Habitat Regulations Assessment Record
To be completed by relevant technical/project officer Conservation/Ecology section and in consultation with Natural
Resources Wales(NRW).
Name of relevant MCC Officers:
Kate Stinchcombe, Biodiversity and Ecology Officer
Kate Young, Senior Development Control Officer
1. INTRODUCTION
This is a record of the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the proposal outlined below, undertaken by Monmouthshire
County Council as the Planning Authority. This assessment is required by Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010, in accordance with the EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EDC) before the Council as
the ‘Competent Authority’ under the Regulations can grant permission for the project. In accordance with Welsh
Government policy, the assessment is also made in relation to the sites listed under the 1971 Ramsar Convention.
2. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT
2.1 Type of permission/activity:
Full Planning Permission
2.2 MCC reference no:
DC/2012/00931
2.3 National Grid reference:
E. 344467 N.186896
2.4 Site reference:
Land near Great House Farm , Undy
2.5 Brief description of proposal:
Erection of two wind turbines (with a generating capacity of up to 3.0 mw), with a
maximum height to tip of 100m, together with ancillary development consisting of
electoral sub-station kiosks and electrical transformer kiosks, underground cabling,
on-site access tracks, access to the public highway, crane hard standings, temporary
construction compound and site signage.
2.6 Reference documents that are
Planning Application and supporting documents including Environmental Statement
available to view
(http://idox.monmouthshire.gov.uk/WAM/searchsubmit/performOption.do?acti
on=search&appType=Planning)
3. INFORMATION ABOUT THE EUROPEAN AND RAMSAR SITES
3.1 European site name(s) and status: Site(s) to be ruled out:
Severn Estuary SAC, Severn Estuary Ramsar site
Interest Features and Conservation Objectives of these sites will not be affected by
this proposal.
Site(s) to be taken forward:
Severn Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA):
The Severn Estuary lays approximately 650m to the south of the application site
(1km from southern of two turbines). It is considered that despite this distance
from the SPA, the site could be affected by the proposal as species forming part of
the Internationally important assemblage of waterfowl use the proposal site and
surrounding land. The species considered in this assessment are those that have
been identified as relevant by Hyder Consulting through 2011/2012 and by NRW in
the planning consultation response dated 1st December 2012.
3.2 Site description (reasons for
Key characteristics:
designation, key ecological
A funnel shaped estuary with the second-highest tidal range in the world resulting
characteristics, information available in extreme physical conditions in which species-poor invertebrate assemblages
on general ecological trends and
provide an important food source for passage and wintering waders. The extensive
1
current issues or sensitivities)
intertidal zone supports migrating and overwintering birds.
Qualifying Features:
Article 4.1 of EC Birds Directive
Regularly supporting overwintering populations of European Importance of the
following species: Bewick’s swan
Article 4.2 of the EC Birds Directive
Supporting populations of European Importance of the following migratory species:
Gadwall; European white fronted goose; Dunlin; Redshank; Shelduck
The wintering waterfowl assemblage includes all regularly occurring waterfowl.
Species that qualify as a listed component of the assemblage include all the
internationally important regularly occurring migratory species as well as the Annex
1 wintering species. The list also includes species present in nationally important
numbers or species whose populations exceed 2000 individuals.
The original citation, in winter, it is stated that the area regularly supported 68,026
individual waterbirds. In the SPA Review it is stated that the area regularly supports
93,986 individual waterfowl in winter. In the Natura 2000 form, in winter, it is
stated that the area regularly supports 84,317 waterfowl.
Species of the Assemblage relevant to this application, species listed include
Lapwing and Mallard which were added after the 2001 review as it is recognised
that the estuary has nationally important populations of these species.
Condition Status:
NRW have confirmed that there are no Condition Status Reports available for the
Severn Estuary Special Protection Area.
British Trust for Ornithology Wetland Bird Survey Data (WeBS) is available for the
site. Alerts have been triggered for four out of the 16 species assessed for the
Severn Estuary SPA (Bewick’s Swan, European white fronted goose, pochard and
dunlin). For all four species the declines underpinning these Alerts are believed to
have been driven primarily by broader-scale change although site-specific pressures
may have augmented these declines for dunlin and pochard.
For Shelduck, no alerts have been triggered and numbers on the Severn estuary
have reached their highest values on record during recent winters.
For Mallard, no alerts have been triggered and despite declines in regional and
national numbers show no sign of decline on the Severn Estuary SPA.
For Lapwing, no alerts have been triggered. There is a large degree of inter-annual
variation but the WeBS data report says numbers of Lapwing on the Severn Estuary
SPA have been relatively high since the mid-1990s with a 15% increase change since
designation.
