentisrequired(seenoteon‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’),or

2. AnanticipatedpotentialsignificanteffectonEuropeansitesexists,aloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,thereforerequiringanappropriateassessmentbythecompetentauthority.

1 - No significant effects reportIf,asaresultoftheHRAscreening,thedeveloperconcludesthereisnolikelysignificanteffectonaEuropeansitesufficientinformationmustbeprovidedwiththeDCOapplicationtoallowthecompetentauthoritytoassessandreviewtheinformationandmakeitsowndeterminationthattherearenolikelyeffects,andbesatisfiedthereisnoresidualeffect.

Itmustbemadeclearthatthedeveloperhasreachedtheviewthattherearenosignificanteffects.Thedevelopershouldprovidereasonswhyitisconsideredthatanappropriateassessmentwillnotberequiredandprovideconfirmationfromthenatureconservationbodythatthisconclusionissupported.ThisHRAconclusionshouldbeexplainedina‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’(seelaterrelevantsectionforfurtherexplanation).

The‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’shouldbeappendedtothereportwhichisrequiredbyRegulation5(2)(g)oftheAPFP(whichmustidentifyanyEuropeansitespotentiallyaffectedbytheproposeddevelopment).Althoughthe‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’must,asaminimumprovide,thedetailssetoutatparagraph30ofIPCguidancenote2thereisnoprescribedformat.AchecklistindicatingthelevelofdetailwhichtheIPCrecommendsshouldbeprovidedbythedeveloperissetoutin Appendices1and2(linkopensAppendicesasWorddocument).

Itwouldbehelpfulifthe‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’werealsocrossreferencedatBox16oftheapplicationform.



14

2 - Anticipated potential likely significant effect(s) on the European siteIfthedeveloperhasconcludedthattheproposalislikelytosignificantlyaffectEuropeansites,aloneorincombination,developerswillneedtogivecarefulconsiderationtoavoidanceofimpactse.gthroughtimingoftheconstructionperiodorwhereappropriateeventore-locatingtheproposaltoanalternativesite.Thedeveloper’sHRAreportwillalsoneedtoaddressmitigationmeasures30 todemonstratehowimpactshavebeenreduced.Thesemitigationmeasuresmustseektocounter-acttheeffectsoftheproposal(notprovidecompensation).Thedeveloperwillalsoneedtoconsidertheeffectivenessofthemitigationmeasuresandanyresidualeffect,aloneorincombinationwithotherschemes.

Thedevelopershouldappendtothereport,whichisrequiredbyRegulation5(2)(g)oftheAPFP,sufficientinformationtoenablethecompetentauthoritytocarryouttheappropriateassessment.Ifthedeveloper’sHRAreportdoesnotsubstantiallyprovidetherecommendeddetails31theCommissionerappointedtodecidewhetherornottoaccepttheapplicationmayreasonablyconcludethatinsufficientinformationhasbeenprovidedandthatthedeveloperhasthereforefailedtocomplywiththerequirementinRegulation5(2)(g).

Anticipated adverse effect on integrity of the European site(s)WhereaproposalsignificantlyaffectsaEuropeansitethedeveloperwillalsoneedtoconsiderwhetheritadverselyaffectstheintegrityoftheEuropeansite32.

Forexample,integritymaybeaffectedifmitigationmeasuresareunabletoreducetheimpactofthedevelopmenttothepointwheretheynolongerhaveanadverseeffectonthesite’sintegrity,orifuncertaintyremainsoverthesignificanteffecti.e.itcannotberuledoutthattherearenoadverseeffectsonthebasisofobjectiveevidence.

Therefore,developmentconsentwouldonlybegrantedundercertaincircumstances33:

• Therearenoalternativesolutions,andifappropriate

• Thereareimperativereasonsofover-ridingpublicinterest(IROPI)forwhichdevelopmentshouldgoahead(limitedreasonsforIROPIaresetoutinRegulation62(2)ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)),and

• Followingconsultationontheproposeddecisionandanycompensatorymeasures,duringthedecisionstage

TheIPCencouragesdeveloperstosubmitdraftHRAreportsandanysupportingdocumentswhilsttheycarryoutconsultationandworkupdetailedproposalsinorderthatqualityissuescanbeidentified,andtakeaviewonthelevelofresourcesrequiredtocarryoutitsdutyduringexamination,beforetheapplicationissubmittedtotheIPC.


