Policy paper

Habitats regulations assessment: non-technical summary

Updated 18 April 2023

Applies to England

1. Introduction

This is the habitats regulations assessment (HRA) non-technical summary of the Dee river basin district (RBD) flood risk management plan (FRMP). The HRA has been undertaken in accordance with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (The Habitat Regulations) 2017 (as amended) and considers the potential implications of the FRMP on designated European conservation sites. These sites contain species and habitats that are important at a European scale.

The FRMP, covering the years between 2021 and 2027, seeks to manage significant flood-related issues in the Dee RBD. The Dee river basin district spans the England and Wales border but lies mainly within Wales. The flood risk management plan covers the English portion of the Dee RBD only. The English Dee RBD covers an area of 416 km² which is split between two discrete areas. The smaller southern area (65 km²) extends eastward from Selattyn to Welshampton and the larger north-eastern area (351 km²) extends from near Whitchurch to West Kirby on the Wirral coast. The Dee FRMP seeks to reduce a range of flooding threats, including from:

• rivers
• the sea
• surface water
• groundwater
• sewers
• canals
• reservoirs

The need for protecting human receptors should be viewed in the context of the environmental challenges present in the English Dee RBD. Many geographic areas in the English RBD are experiencing growth and need to mitigate climate change. Therefore, many freshwater and coastal habitats in the English RBD, important in sustaining wintering wildfowl, fish populations and terrestrial species (for example otters), are subject to a wide range of human impacts, such as recreational pressure, reduced water flow / level, declining water quality and coastal squeeze.

This HRA assesses the potential for the Dee FRMP to result in likely significant effects (LSEs) and, where applicable, adverse effects on the integrity of European sites (such as the ability of those sites to achieve their conservation objectives).

2. Methodology

The Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) set out the specific assessment steps required for the HRA process.

The first step in the sequence of tests, often referred to as HRA screening, establishes whether a more detailed analysis known as ‘appropriate assessment’ is required. The purpose of HRA screening is to determine, in view of the best available scientific knowledge, whether a plan or project, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects, could result in LSEs on European sites in view of their conservation objectives. If the competent authority determines that no LSEs are present (both alone and in-combination), then no further assessment is necessary.

3. Test of likely significant effects

All measures included in the English Dee RBD were assessed for LSEs on the European sites across and within 10km of the English RBD. None of the measures were identified to result in LSEs on any European site for a range of reasons, including that they are:

• too non-specific to assess meaningfully
• already being implemented - having undergone HRA previously
• being subjected to a separate consenting process - as applies to local flood risk management plans, shoreline management plans (SMPs) and coastal strategies
• desk-based and involving no physical activity on the ground
• remote from vulnerable sites
• worded such they are about ‘investigating’, ‘reviewing’ and ‘identifying opportunities’

One group of measures was found to commit to physical work on the ground by ‘delivering’ or ‘implementing’ flood management interventions, such as coastal defence structures or natural flood management approaches. The broad location of some measures, is known, enabling a broad assessment of their proximity to European sites and potential linking impact pathways. However, further HRA (including ‘appropriate assessment’) was deferred to either lower-tier plans or the planning application stage when details on the nature of proposals are available. This approach was adopted to account for the strategic (and thereby necessarily non-specific) nature of the FRMP, while also identifying the measures with the highest impact potential on European sites.

This HRA also identified that a range of measures in the Dee FRMP have the potential to improve the hydrological condition of European sites across the English RBD, particularly the Mersey Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) through creation of new saltmarsh habitat.

Overall, it was shown that the FRMP represents a positive framework that will help achieve the Conservation Objectives of the SPA, such as by fostering collaboration with landowners through the Environment Land Management scheme.

4. Other plans and projects

The potential for the FRMP to result in LSEs and adverse effects on European sites in-combination with (or when considered alongside) other plans and projects was also assessed. Many such plans are proposed across the English Dee RBD, which are associated with their own impact potential. For example, local authorities are proposing a minimum of 47,171 new dwellings within the timescales of their current local plans and core strategies. There is also a potential for cumulative impacts with:

• drought orders and permits
• the Environment Agency national draught plan
• SMPs
• the Wales FRMP
• Dee tidal estuary strategy
• the Dee LIFE project

Potential in-combination LSEs with local plan development were excluded due to most measures not being negatively linked to European sites, the fact that some measures are only included for completeness being driven by entirely separate plan processes, and the strategic nature of the FRMP. Meaning that those measures with potential interactions with European sites depend upon considerable further development before the presence of any impact pathways can be clearly identified.

5. Conclusion

LSEs of the FRMP on all European sites, both alone and in-combination, were excluded for all measures and an ‘appropriate assessment’ was not required. This was based on various factors, including some measures being:

• carried over from the cycle 1 FRMP - which would have been subject to the statutory consenting process including HRA
• already implemented
• not associated with impact pathways linking to European sites
• too non-specific either in terms of specific location or their nature or both to allow for a detailed meaningful assessment

Notably, 17 measures were screened out at the strategic FRMP level but recommended for down-the-line HRA since the measures are sufficiently broadly expressed that they could be delivered without adverse effects but this will need to be reassessed as actual schemes are developed. As the details of potential schemes are developed towards the planning application stage, the HRA process will ensure that adequate mitigation measures, where relevant, are incorporated and the integrity of European sites will be protected.