Condition Status of the specific Interest Feature: Lapwing
(taken from Hyder Consulting information to support HRA)
WeBS data 2005/06 to 2009/10 give a maximum winter count ranging from
7967(2009/10) to 19434 (2005/06), with an average 5 year peak mean of 12056
birds. The 2010/11 data give a maximum lapwing count of 4455 birds, although the
count was incomplete. Whilst this shows a drop in numbers from previous years on
the Severn Estuary SPA, numbers of lapwing in the UK were slightly above average.
In addition, lapwing numbers on the Somerset Levels were particularly high during
2
this period. Therefore, birds usually associated with the Severn Estuary may have
moved slightly further south in response to weather conditions.
Vulnerability: (JNCC 2006)
The conservation of the site features is dependent on the tidal regime. The range is
the second highest in the world and the scouring of the seabed and strong tidal
streams result in natural erosion of the habitats. The estuary is therefore vulnerable
to large scale interference, including human actions. These include land-claim,
aggregate extraction/dredging, physical developments such as barrage construction
flood defences, pollution (industrial, oil spillage), eutrophication and tourism based
activities and disturbance.
Current issues relevant to this HRA:
There is a disturbance risk and collision risk to species listed as part of the
internationally important bird assemblage specifically shelduck, lapwing and
mallard.
Conservation Objectives:
See Section 5.2. for the relevant Conservation Objectives in relation to the
Appropriate Assessment stage of this record.
Important data sets relevant to this assessment:
Hyder Consulting conducted survey as part of the preparation of the Environment
Statement to inform the planning application.
The methodology and results are provided in Chapter 6 of the ES and Appendix 6.1.
A summary of the findings are included in the March 2013 Information to Support a
Habitats Regulations Assessment.
Hyder Consulting note that less than 1% of the European site’s overwintering
assemblage population was recorded in the vicinity of the project.
According to Volume II of the Environmental Statement, 2% of the lapwing SPA
population could be potentially impacted as a result of the Proposed Development.
3.3 Reference documents that
provide further details on the site,
and have been used to inform the
assessment:
3
Hyder Consulting October 2012
Great House Farm Wind Turbines Volume 1 Non-Technical Summary
Hyder Consulting October 2012
Great House Farm Wind Turbines Volume 2 Environmental Statement
Hyder Consulting October 2012
Great House Farm Wind Turbines Volume 4 Appendices
Hyder Consulting March 2012
Great House Farm Wind Turbines Information to Support a Habitats Regulations
Assessment Severn Estuary SPA
Countryside Council for Wales 2009
The Severn Estuary European Marine Site, Natural England & the
Countryside Council for Wales’ advice given under Regulation 33(2)(a) of the
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended. June 2009
Planning consultation response by Natural Resources Wales (as CCW) dated 1st
December 2012 and further responses via email (Sandra Wells to Jo Weaver of
Hyder Consulting) dated 20th December 2012 and 13 March 2013
Hotker, H., Thomson, K.-M. & H. Jeromin 2006
Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy sources: the example
of birds and bats – facts, gaps in knowledge, demands for further research, and
ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation
Michael-otto-Institute NABA, Bergenhusen
JNCC 2006
Natura 2000 Standard Data Form (Version 1.1)
British Trust for Ornithology 2010
The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) – Alerts Severn Estuary and Species Reports
http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u18/downloads/alerts/uk9015022.pdf
http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u18/downloads/alerts/uk9015022_species.
pdf
Nairn 2012 (Natura consulting / University of the City of Cork)
IEEM Autumn conference proceedings – presentation; Do Wind Turbines Disturb
Waterbirds?
IEEM website
http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/Conferences/2012_Autumn_Re
newables/11_Richard_Nairn.pdf
Email from Jo Weaver to Kate Stinchcombe dated 05/04/2013 confirming collision
risk height.
*Percival, S. 2005
Birds and wind farms: what are the real issues?
British Birds 98:194-204
*Steinborn, H. and Reichenbach, M. 2011
Lapwing and Wind Turbines – results of a seven year study in the south of East
Frisia
Naturschutz and Landschaftsplannung 43(9) 261-270
*Cutts, N., Phelps, A & Burdon D. 2008
Construction and Waterfowl: Defining Sensitivity, Response, Impacts and Guidance.
Report to Humber INCA, University of Hull
Planning applications on Bristol City Council Website in relation to wind turbines at
Avonmouth
Planning applications on Newport City Council Website in relation to wind turbines
at Longlands Lane and Nash
*References used by the applicant in compilation of supporting information not directly accessed by the Competent
Authority.
4
4. CHECKING FOR THE LIKLIEHOOD OF A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
4.1 Is the proposal directly connected No
with or necessary to the management
of the site for nature conservation?