15

Acceptance of the application (28 Days)Submitting the DCO applicationDevelopersshouldeithersubmita‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’orareportwhichprovidessufficientinformationtoenablethecompetentauthoritytocarryoutanappropriateassessment34.Althoughitisthecompetentauthority’sresponsibilitybothtodeterminewhethertherearelikelysignificanteffectsandtocarryouttheappropriateassessment,developersshouldensurethatsufficientinformationisprovidedtoenablethesestatutorydutiestobemet.

Itisrecommendedthatinadditionandasaminimumthedeveloper’sHRAreport(asrequiredbyRegulation5(2)(g)oftheAPFP)should:

• IdentifyonaplananddescribeanyEuropeansite,oranyRamsarsitewhichmaybeaffectedbytheproposeddevelopment

• Provideevidenceabouttheproject’simpactsontheintegrityofEuropeansites

• Provideevidencetodemonstratethedeveloperhasfullyconsultedandhadregardtocommentsreceivedbytherelevantnatureconservationbodies(statutoryauthorities)atpre-applicationconsultationinordertoallowjudgementbytheIPConwhethersufficientinformationhasbeenprovided

• Identifymitigationmeasureswhichavoidorreduceeachimpact,showstheeffectivenessoftheimpactsandanyresidualeffect

• IdentifyanyresidualeffectsandwhethertheseconstituteanadverseimpactontheintegrityofEuropeansites,ifappropriate

• Provideascheduleindicatingthetimingofmitigationmeasuresinrelationtotheprogressofthedevelopment,and

• IdentifybycrossreferencetotherelevantDCOrequirementsanddevelopmentconsentobligationsthemeasuresthatwillbesecuredtoavoidandmitigateimpactsontheintegrityofEuropeansites,andtheirlikelydegreeofcertaintyofimplementation.


16

ItisimportantthattheinformationsubmittedwiththeDCOapplicationisinaformatthatwillallowtheIPCtounderstandwhichinformationispertinenttotheHRA.

Althoughthedeveloper’sHRAreportmustasaminimumprovidethedetailssetoutatparagraph30ofIPCguidancenote2thereisnoprescribedformat.CheckliststhatindicatethelevelofdetailwhichtheIPCrecommendsshouldbeprovidedbythedeveloperissetoutintheAppendices(linkopensAppendicesasWorddocument).ThisapproachisbasedonIPCguidancenote2,Europeanguidanceandfollowsgoodpractice.Whenanapplicationissubmitted,whichincludesthedeveloper’sHRAreport,theIPCwillreviewitagainsttherecommendedinformationintheIPCssection55Acceptancechecklistinordertodecidewhetherthedeveloperhascompliedwithproceduralrequirementstosubmit“sufficient”informationtoenableappropriateassessmenttobe carriedout.35

TheIPCwillnotbeabletorequestfurtherinformationattheacceptancestagetosupplementorclarifyinformationprovidedinthedeveloper’sHRAreportandfailuretoprovidesufficientinformationmayresultintheDCOapplicationnotbeingaccepted.Developersmaywishtoseekassurancesfromtherelevantnatureconservationbodythatallpotentialimpactshavebeenproperlyaddressedinsufficientdetailanddocumentthisintheirapplication.

Iftheconclusionoftheappropriateassessmentisthatadverseeffectsonintegritycannotbeavoidedthenthedeveloper’sHRAreportmustalsoincludestatementstoenablethecompetentauthoritytogivefullconsiderationtoalternativesolutions,imperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterestandcompensatorymeasures.

Therefore,inthiscircumstancetheHRAreportsubmittedmustalsoprovide,whereappropriate:

• Anassessmentofalternativesolutions,andifappropriate

• AjustificationforIROPIstatementi.e.allowingdevelopmenttogoaheadintheeventtheproposalisconsideredtoadverselyaffecttheintegrityoftheidentifieddesignatedsitesandtherearenoalternativesolutions,and

• Acompensatorymeasuresassessmentreport,havingconsultedwiththerelevantnatureconservationbodies.



17

Pre-examination (approx. 3 months)AfteranapplicationisacceptedanExaminingauthority(ExA)willbeappointed36.Pre-examinationprovidestheopportunityfortheExAtocarryoutaninitialassessmentofthedevelopers’findingsasprovidedintheirHRAreport37todeterminewhetherthereissufficientevidencetomeetitsdutieswithintheexaminationtimeframe,ifrequiredtodoso.

