The long-awaited fourth hearings into Calderdale Council’s local plan have suffered another setback, with the hearing session on air quality issues concerning the habitats regulations assessment delayed.
The Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) evidence is a cornerstone of the detail required for the Inspector to find a local plan sound and legally compliant. As a significant piece of evidence, you could be forgiven for thinking this should be finalised when the plan is submitted for examination (January 2019).
We have spoken previously about the extraordinary delays with this plan; it is almost unheard of to hold four sets of hearings to determine if a plan is sound and legally compliant. Still, we’re now in the position where there will need further hearings (probably in 2022).
Although Calderdale has yet to provide an official explanation for the delay, it could be because Natural England and Calderdale failed to agree on a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) within the timescales required for the fourth set of hearings.
Who is Natural England?
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
What are the issues?
Natural England wrote to Calderdale on 6th August (Stage 7 consultation) and explained:
1. Stage 2 MIQ CC149 Question 7K – HRA
1.1 Natural England welcomes the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Calderdale Local
Plan Air Quality Assessment (dated June 2021) which is broadly in line with our published guidance
NEA0011 however we do not consider that sufficient information has been provided to justify
conclusions reached. In addition we have concerns regarding the application of Natural England
commissioned report NECR2102 and Highways England’s guidance DMRB LA105 Air Quality as
well as an absence of consideration of the other key sources of evidence as identified in NEA001.
1.2 For reference, as set out in NEA001, we expect the assessment to address the following:
• Consider whether the sensitive qualifying features of the site would be exposed to emissions
• Consider the European Site’s Conservation Objectives, is there a restore or maintain
objective?
• Consider background pollution
• Review the Environmental Benchmarks (‘critical loads and levels’) and feature sensitivity to nitrogen
• Check for exceedance of Environmental Benchmarks
• Consider the designated site in its national context
• Consider the best available evidence on small incremental impacts from nitrogen
• Consider the spatial scale and duration of the predicted impact and the ecological functionality of the affected area
• Consider site survey information
• Consider national, regional and local initiatives or measures which can be relied upon to reduce background levels at the site
• Consider measures to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on site integrity
• Consider any likely in-combination effects with other live plans and projects from other sectors
1.3 Natural England recommends that a qualified ecologist is commissioned to conduct a sitespecific appropriate assessment for the designated features identified as experiencing a loading/concentration of pollutant identified as potentially harmful. This will involve an assessment of habitats in the key areas identified in this report where the 1% threshold has been exceeded.
1.4 The evidence brought together in NECR210 was intended for use on a specific, case-by-case basis. In our view, the value based on loss of one species was not intended as a universally applied assessment tool but instead as just one piece of evidence as part of an appropriate assessment.
1.5 NECR210 also considered additional parameters to total species richness, which may be more and less sensitive. The thresholds using in LA 105 may not be the most precautionary option. For example, the data indicates a loss in species richness may occur at levels lower than those leading to the “loss of 1 species” (see example (i) below. This reduction in species richness is an indicator of
damage is not considered in LA105. We have concerns that the increases in N deposition allowed by this approach does not consistently align with restore or maintain objectives.
1.6 Natural England is concerned that the application of dose-response tools in isolation may not be compliant with the Dutch Nitrogen Judgement (Cooperatie Mobilisation/ Dutch Nitrogen Case Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17) which points to the limitations in allowing further environmental loading when sites are in unfavourable status.
1.7 For the most recent view taken on considering dose-response relationships in assessments we refer you to see CIEEM Air Quality Advisory Note: Ecological Assessment of Air Quality Impacts (dated January 2021) box 2 available online at: https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/AirQuality-advice-note.pdf.
1.8 Ultimately, the appropriate assessment should be based upon the case-specific information above for the features receiving N dep/NOx conc/NH3 conc above 1% of the CLo/CLe. For reference NECR210 is identified as one of these tools but the guidance is clear that this evidence is not appropriate for use to justify further exceedance on designated sites alone, without also considering all available factors and information and where this would undermine the conservation objectives to reverse this and restore pollutant levels to within an acceptable level.