4.2 The Project could pose threats to the wintering bird assemblage with lapwing, shelduck and mallard being particularly
considered due to the size of the turbines, species recorded and the habitat at the site. The two turbines are proposed
within 1km of the Severn Estuary SPA. Lapwing use the proposal site and fields surrounding the proposal site which is
considered to be supporting habitat for the Internationally designated site.
The possible effects are(examples of stages of project when risk posed):
A) During construction
The construction phase is projected to last approximately 6 months and it is considered that this could result in
disturbance and loss of habitat of species forming part of the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl
through noise and physical disturbance of birds using the site.
B) During operation
The operation phase will be for 25 years and it is considered that this could result in disturbance, indirect loss of
habitat and collision risk affecting species forming part of the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl.
C) During decommissioning
The decommissioning phase is projected to last for approximately 2 months and it is considered that this could
result in disturbance via noise and physical presence of operatives and potentially loss of habitat affecting species
forming part of the internationally important assemblage of waterfowl.
Relevant Conservation Objectives are included under section 5.2 Appropriate Assessment.
4.3 Assessment of risks without avoidance or reduction measures
Risk
Assessment of potential impact
LAND TAKE
The risk of direct loss of habitat
Hyder Consulting notes that flocks of up to 200 birds were recorded on and
caused by construction used by
around the proposal site, during the late December 2011 and late January 2012
species forming part of the
surveys although numbers of 30-70 birds were more typical.
Internationally Important Assemblage
of Waterfowl
During the majority of the winter bird surveys, Hyder consulting reported that
Lapwing
the lapwing flocks landed in the fields to the north and east of the site with only
small numbers of birds occasionally landing within the site. Larger numbers were
recorded in February 2012 with flocks of 66 and 70 birds observed on two
occasions. During a transect survey in December 2011, 74 birds were recorded
within the proposal site.
The information submitted by Hyder consulting to inform the HRA states that
0.34ha will be lost for temporary works during construction and a land take of
0.791ha for the operational infrastructure (Appendix 2 Screening Matrix).
See Section 4.4. for Action in the Proposal to limit risk.
NOISE and PHYSCIAL DISTURBANCE
The risk of disturbance to species
forming part of the Internationally
Important Assemblage of Waterfowl
during the construction and
decommissioning phases
5
The effects of construction and decommissioning phases could mean that
lapwing will avoid the proposal site and neighbouring fields leading to an indirect
loss of habitat available to the species for overwintering and breeding.
NOISE
-
Lapwing
Hyder Consulting refer to a literature review of noise thresholds for wildfowl and
water birds and identified two important thresholds (Cutts et al. 2008).
i)
Construction noise should be restricted to below 70dB(A) as birds
will habituate to noise below this level.
ii)
Irregular noises above 50dB(A) should be avoided as this causes
disturbance to birds
A noise assessment has been undertaken by the applicant which predicts the
highest combined noise to be 60.3dB (A). This is above the 50dB (A) level at
which birds may be disturbed by sudden irregular noise. It is unclear from the
assessment whether there will be an adverse effect to birds using surrounding
fields i.e. how far the noise will be above 50dB(A). Assessment has been
undertaken to determine noise levels at nearby properties but this information
has not been used to assess the potential impact on birds using land around the
proposal site.
PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE
In addition to this predicted noise, the physical presence of contractors and
machinery will have a so far un-quantified disturbing effect on wintering
lapwing.
This is also considered to be a temporary effect with work predicted to take 6
months during construction and approximately 2 months at decommission.
These will be a temporary effects during the actual construction and
decommissioning phase however, it is unknown what the effect on the local
lapwing population will be if the birds are displaced by the six month
construction phase.
See Section 4.4. for Action in the Proposal to limit these risks.
NOISE and PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE
The risk of disturbance to species
forming part of the Internationally
Important Assemblage of Waterfowl
during the operational phase
including resultant indirect loss of
habitat
Lapwing
The noise and physical action including flicker of the turbines is considered to
pose a risk of disturbance to lapwing currently using the proposal site and land
around the proposal site within the zone of influence of the turbines. It is
considered that this risk will reduce the habitat availability and displace lapwing.
Hyder Consulting refer to a figure of 68ha initially being avoided by lapwing and
an assumption is made that with habituation over the 25 years of the scheme,
this reducing to 13ha.
Data reviews undertaken by both the LPA and the applicant of wind turbine
studies reveal a wide range of recorded disturbance distances for birds
(including specifically lapwing) from 100m to 850m (Hotker et al., 2006;
Steinborn and Reichenbach 2011; Percival 2005).
Hyder Consulting refer to Nairn, 2012 in the Information to support a HRA
document and the presentation made at the IEEM conference (Autumn, 2012).