TheExAwillcarryoutitsinitialassessmentoftheprincipalissuesarisingfromtheapplicationandwillthenholdapreliminarymeetingtohearviewsabouthowtheapplicationistobeexamined.Prescribedbodies(includingnatureconservationbodies)andanyonewhohasmadearelevantrepresentation38(includingthegeneralpublic)willbeinvitedtomakerepresentationstotheExA39abouttheexaminationprocedurepriortothepreliminarymeeting.

Itisrecommendedthatanyrepresentations,abouthowthehabitatsissuesshouldbeexamined,aremadetotheExAbeforethepreliminarymeetingsothattheExAcandecidehowtostructuretheexaminationandconsiderwhetheranyfurtherwritteninformationmayberequiredduringtheexamination.

Theproceduraldecision(whichwillbemadebytheExAatorafterthepreliminarymeeting)willsetoutthetimetableforreceiptofanyfurtherwritteninformationabouttheHRArequiredand,whererelevant,datesandvenuesforhearings.

Examination (up to 6 months)Consulting the relevant nature conservation bodies and general public where applicableThecompetentauthorityforthepurposesoftheappropriateassessmentmustconsultthestatutorynatureconservationbodiesandhaveregardtotheirrepresentationswithinareasonabletimeframebeforemakingadeterminationontheDCOapplication40.TheexaminationprovidesanopportunitytoconsultthenatureconservationbodiestoinformtheappropriateassessmentandtheExAwillsetthetimeframeforseekingfurtherrepresentationsfromthemifrequiredintheproceduraldecision.

TheExAmayasktheChairoftheIPCtoappointanexpertassessor41,wherethereisconsideredtobeuncertaintysurroundingparticularissuestoprovideatechnicalviewwhichcaninformtheappropriateassessment.

TheExAwillalso,inadditiontoreceivingviewsfromthepublicduringpre-examination,seekthegeneralpublic’sopinionspecificallyonmattersofrelevancetotheappropriateassessmentaspartoftheexamination,ifconsideredappropriate42.ThewayinwhichviewswillbecollectedaspartoftheexaminationwillbesetoutintheExA’sproceduraldecisionandmaytaketheformofrequestingwrittenrepresentationsorholdingahearing,ifconsiderednecessary.


18

Requiring further informationEitherbeforeorafterconsultingwiththeappropriatenatureconservationbodies,theExAmayrequirethedevelopertoprovidefurtherinformationreasonablyrequiredforthecompetentauthoritytomakeanassessment43.Theinformationmayrelatetoadditionalenvironmentalinformation,orfurtherclarificationabouttheproposal,including:

• Newinformationfromsurveysthatneedtobecarriedout,or

• Interpretationoranalysisofexistingdata.

Ifinformation,whichisreasonablyrequiredtocarryouttheappropriateassessment,cannotbeproducedandconsultedonwithintheexaminationperiod,theExAwillhavetoconsidereitherseekinganextensiontothetimetableorthedecision-makermayneedtoconsiderrefusingconsent.

IfthefurtherinformationsoughtisalsoinformationwhichtheExAthinksshouldbeincludedintheES,theExAmustsuspendtheexaminationuntiltheinformationisprovided.44

Therefore,itisimportantthatthereisagreementatthepre-applicationstagebetweenallpartiesthatsufficientinformationhasbeenprovidedintheapplicationdocuments.WhereagreementhasbeenreachedbetweenthedeveloperandothersaboutHRAmatters,itisrecommendedthatthisisappropriatelysetoutinastatementofcommonground.

Hearings Unless a hearing45isconsiderednecessarytoalloworalrepresentationsaboutHRAissuesandconsideranylikelysignificanteffects,theexaminationofHRAmatterswilltaketheformofwrittenrepresentations.

CrossexaminationcantakeplaceiftheExAconsidersitnecessaryeithertoadequatelytestanyrepresentationsortoallowaninterestedpartyafairchancetoputthecaseforward.Inallcases,crossexaminationonevidenceaboutHRAissueswillbeatthediscretionoftheExA.

