“(1) It is contended that the mitigation measures identified were not secured by the conditions or section 106 agreement when in fact all the measures required by the Appropriate Assessment were secured by conditions 3, 18, 21, 23, 72 and 73. (2) [Natural England’s] concerns were satisfied during the drafting of the Appropriate Assessment. In reality this is a disagreement on the merits. (3) The HCA did in fact consider the cumulative effects and provided the assessment to the Council as chapter 16 of the [Environmental Statement]. It concluded that there was no residual effect in combination with development proposals within 5km. [Natural England] had independently concluded that there would be no residual impact on the SAC so that there was no requirement for a cumulative assessment.”
“2.14 The Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat SAC consists of a complex of 13 SSSIs in Monmouthshire and the Forest of Dean. Westbury Brook Ironstone Mine SSSI is the nearest component site lying 2.4km away from the CNQAAP [Core Strategy and the Cinderford Northern Quarter Area Action Plan] area. The SAC was designated in 2005 for its exceptional breeding population of lesser horseshoe bats (totalling 26% of the national population) and for its greater horseshoe population (totalling 6% of the national population) in the northern part of its range. Whilst the CNQAAP area contains no SSSIs or SACs itself, a purpose built artificial roost and nearby disused mining buildings at the Northern United Colliery site support a large breeding colony of lesser horseshoe bats. Individuals from this colony are considered to be necessary to the integrity of the Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat SAC as they are likely to hibernate at cave sites such as Westbury Brook Ironstone Mine SSSI. They are also considered to be necessary to the integrity of the Wye Valley Woodlands SAC, where lesser horseshoe bats are a qualifying, but not primary, reason for the sites selection, as the species is known to forage in these areas. … 2.16 The CNQAAP area contains two non-statutory designated wildlife sites. The Hawkwell Inclosure KWS [key wildlife site], covering part of the Hawkwell Inclosure, was designated for its woodland and associated shrub layer and ground flora…”
“In order to minimise recreational impacts to Key Ecological Components retained within the CNQAAP area, and those found in the area beyond, development proposals should carefully consider access provision. In particular, proposals should demonstrate how resident/visitor movement will be actively managed to dissuade access to the most sensitive areas, and promote responsible behaviour. Measures may include for example; layouts which encourage pedestrian/cycle movements away from sensitive areas and provide and promote dedicated local recreational space; defensive native planting along woodland edges; dog waste bins; no dog fouling signs; and interpretation boards to increase understanding about biodiversity in and around the CNQAAP area and its sensitivity.”
“2. Does Natural England agree with the assessment that, subject to the imposition of mitigation measures set out in Tables 1 and 2a-f, there would be no residual effects and therefore it is deemed unnecessary to assess in combination effects with other plans and projects? We do. 3. Does Natural England agree that, with regards to Habitats Regulations Assessment, should the LPA wish to proceed to positively determine the application it may do so subject to securing the mitigation measures outlined in Tables 1 and 2a-f? We do.”
“ii. Requirement to submit measures to discourage additional access to the Hawkwell Inclosure. … iv. Requirement to submit, and implement, a detailed early warning monitoring scheme for recreational disturbance at the existing artificial roost and replacement roost to include: purpose, aims and objectives of monitoring; identification/provision of adequate baseline data; appropriate success criteria, thresholds, triggers, targets against which effectiveness of mitigation can be monitored and judged; methods of data gathering and analysis; location of points/areas where monitoring will be undertaken; timing and duration of monitoring; responsible persons and lines of communication; review and publication of results/outcomes; adaptive management that will be implemented if monitoring shows that measures are ineffective or not reaching stated aims and objectives, • Measures to dissuade access such as defensive planting; • Measures to further increase secureness of roosts dependant [sic] on nature of vandalism risk assessed.”
“21. Prior to any development in each of the plots A1, A2, A3, B, C, D, H, G, F1, F2 or phase 2 of the Spine Road (as defined in the Environmental Statement)… details for a scheme of implementation of biodiversity mitigation, including timetable and 20 year management plan and habitat and species monitoring, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme for each plot area shall be in accordance with… [approved details]… The schemes shall incorporate the Habitats Regulations [Appropriate] Assessment30 October 2014 and shall be agreed in accordance with the details in the table… The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter similarly maintained.”
“to comply with the terms of Schedule 5 and in particular to implement or procure compliance with the requirements of Table 2 of Schedule 5 to achieve the aims and objectives set out in Table 1 of Schedule 5 in respect of the monitoring of the Phase 2 Mitigation.”
“Comprehensive and detailed early warning monitoring scheme for bat roosting, foraging and commuting to include: purpose, aims and objectives of monitoring; identification/provision of adequate baseline data; appropriate success criteria. Thresholds, triggers, targets against which effectiveness of mitigation can be monitored and judged; methods of data gathering and analysis; location of points/areas where monitoring will be undertaken; timing and duration of monitoring; responsible persons and lines of communication; review and publication of results/outcomes; adaptive management that will be implemented if monitoring shows that measures are ineffective or not reaching stated aims and objectives.”
“3.1.1 to undertake or procure the implementation of the Phase 1a Mitigation Monitoring and Phase 1b Mitigation Monitoring; General Mitigation Management and Monitoring and generic monitoring as set out in Table 2 above; and 3.1.2 to undertake or procure a report on the monitoring as set out in Table 2 above to the Council by 1 June for the previous calendar year.”
“3.2.1 to undertake or procure the implementation of the Phase 2 Mitigation creation and enhancement of the southern wildlife corridor pursuant to payment of the Southern Wildlife Corridor Enhancement Contribution; and 3.2.2 to report on the monitoring as set out in Table 2 above to the Council by 1 June for the previous calendar year.”
“[44] So far as concerns the assessment carried out under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it should be pointed out that it cannot have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the works proposed on the protected site concerned: see European Commission v. Spain (Case C-404/09 ), paragraph 100 and the case law cited. It is for the national court to establish whether the assessment of the implications for the site meets these requirements.”
“A widespread misunderstanding is that the EU nature directives are based on a “no-unless” approach. This is an interpretation based on the view that environmental policy objectives always take precedence over economic policy objectives. This approach is in contradiction with sustainable development principles, which balances environmental benefits and societal and economic requirements (see article 2.3 of the Habitat Directive). Early integral planning and the development of integrated projects are crucial, as they will promote a “yes, if” approach and pave the way for win-win solutions. … The following guidelines propose recommendations on the concept of integrated projects, the correct use of the appropriate assessments and “significant impact” issues, the use of adaptive management and the assessment of compensation needed as a last resort.”
“Following a thorough appropriate assessment that includes collecting all relevant data, and subject to the reversibility of actions, minor remaining uncertainties should however not block or restrain projects indefinitely. This needs to be judged on a case by case basis. In case of uncertainty on particular mechanisms of complex estuarine or coastal ecosystems port and waterway developers should assess the nature of the remaining uncertainties and manage them through targeted monitoring and adaptive strategies. Monitoring schemes should be designed in a way that they signal any unexpected developments at a stage where effective corrective measures can still be taken.”