This study indicates that lapwing were recorded feeding within 100m of turbines
however, it is difficult to relate these study sites with the Great House Farm
proposal site. In the Irish sites, prey density was high close to the turbines
6
different to the Great House Farm fields which are most important for roosting
and some more limited feeing at high tide and in adverse weather conditions.
Section 7.1.10 of the Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment,
notes that there was no correlation between the peak number of birds observed
during the surveys and high tide or particular times of day and use of the site
and adjacent field would appear to be fairly sporadic. Peak numbers are likely to
have coincided with the peak of numbers on the Severn Estuary as a whole.
There is no analysis included in the assessment and the LPA have not yet been
able to corroborate the tide data for 2011.
See Section 4.4. for Action in the Proposal to limit risk.
COLLISION RELATED MORTALITY
The collision risk to species forming
part of the internationally Important
Assemblage of Waterfowl
- Lapwing
- Mallard
Lapwing Lapwing use the fields around the proposed turbine locations for overwintering
including roosting and feeding. The position of the turbines could pose
significant risk of collision to lapwing coming in off the Severn Estuary.
Surveys undertaken in 2011/12 identified 28 lapwing ‘flight episodes’ with 17
(60.71%) being within the ‘collision window’. Collision Risk Height was
considered between 22.5m to 97.5m (confirmed via email from Hyder consulting
dated 05/04/2013). Hyder Consulting notes that flocks of up to 200 birds were
recorded, during the late December and late January surveys although numbers
of 30-70 birds were more typical.
Hyder Consulting have undertaken collision risk modelling to estimate the level
of risk that the proposals are likely to pose for wintering lapwing (See Appendix
6.2 of ES).
Winter assemblage: The loss of 14 birds per season during the winter months
equates to 0.02% of the wintering bird assemblage (based on 5 year peak mean
of the waterfowl assemblage of 68,026) This relates directly to the site’s
conservation objective.
Lapwing population: The loss of 14 lapwing per season during the winter months
equates to 0.1% of the population (based on the 5 year peak mean 2005-10 of
12,056 lapwing).
However; Population models in Hotker et al (2006) reveal that significant
decreases in the size of bird populations may be caused by relatively small (0.1%)
additive measures in mortality rates.
Conclusion Lapwing
Based on current objective information, it is unlikely that the collision effects
of the development will have a significant effect on Lapwing populations and
the winter bird assemblage of the SPA. However, there is some risk to lapwing
predicted, which, in combination with other similar schemes, could lead to a
significant effect. Early warning post construction monitoring will be needed to
assess impacts. See Section 4.4 for Action in the Proposal to limit risk.
7
Mallard –
Just 3 mallard were recorded commuting across the site on three occasions
during the course of the Hyder Consulting winter bird surveys, with only three of
these within the collision risk window. Collision risk modelling identified a
potential collision mortality of 0.09 birds per year.
The application site and surrounding land is not as important to these species
during the wintering period as it is to Lapwing (CCW, 2012).
Conclusion Mallard
Based on current objective information, it is unlikely that mallard will be
significantly affected by the proposals.
COLLISION RELATED MORTALITY
The collision risk to notified feature
- Shelduck
This species was recorded during Vantage Point assessment but at a distance of
over 1km to the south of the closest proposed turbine location and were not
observed using or flying over the proposed development site.
The application site and surrounding land is considered not as important to
these species during the wintering period as it is to Lapwing (CCW, 2012). It is
unlikely that that this species will be significantly affected by the proposals
however, little specific information exists on the behaviour of these species to
wind turbines.
Based on current objective information, it is unlikely that that this species will
be significantly affected by the proposals. Therefore, this notified feature is
screened out of the HRA.
8
4.4 Assessment of effects taking account of avoidance and reduction measures in proposals
Avoiding Risk
Action in proposal
LAND TAKE
ACTION:
The risk of direct loss of habitat
The ES notes that a habitat management plan is put in place to improve
caused by construction used by
the habitat within the southern part of the site for lapwing. Creating a
species forming part of the
series of wetland scrapes and low lying grassland within the southern
Internationally Important Assemblage part of the Proposed Development Site, away from the proposed turbine
of Waterfowl
locations and closer to the estuary.
Lapwing
However; this area is not within the control of the applicant and will
therefore not be possible. The only area in the applicant’s control is the
access track and areas immediately below the turbines as indicated by
the application ‘red-line’ map.
The Information to Support the HRA document does not include any
mitigation relevant to reducing this risk.
The Information to Support a Habitats Regulations Assessment refers
only to mitigation triggered by monitoring. This is not in mitigation or
compensation for losses as a direct impact of habitat loss.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS:
It is considered that 0.79ha of habitat loss would not be significant. The
indirect habitat loss that will be caused as a result of disturbance is
considered to be much greater. This land take in isolation would not
have a significant effect on the species forming part of the
Internationally Important Assemblage of Waterfowl. Therefore, this risk
is screened out of the Appropriate Assessment.