Carrying out the appropriate assessmentHavingtakenaccountofadvicefromtheappropriatenatureconservationbodies,consideredthedeveloper’sHRAreport,ES,andanyotherrelevantinformationotherwiseavailable,thecompetentauthoritymustbesatisfiedincarryingoutitsappropriateassessmentthatitcan:

• Identifythelikelysignificanteffectsi.e.whattheeffectsoftheproposalarelikelytobe,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,andhowtheseaffecttheEuropeansite’sconservationobjectives46

• Considerhowtoavoidandthenmitigatetheeffectsi.e.iftheproposaladverselyaffectstheintegrityofthesite,thecompetentauthoritymustconsiderhowtheschemehasbeenmodifiedortheconditionsproposedavoidstheeffects47

• Determineadverseeffectonintegrityof


19

thesite,eitheraloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects48

• Decidewhethertheprojectwouldadverselyaffecttheintegrityinviewofthesite’sconservationobjectives

• Considerwhetherthereareanyalternativesolutionstotheprojectproposal

• Iftherearenoalternativesolutions,considerwhetherthereareimperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterest49fortheproposaltogoahead,and

• ConsiderthecompensatorymeasuresputforwardintheDCOapplicationandconsulttheSecretaryofState.

Assessment of alternative solutionsAlternativesolutionscanincludeaproposalofadifferentscale,adifferentlocation,andanoptionofnothavingtheschemeatall–the‘donothing’approach.TheExA’sconsiderationoftheproposal(forthepurposesoftheHRA)canonlymovetotheIROPIandcompensatorymeasuresstageafteritisshownthattherearenoalternativestotheproposal.

Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)Whereithasbeendemonstratedthattherearenoalternativesolutionstotheproposalthatwouldhavealessereffectoravoidanadverseeffectontheintegrityofthesite,theprojectmaystillbecarriedoutifthecompetentauthorityissatisfiedtheschememustbecarriedoutforimperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterest(whichmaybeofasocialoreconomicnature)50.

Incaseswherethereareprioritynaturalhabitatsorspecies51affectedbythedevelopment,theIROPIjustificationmustrelatetoeither:

• humanhealth,publicsafety52orbeneficialconsequencesofprimaryimportancetotheenvironment,or

• anyotherimperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterest,havingsoughtaprioropinionfromtheEuropeanCommission53.

Justification of IROPIa) Consultation with the European Commission ThecompetentauthoritymaywishtoconsulttheEuropeanCommissionontheiropinionofthedeveloper’sjustificationforIROPIi.e.aretheyconsideredimperativereasonsofoverridingpublicinterest?Whereapplicable,theSecretaryofStateisrequiredtocoordinateanyrequestforanopinion.

b) Consultation with other competent authorities ThecompetentauthoritycarryingouttheIROPIassessmentmustalso,beforedecidingwhethertomaketheDCO,consultandhaveregardtotheviewsofotherauthoritieswhomaybetakingdecisionsinrelationtotheparallelconsentswhichmayalsobesubjecttoappropriateassessment54.

Consultationwithothercompetentauthoritiestoinformtheappropriateassessmentwilltakeplaceaspartoftheexamination.Thereforetoensureanefficientandtimelyexamination,developersareadvisedtoascertainatanearlystagewhetherconsentorpermissionisrequiredfrommorethanonecompetent


20

authority55andtoengagewiththeminrelationtotheHRAduringthepre-applicationprocesssothattheirviewscanbeaddressed(inaccordancewiththedutyunders49ofthePlanningAct2008)andanyissuesareresolvedbeforetheapplicationproceedstoexamination.

Decision / Recommendation (three months)Thecompetentauthoritywillmakeadecisioninthelightoftheappropriateassessment.

Consultation with the Secretary of State (i) IROPI case IftheIPCproposestograntdevelopmentconsentitmustnotdosountilithasnotifiedtheSecretaryofStatewithintheprescribedtimeframe(21daynotificationperiod)56,andmusthaveregardtoanydirectiongiven57.

(ii) Compensatory measures TheSecretaryofStatealsohasadutytosecurethenecessarycompensatorymeasures58andwillthereforeneedtobesatisfiedthattherelevantprovisions,requirementsoftheDCO,oranydevelopmentconsentobligationssecurethesecompensatorymeasures.

ThedeveloperwouldneedtomakeitscaseonbothIROPIandcompensatorymeasuresanddocumentthisintheHRAreportsubmittedwiththeDCOapplication,havingreceivedcommentsbackfromstatutorybodiesaboutalternatives,mitigation,IROPIandcompensatorymeasures.