NOISE and PHYSCIAL DISTURBANCE
The risk of disturbance to species
forming part of the Internationally
Important Assemblage of Waterfowl
during the construction and
decommissioning phases
Lapwing
ACTION:
No timing restrictions have been proposed by the applicant for
construction or decommissioning phases.
In the Natural Resources Wales’ (formerly Countryside Council for
Wales) objection letter and further emails, they clearly recommend that
a condition should be used to limit construction works to the summer
months. This would reduce the disturbance to wintering lapwing but
would also need to consider breeding lapwing in the outset with
deterrence measures etc..
The LPA cannot apply a condition on the scheme through the TOLSE
element of the HRA process without the agreement of the applicant or
the clear incorporation of this measure into the scheme.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS:
Therefore, on the basis of objective information it is considered that
disturbance risk to lapwing during the construction and
decommissioning phases cannot be ruled out and an appropriate
assessment is needed for this element.
9
NOISE and PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE
The risk of disturbance to species
forming part of the Internationally
Important Assemblage of Waterfowl
during the operational phase
including resultant indirect loss of
habitat
Lapwing
ACTION:
It has already been established above that the mitigation proposed in
Section 6.8.3 with regards to a Habitat Management Plan, is not possible
within the bounds of the scheme.
Reliance on the wider Gwent Levels to support displaced birds is not
considered appropriate due to a number of other factors that have not
been assessed.
This was also noted as not acceptable by the NRW in the email response
dated 13/03/2013.
According to the information to Support a HRA document, the post
construction monitoring strategy will include vantage point surveys
during the winter months to assess the response of lapwing to the
presence of turbines. Mitigation is only proposed if there is a ‘potentially
significant impact’.
The level of monitoring proposed does not meet that recommended by
NRW. It is considered that in the absence of meaningful mitigation for
this supporting habitat from which interest features may be disturbed,
that robust early warning monitoring is absolutely necessary.
The LPA cannot apply a condition on the scheme through the TOLSE
element of the HRA process without the agreement of the applicant or
the clear incorporation of this measure into the scheme.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS:
On this basis, we cannot conclude that the scheme is unlikely to have a
significant effect on lapwing. An appropriate assessment of this aspect
is required.
COLLISION RELATED MORTALITY
The collision risk to species forming
part of the internationally Important
Assemblage of Waterfowl
Lapwing
ACTION:
Lapwing
The Information to Support the HRA document includes a Postconstruction Monitoring Strategy (Section 9.2). It is proposed that
monitoring will be undertaken in years 1, 2, 3 and 6 and only if the
results of the first three years are inconclusive, will the possibility of
extended monitoring. If monitoring indicates significant effects on the
lapwing population, then mitigation would be triggered.
Mitigation proposals in Section 9.3 of the Information to Support a HRA
document are summarised as follows:
1. Reduction in habitat suitability for lapwing in field in which
turbines will be located.
2. Biodiversity offsetting by commuted sum to manage another
area of the Gwent Levels.
This was also noted as not acceptable by the NRW in the email response
from NRW dated 13/03/2013.
10
Biodiversity offsetting is a compensatory measure which cannot be
considered in the Test of Likely Significant Effect.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS:
Therefore, on the basis of objective information it is considered that
collision risk to lapwing cannot be ruled out.
4.5 Is the project likely to have a Significant Effect ‘alone’? Is an Appropriate Assessment necessary?
We cannot be certain beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that there will not be a Significant Effect on the
interest features of the Severn Estuary SPA.
Risks are posed to interest features of the SPA and include disturbance and direct killing via collision.
Implementable and meaningful mitigation has not been proposed as part of the scheme. Monitoring proposals are
not considered to be precautionary enough as stated.
An Appropriate Assessment is deemed necessary and follows in Section 5.
11
5. APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS
5.1 Identify which aspects of the project would be likely to have a significant effect on each interest feature of
each European or Ramsar site, and Conservation objectives which are likely to be affected.
Interest Feature
Element of project
Wintering Waterfowl Assemblage
Disturbance during construction, operational and decommissioning phases.
- Lapwing
Collision risk to lapwing during operation of turbines
5.2 Conservation Objectives likely to be affected
From Regulation 35 Advice the relevant Conservation Objectives for this HRA Record are as follows:
SPA interest Feature 7: Internationally important assemblage of waterfowl
The conservation objective is to maintain the waterfowl assemblage and its supporting habitats in Favourable
Condition, as defined below:
The interest feature waterfowl assemblage will be considered to be in Favourable Condition when, subject to
natural processes, each of the following conditions are met:
(i) the 5 year peak mean population size for the waterfowl assemblage is no less than 68,026 individuals (i.e. the
5 year peak mean between 1988/9 – 1992/3);
(ii) the extent of saltmarsh and their associated strandlines is maintained;
(iii) the extent of intertidal mudflats and sandflats is maintained;
(iv) the extent of hard substrate habitats maintained;
(v) extent of vegetation of <10cm throughout the saltmarsh is maintained
(vi) the abundance and macroscale distribution of suitable invertebrates in intertidal mudflats and sandflats in
maintained;
(vii) the abundance and macroscale distribution of suitable invertebrates in hard substrate habitats is maintained;
(viii) greater than 25% cover of suitable soft leaved herbs and grasses during the winter on saltmarsh areas is
maintained;
(ix) unrestricted bird sightlines of >500m at feeding and roosting sites are maintained;
(x) to ensure that waterfowl aggregations at feeding or roosting sites are not subject to significant disturbance.
12
5.3 Assessment of effects on Severn Estuary SPA Conservation Objectives
It is considered that the most relevant Conservation Objectives are those numbered (i), (ix) and (x) above. There is
not anticipated to be an impact on Conservation Objectives (ii) to (viii) due to the distance from the application site
to the Severn Estuary SPA.
Conservation Objective (i) the 5 year peak mean population size for the waterfowl assemblage is no less than
68,026 individuals (i.e. the 5 year peak mean between 1988/9 – 1992/3);
This refers to the overall population assemblage for the Severn Estuary SPA which was estimated at 68,026 birds
when the Severn Estuary was designated (i.e. peak mean 1988/9-1992-3). Collision risk was modelled to be
potential loss of 0.02% of the wintering bird population. It is thought that collision risk would need to be five times
what has been modelled i.e. 0.1% in order for there to be a potentially significant impact on the wintering bird
population as indicated by Hotker, 2006.
It is uncertain what the effects would be on the wintering bird population if birds (lapwing) were displaced from
this site via disturbance and the resultant indirect habitat loss. However, it is unlikely that it would lead to the loss
of such a significant proportion of the wintering population, which the Conservation Objective could not be met
and Favourable Condition compromised.
Conclusion: On the basis of professional judgement the predicted collision rate and disturbance is unlikely to
prevent the site meeting this Conservation Objective and therefore, the integrity of the site will not be adversely
affected by this project alone.
Conservation Objective (ix) unrestricted bird sightlines of >500m at feeding and roosting sites are maintained;
The waterfowl assemblage includes birds which require minimum sightlines. These sightlines are important for
detection of predators and flock contact. It is not known what the importance of such sightlines are at this site.
The fields of the application site and land adjacent also used by lapwing do have field boundaries and are relatively
narrow (300m to 400m). It is not anticipated that two turbines and related infrastructure will reduce sightlines
significantly enough to affect the Conservation Objective.
Conclusion: We can be certain beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the integrity of the Severn Estuary SPA
will be maintained through Conservation Objective (ix).
Conservation Objective (x) to ensure that waterfowl aggregations at feeding or roosting sites are not subject to
significant disturbance.
It is considered that this is the Conservation Objective that is the most relevant to this scheme and the Favourable
Condition of the SPA.
Disturbance during construction and decommissioning
The effects of construction and decommissioning phases could mean that lapwing will avoid the proposal site and
neighbouring fields leading to an indirect loss of habitat available to the species for overwintering.
NOISE
Hyder Consulting refer to a literature review of noise thresholds for wildfowl and water birds and identified two
important thresholds (Cutts et al. 2008).
i)
Construction noise should be restricted to below 70dB(A) as birds will habituate to noise below this level.
ii)
Irregular noises above 50dB(A) should be avoided as this causes disturbance to birds
13
A noise assessment has been undertaken by the applicant which predicts the highest combined noise to be 60.3dB
(A). This is above the 50dB (A) level at which birds may be disturbed by sudden irregular noise. It is unclear from
the assessment whether there will be an adverse effect to birds using surrounding fields i.e. how far the noise will
be above 50dB(A). Assessment has been undertaken to determine noise levels at nearby properties but this
information has not been used to assess the potential impact on birds using land around the proposal site.
PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE
In addition to this predicted noise, the physical presence of contractors and machinery will have a so far unquantified disturbing effect on wintering lapwing. This is also considered to be a temporary effect with work
predicted to take 6 months during construction and approximately 2 months at decommission.
These will be a temporary effects during the actual construction and decommissioning phase however, it is
unknown what the effect on the local lapwing population will be if the birds are displaced by the six month
construction phase.