Allrelevantsupportingstatements(assessmentofalternativesolutions,writtenjustificationofIROPIandacompensatorymeasuresassessment)willbeassessedbytheExAandwillinformthedecision.


21

IPC process stages(relative to the HRA process)59

HRA stages(EU Guidance)60

Activity

Pre-application (innoparticularorder)

IP(EIA)Regulations2009,paragraph8(6)–IPCconsultationwithprescribedbodies

s42Consultationbydeveloperwithprescribedbodies

s47Communityconsultationbythedeveloper

s46DevelopernotifiesIPCofproposeddevelopment

s48Dutytopublicise

Stage 1: Screening

ProvisionofinformationtosupportStages2-4

DevelopertodeterminelikelysignificanteffectonEuropeansitesasaresultoftheproposeddevelopment.

Developermayconsultwithstatutoryconsultees(includingnatureconservationbodies),bothinformallyandformallyats42,s47,ofthePlanningAct2008andEIAscopingconsultation(EIARegulations2009,Regulation6(1)(b)).

ThedeveloperwillneedtoanticipateandprovidewithDCOapplicationareport(asrequiredunderRegulation5(2)(g)oftheAPFPRegulations)whichincludesoneofthefollowing:

A‘Nosignificanteffectsreport’,or

Sufficientinformationtoenableanappropriateassessment.Thismayincludenoalternativesassessment,statementofIROPI,andcompensatorymeasuresthatwillinformthecompetentauthority’sconsideration.

IfsignificantadverseeffectislikelytheninformationshouldbecompiledtosupporttheHRA,includingcarryingoutanysurveysrequired.Inanticipationofanegativeassessment,thedevelopershouldenterintodiscussionswiththenatureconservationbodiesandlandowners,toestablishwhatcompensatorymeasuresmayberequiredandhowthesecouldbeachieved.

AcceptanceS55ofthePlanningAct2008

IP(APFP)Regulations2009,paragraph5(2)(g)

IPCdetermines,amongstotherthings,whethersufficientinformationhasbeenprovidedandeitheracceptsorrefusestoaccepttheapplication.

Table 2: Summary of the relationship between DCO applications for NSIPs and the HRA process

Tablecontinuesonthenextpage


22

IPC process stages(relative to the HRA process)59

HRA stages(EU Guidance)60

Activity

Pre-examinations56Developermustgivenoticeofapplication

s88initialassessment ofissuesandpreliminarymeeting

Stage 2: Appropriateassessment (part1)

Initialassessmentbythecompetentauthorityoftheprincipalissuesarisingontheapplicationdocuments(includingthedeveloper’sHRAreport).

Developeradvertisesacceptedapplicationandinvitesinterestedparties(includingnatureconservationbodies)tosubmitrepresentationstotheIPC,settingdeadlineforsubmission.ThereisnoconsultationprescribedunderthePlanningAct2008atthispointwiththenatureconservationbodies.However,asstatutoryconsulteestheywillbeaskedbythedevelopertosubmitrepresentationsandwillbenotifiedbytheIPCofthepreliminarymeetingasinterestedparties.

Proceduraldecisionsetsoutif/when/howtheHRAissueswillbeexamined,andstatewhenthenatureconservationbodieswillbeconsulted,andrequestedtoprovidewrittenrepresentations,ifrequired.

Examinations90writtenrepresentations

s91,92,93typeofhearings,ifrequired

Stage 2: Appropriateassessment (part2)

Competentauthority(ifalsotheExA)carriesoutHRAtodeterminewhethertheproposalhasalikelysignificanteffect,aloneorincombinationwithotherplansorprojects,andadverselyaffectstheintegrityofthesite.

Thecompetentauthority(ifalsotheExA)isrequiredtoconsultwiththenatureconservationbodies.

The following stages only apply in light of a negative appropriate assessmentStage 3: Assessmentofalternatives

Competentauthorityconsidersthe‘noalternativesassessment’submittedbythedevelopertoidentifywhetherornotalternativesolutionswouldmeettheproject’soverallobjectivewithoutsignificantlyaffectingtheintegrityofEuropeansites.

Stage 4: Assessment wherenoalternative solution exists andwhereadverseimpactsremain

Competentauthoritytoconsiderpresenceofpriorityhabitatsandspecies.

JustificationforIROPIandconsultationwithrelevantbodies.

Thecompetentauthoritymusthaveregardtocommentsfromothercompetentauthoritiespriortomakingadecision.