Disturbance during operation
The noise and physical action including flicker of the turbines is considered to pose a risk of disturbance to lapwing
currently using the proposal site and land around the proposal site within the zone of influence of the turbines. It is
considered that this risk will reduce the habitat availability and displace lapwing. Hyder Consulting predict 68ha will
be initially avoided by lapwing and an assumption is made that with habituation over the 25 years of the scheme,
this will reduce to 13ha. This is based upon a 350m disturbance distance. Data reviews undertaken by both the LPA
and the applicant of wind turbine studies reveal a wide range of recorded disturbance distances for birds (including
specifically lapwing) from 100m to 850m (Hotker et al., 2006; Steinborn and Reichenbach 2011; Percival 2005).
Hyder Consulting refer to Nairn, 2012 who presented to the CIEEM conference in Autumn 2012. This study
indicates that lapwing were recorded feeding within 100m of turbines. It is difficult to relate the study sites of this
research with the Great House Farm proposal site. In the Irish studies, prey density was high close to the turbine
which is a very different circumstance to the Great House Farm fields. Here, the fields are most important for
roosting and some more limited feeding during peak population times for the SPA and possibly more common at
high tide and during adverse weather conditions locally.
Hyder Consulting notes that there was no correlation between the peak number of birds observed during the
surveys and high tide or particular times of day and use of the site and adjacent field would appear to be fairly
sporadic. Peak numbers are likely to have coincided with the peak of numbers on the Severn Estuary as a whole i.e.
peak winter. Unfortunately, there is no analysis included in the assessment and the LPA have not yet been able to
corroborate the tide data for 2011.
Hyder Consulting estimate that there is 2845ha of suitable alternative habitat available to lapwing within the
Gwent Levels. Whilst this figure is considered by Hyder Consulting to be precautionary, no assessment of the
suitability of this land and how it is already being used by lapwing and other birds and the capacity for an increase
in numbers has been undertaken.
Conclusion: We cannot be certain beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the integrity of the Severn Estuary
SPA will not be maintained through Conservation Objective (x). There is potential for negative and long term
effects on the waterfowl aggregations at a feeding and roosting site which will be subject to significant
disturbance during the Construction, decommissioning and operation phases.
14
5.3 Mitigation measures to reduce potentially damaging effects
It is considered that potentially damaging effects could be reduced by suitable mitigation measures as listed. Detail
is included in Section 7. Integrity Test below.
Damaging effect
Collision Risk
Mitigation Measure (avoidance and reduction measures)
 Habitat Management Plan - Reduction of suitability of habitat immediately
adjacent to turbines

Early Warning Monitoring Scheme
Disturbance (construction
and decommissioning)

Timing of Operations - Seasonal constraints to works (works limited to
avoid winter – March to September)
Disturbance (indirect habitat
loss)

Early Warning Monitoring Scheme

If triggered, Mitigation habitat - demonstration of land under control of
applicant for duration of the scheme
5.4 In Combination Assessment
Due to the uncertainty of effects on the Interest Features of the SPA even with mitigation measures imposed, we
cannot be certain that there will not be any residual effects. Therefore, an in combination Assessment is
undertaken to consider any residual effects from other schemes.
In combination effects are considered by considering cumulative effects on the features of the SPA, not limited to
lapwing, and consider disturbance of birds which are interest features of the SPA and potential collision risks.
It is considered that there is no mechanism for this project to work in combination with the other projects to
exacerbate the issues of disturbance and displacement at the application site.
5.4.1 Projects with consent but not yet complete
Wessex Water –
Approximately 11km from application site. Collision risk monitoring suggests up to 29
Bristol Sewage works lapwing a year. Whilst this is significant to lapwing population of the Severn Estuary SPA it
4 wind turbines
is not significant in terms of the Overall Wintering Bird Assemblage when combined with
King’s Weston Lane,
the other sites. Other species recorded relevant to the SPA include mallard, gadwall, teal
Avonmouth
and shoveller and insignificant numbers are predicted for collision. An Appropriate
Assessment concludes no adverse effect on the Severn Estuary SPA. Early Warning
Monitoring is secured via condition.
5.4.2 Projects with consent but not yet started
Bristol Port – Phase 2 Approximately 11km from application site at the mouth of the River Avon. Species
3 turbines
relevant to the SPA recorded within 800m of the site include shelduck, redshank, dunlin,
St Andrews Road,
mallard, ringed plover, teal and curlew. An Appropriate Assessment concludes that there
Avonmouth
will be no adverse effect on the Severn Estuary SPA. Early Warning Monitoring is secured
via condition.
Bristol City Council –
Approximately 10km from the application site with planning approval dated 14/01/2009.
2 wind turbines
Appropriate Assessment identified no significant adverse effect in relation to disturbance
Severn Road,
due to the distance from the feeding ground and no adverse effect was predicted in
Avonmouth
relation to collision risk (curlew). Early Warning Monitoring is secured via condition.