Decisions.114(1)

Thecompetentauthoritywillmakeadecisioninthelightoftheappropriateassessment.

Thecompetentauthority,inlightofanegativeassessment,mustconsulttheSecretaryofStateonitsproposeddecision(21daynotificationperiod).TheSecretaryofStatemustbesatisfiedthenecessarycompensatorymeasuresaresecured.

Table 2: Summary of the relationship between DCO applications for NSIPs and the HRA process (continued from page 21)


23

1 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)–Reg8–AEuropeansite(orEuropeanmarinesite)isanyclassifiedSPA(BirdsDirective2009/147/EC–formally79/409/EEC),anySAC(HabitatsDirective92/43/EEC),sitelistedasasiteofcommunityimportance,orsiteshostingpriorityhabitatsorspecies.AppropriateassessmentisalsorequiredforpotentialSPAs,candidateSACsandlistedRamsarSites(asexpressedinPlanningPolicyStatement9:BiodversityandGeologicalConservation,paragraph6).

2 HabitatsDirective(92/43/EEC)3 AndtheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c)

Regulations2007asamended(OffshoreMarineRegulations)willapplybeyondUKterritorialwaters-12nauticalmiles.Theseregulations,relevantregulationnumbersmaydiffer,arerelevantwhenanapplicationissubmittedforanenergyprojectinarenewableenergyzone(exceptanypartinrelationtowhichtheScottishMinistershavefunctions).

4 PlanningPolicyStatement9(PPS9):BiodiversityandGeologicalConservation,andTechnicalAdviceNote5(TAN5):NatureConservationandPlanning(2009)

5 ODPMCircular06/20056 EuropeanCommission(2001),Assessmentofplans

andprojectssignificantlyaffectingNatura2000sites.MethodologicalguidanceontheprovisionsofArticle6(3)and(4)oftheHabitatsDirective92/43/EEC.

7 DecisionoftheECJinWaddenzee(C-127/02)–determinedthatinlightofArticle6(3)oftheHabitatsDirective,aprobableriskofsignificanteffectofaplanorprojectexists(inparticular,inviewoftheprecautionaryprinciple)ifsuchariskcannotbeexcludedonthebasisofobjectiveinformationthattheplanorprojectwillhavesignificanteffectsonthesiteconcerned.

8 IftheEuropeansitehostsaprioritynaturalhabitattypeorapriorityspeciesfurtherconditionsapplyinrelationtothereasonsasexplainedinthisadvice.

9 EuropeanCommission(2001).MethodologicalguidanceontheprovisionsofArticle6(3)and(4)oftheHabitatsDirective92/43/EEC.

10 Ifnotdirectlyconnectedwith/necessarytomanagementofaEuropeansite.

11 “Competentauthority”isdefinedinthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)Regulation7(1)-theIPCwillnotitselfbethecompetentauthoritywheninrecommendingmodebutwillensurethatsufficientinformationisprovidedtoenabletheSoStomeethis/herstatutorydutiesunderthe2010HabitatsRegulations.

12 PlanningActs103/s104/s105-UnderthePlanningAct2008thedecisionmaker-otherwiseknownasthe“competentauthority”-willbetheIPCwhereanationalpolicystatementhaseffectortheSecretaryofState.

13 Regulation61ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)andRegulation25oftheOffshoreMarineRegulations.

14 Regulation61(2)ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations,Regulation,25(2)oftheOffshoreMarineRegulations,andtheIP(Applications:PrescribedFormsandProcedure)Regulations2009(APFP)paragraph5(2)(g).

15 Regulation81ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)appliestheappropriateassessmentprovisionstothemakingofanordergrantingdevelopmentconsent(DCO)underthePlanningActandthedecisionmakerunderthePlanningActmustexerciseitsfunctionssoastosecurecompliancewiththeHabitatsDirective(Regulation9ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations).

16 APFP5(2)(g)17 AsdefinedinRegulation5ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations18 Furtherinformationrelatingtothedeveloper’sstatutorypre-

applicationconsultationresponsibilitiescanbefoundinthe“IPCguidancenote1onpre-applicationstages(Chapter2ofthePlanningAct2008)”.