Nash Waste Water
Approximately 12km from the application site with planning approval dated July 2012. An
Treatment works
Appropriate Assessment was not required by Natural Resources Wales (as CCW). Small
15
1 wind turbine
number s of lapwing could be affected by the proposal but it is not considered that there
West Nash Road,
will be a significant in combination effect (0.078 per year).
Nash
5.4.3 Projects with planning applications not yet determined
Former Rhodia Site
Approximately 10km from the application site. No Appropriate Assessment has yet been
1 wind turbine
undertaken for this site. The habitat suitable for SPA interest features is some distance
St Andrews Road,
from the site and there is not considered to be a significant effect.
Avonmouth
RES
Approximately 4.5km from the application site. An Appropriate Assessment was not
1 wind turbine
required by Natural Resources Wales (as CCW). Small number s of lapwing could be
Land to north of Little affected by the proposal but it is not considered that there will be a significant in
Longlands, Longlands combination effect (1.4 per year).
lane
5.4.4 Conclusion of In Combination Assessment
It is considered that there is no mechanism for this project to work in combination with the other projects to
exacerbate the issues of disturbance and displacement at the application site.
There will be no Significant Effect on the SPA in combination with any other relevant plans or projects.
16
6. CONSULTATION
Natural Resources Wales responded to the planning consultation via letter dated 1st December 2012 (as Countryside
Council for Wales).
NRW copied the LPA in to an email correspondence in response to a phone call they received from Hyder Consulting
dated 20th December 2012.
They also responded to a consultation by Hyder Consulting on the Information to Support a Habitats Regulations
Assessment document via email dated13th March 2013.
All correspondence is attached.
There were numerous phone calls between the Biodiversity and Ecology Officer and Sandra Wells at NRW during the
course of the HRA preparation. The Biodiversity and Ecology Officer met with Richard Jones and Sandra Wells on the
3rd May 2013 to discuss the Appropriate Assessment and necessary planning conditions.
6.1 NRW Comment on the Appropriate Assessment
Please see attached.
17
7.THE INTEGRITY TEST
1. The effects of collision risk of interest features by two turbines on the integrity of the Severn Estuary SPA.
On the basis of professional judgement the predicted collision rate is unlikely to affect the integrity of the European
Site.
2. The effects of disturbance of interest features by operational turbines and the resultant effect on the
integrity of the SPA.
In light of the best scientific knowledge relating to disturbance of birds, no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to
the absence of such effects because of conditions and restrictions that will be imposed on the consent, as follows:
Planning Condition – Early Warning Monitoring
A scheme for Early Warning Monitoring of the SPA Designated Features shall be designed and submitted for
approval with a Mitigation Agreement for approval in writing by the LPA and Natural Resources Wales before
commencement of any works on site.
The monitoring shall be thereafter implemented and include;
 Vantage point survey assessing the behaviour of birds and the extent of habitat lost to disturbance by the
operating turbines.
 Collision mortality assessment including ground surveys after high risk conditions e.g. fog.
 Monitoring will be undertaken during years 1,2,3,4,5,7 10 and 15 post construction of the turbines.
 After year 5 the monitoring will be reviewed to assess the need for all subsequent years to be undertaken.
Review will include species covered by the monitoring and any methodology changes necessary.
If evidence of adverse effects on the winter bird assemblage is established, operation of the turbines will be
curtailed to an agreed level of operation until such time that appropriate mitigation habitat is available and agreed
in writing with the LPA and NRW.
The Mitigation Agreement to be provided before commencement of any works on site must;
 Include a legal agreement between the applicant and nearby landowner(s) (not more than 1km distance
from application site) to provide mitigation for overwintering lapwing should early warning monitoring
indicate a significant effect on the SPA.
 A Habitat Management Plan outlining mitigation
The effectiveness of the Habitat Management Plan will be reviewed by inclusion in the monitoring scheme. If
evidence of persistent disturbance and displacement exist despite management plan measures, the operation of the
turbines will be curtailed to an agreed level of operation until such time that alternative measures have been agreed
and implemented.
REASON: To Safeguard the Interest Features of the Severn Estuary SPA in accordance with the Habitats Regulations
3. The effects of disturbance of interest features during the construction and operational phases and the
resultant effect on the SPA.
In light of the best scientific knowledge relating to disturbance of birds, no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to
the absence of such effects because of conditions and restrictions that will be imposed on the consent, as follows:
Planning Condition – Timing of works
The construction and decommissioning phases will be undertaken during the months March to August
inclusive and will not be permitted outside this period without prior written agreement of the LPA in
consultation with NRW.
REASON: To Safeguard the Interest Features of the Severn Estuary SPA in accordance with the Habitats Regulations
18