19 Section98ofthePlanningActimposesontheexaminingauthorityadutytocompleteexaminationoftheapplicationbytheendoftheperiodof6monthsbeginningwiththedayafterthestartday,beingthedayonwhichthepreliminarymeetingisheld

20 EuropeanCommission(2001),AssessmentofplansandprojectssignificantlyaffectingNatura2000sites

21 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(1)22 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(2)andtheIP

(Applications:PrescribedFormsandProcedure)Regulations2009(APFP)paragraph5(2)(g)

23 Regulation8(6)oftheInfrastructurePlanning(EIA)Regulations2009

24 AsdefinedintheEIARegulations2009,Schedule4Part1,paragraph19‘Adescriptionoftheaspectsoftheenvironmentlikelytobesignificantlyaffectedbythedevelopment,inparticular…fauna,flora’.

25 Regulation3(2)oftheEIARegulations200926 InfrastructurePlanning(EIA)Regulations2009,paragraph8(6)27 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)65(2)28 TheIPCmustbesatisfiedamongstotherthingsthatthe

developerhasprovidedinformationrequiredbyRegulation5(2)(g)oftheAPFPinrelationtoHRA

29 AnNSIPcanhaveimpactsonEuropeansitesthataresomedistanceaway.ForinstanceapowerstationcouldaffectairqualityatasensitiveheathlandSAC,orawastewatertreatmentworkscouldaffectwaterqualityonadownstreamSPAusedbyfeedingbirds,bothdozensofkilometresaway.

30 61(6)ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)and25(6)oftheOMR

31 SufficientinformationtoassesssignificanteffectisoutlinedintheIPCsguidancenote2onpreparationofapplicationdocumentsunders37ofthePlanningAct2008

List of references

32 61(5)ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)and25(4)oftheOMR

33 61(5),62(1)and66ofthe2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)

34 Thedeveloper’sattentionisdrawntotheIPCsstatutoryguidancewithregardtothehabitatsassessmentprocess.Thisislocatedwithinthepre-applicationIPCguidancenote2availableviatheIPCswebsite.TheapplicationshouldgivereasonsforeachrespectinwhichIPCguidancehasnotbeenfollowed–section55(3)(d)ofthePlanningAct2008

35 Section55(3)(b),section37(3)ofthePlanningAct2008andRegulation5(2)(g)oftheAPRP.

36 AppointmentwillbebytheChairoftheIPC.37 Forexamplethattherearenosignificanteffectsorno

adverseaffectsontheintegrityofEuropeansites.Thisinitialassessmentwilltakeplaceafterthedeveloper’spublicationoftheacceptedapplication.

38 Asdefinedinsection102(4)ofthePlanningAct2008.39 Andalsotoattendthepreliminarymeeting.40 The2010HabitatsRegulations,61(3)41 100(2)ofthePA200842 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(4)43 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(2)44 Regulation17(1)(c)oftheInfrastructurePlanning(EIA)

Regulations200945 Therearethreetypesofhearing,namelyhearingsabout

specificissues,compulsoryacquisitionhearings,andopen-floorhearings.Sees91(issuespecifichearing)ors93(openfloorhearing)

46 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(1a)47 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(6)48 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)61(5)49 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)62(5)50 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)62(1)51 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)

3-Interpretations52 Forexample,ECJFebruary281991,CaseC-57/89,

CommissionvGermany(‘LeybuchtDykes’)heldthatthatthedangeroffloodingandtheprotectionofthecoastconstitutedsufficientlyseriousreasonstojustifythedykeworksovertheSPA

53 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)62(2b)54 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)65(5)55 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)65(1)56 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)62(5)(b)57 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)62(6)58 The2010HabitatsRegulations(asamended)6659 RelevantsectionsofthePlanningActfurtherguidanceonthe

pre-applicationprocessisprovidedwithinIPCguidancenote1onpre-applicationstages(Chapter2ofthePlanningAct2008)

60 AsdefinedinEuropeanCommission(2001),AssessmentofplansandprojectssignificantlyaffectingNatura2000sites.MethodologicalguidanceontheprovisionsofArticle6(3)and(4)oftheHabitatsDirective92/43/EEC.


24

List of references (continued from page 23)

Further informationTheInfrastructurePlanningCommission,TempleQuayHouse,TempleQuay,BristolBS16PN

Email:[email protected] Telephone:03034445000 Web:www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/

Habitat Regulations Assessment - National Infrastructure ... · Habitat Regulations Assessment for...

Documents

Transcript of Habitat Regulations Assessment - National Infrastructure ... · Habitat Regulations Assessment for...