Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Policy EN1:
Management of the high quality historic, built and natural landscape character is to be achieved by ensuring the protection, and wherever possible enhancement,
Overall the wording of this policy is good however we would like to see the removal of the wording „wherever possible‟ in front of enhancement.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a statutory duty on LAs under section 85 to have regard to the purposes of the AONB designation, the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. Therefore the wording „wherever possible‟ should be removed from enhancement.
There is a good cross referencing of landscape and landscape character through the policy and the settlement within landscape.

In section 17.41 of the supportive text the following is stated:
"17.41 Rother‟s Appropriate Assessment examines whether the Core Strategy is likely to have any significant impacts on European designated conservation sites. This assessment cannot definitely say that there will be no significant effects on European Sites."
The Habitats Directive is about assessing plans or projects to ensure that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Where an adverse impact is identified this needs to be mitigated for or the plan cannot proceed.
The HRA/AA is the process whereby the policies of the strategy are assessed to ensure they do not adversely impact on any N2K sites where this assessment „cannot definitely‟ say that there will be no significant effects on European Sites due to uncertainty as to the detail of how subsequent
plans or projects will be implemented a precautionary approach should be taken. In this case a monitoring programme can be put in place together with the aim of providing a strategy mechanism to deal with any effects before they arise or become significant can be included in the delivery of the core strategy. Individual projects that result from the plan may also require an AA and they will
have more detail around their implementation that shows how they will avoid, reduce the impacts.
This wording in section 17.41 needs to change to more clearly reflect the process of AA and what it is expected to achieve.

Rother and Shepway Core Strategies Habitat Regulation Assessment (Dungeness
SAC; Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and SPA extension; and Dungeness, Romney
Marsh and Rye Bay proposed Ramsar site)

General comments
Taking regard of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which state that s48 (5) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 49, the authority shall agree to the plan ...only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site the HRA needs to be made against the conservation objectives for each of the international sites. There is reference to this step in Box 1 on Page 10 but there is no reference in the text of the HRA to the Conservation Objectives nor is there any interpretation given as to how these have been used to inform the HRA process.

2.5.2 Key development plans of relevance to Dungeness
The list needs to include
* The Folkestone to Cliff End Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy

Key Environmental Conditions
An explanation of how the list of Key Environmental Conditions was collated would be useful. What sources were used to collate the list?

There is a need to add another two key environmental conditions in relation to the geomorphology feature of the SSSI. The geomorphology interest underpins the Dungeness SAC This is because it is fundamental to the mix of flora and fauna found on the site. It is a dynamic coastline open to the natural coastal processes that gives rise to the unique habitats found at Dungeness.

It is suggested that to ensure that a complete assessment has been undertaken the following Environmental Conditions are added
* Maintain the natural patterns of erosion and accretion along the coast,
* No increase in the number of coastal defence operations disrupting the natural supply of sediment to the site.

Disturbance

HRA on Disturbance

Natural England welcomes the mitigation measures and recommendations that are suggested within the HRA with regard to disturbance arising from promoting tourism/recreational activity in the Dungeness area. We would wish to draw attention to the wider recreational pressure, not just that generated from tourism which could potentially increase with additional housing in the local area.
The HRA recommends 5.5.2 that Owing to the potential for recreation/tourism to lead to disturbance, Council Policy should adopt an integrated approach to this issue. Natural England would fully support this approach if this included taking account of new housing development. However, having set out the measures and recommendations in the HRA it is disappointing that these are not fully reflected in the relevant policies within the Core Strategies. Natural England would seek their inclusion, such as the suggestion of a sustainable access strategy.

This would be needed in order to conform with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which state that s48 (5) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 49, the authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site. These mitigation measures if included into the relevant policies would go some way to address the potential impacts of disturbance from tourism and visitor pressure.

Until such changes are made to the policies to ensure that a more robust approach is adopted to protect the international sites from disturbance, Natural England advises that with regard to impacts from disturbance, the Core Strategy policies do not conform to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Natural England does not concur with the conclusion at 5.7 ...that the Rother and Shepway Core Strategies do have sufficient safeguards in
policy/supporting text that they would be unlikely to lead to significant effects on the Dungeness international sites through disturbance impacts.

Available survey data - The three sources of visitor data are useful but need to be approached with caution if using these as a means to assess the visitor pressure across the SAC, SPA, pSPA and pRamsar. The Rye Harbour LNR data is from 1996 and therefore rather dated. The Dungeness Point survey is very much at the specific location of the Point. Other areas within the international sites that are used by visitors would not feature in these surveys.

Within the Rother area, Camber sands and Broomhill frontage are also heavily used areas of the coast for a variety of recreation and leisure pursuits. This location has not featured in the survey data and should be addressed in future monitoring.

Natural England do not agree with the assumption taken in the HRA in 5.2.1 that the RSPB reserve can be removed from the assessment on the basis of a 'cap' on 40,000 visitors as suggested in the RSPB Management Plan.

Water quality - If the recommendations set out in the HRA are addressed as suggested in the Core Strategies then Natural England would support the conclusion 6.6.1 of the HRA in relation to water quality.

Water resources - If the recommendations set out in the HRA are addressed as suggested in the Core Strategies then Natural England would support the conclusion 7.4.1 of the HRA in relation to water resources.

Air Quality - Natural England welcomes the policies in SRM1 Towards a Low Carbon Future, TR2 Integrated Transport and TR3 Access and New Development in the Rother Core Strategy.

Coastal issue - This section needs to cover natural coastal processes as well as coastal squeeze.

No AA of Dungeness would be complete without the consideration of the natural coastal processes that underpin the special conservation features of the site and how policies within the core strategy may impact negatively on these processes.
There needs to be an introduction within this section that covers the natural oastal processes of accretion and erosion that are occurring in this area. Natural England has suitable text that can be used for this introduction and some of these issues have already been outlined under the coastal squeeze section.

We would be satisfied with the text amendments to the HRA as suggested above, this would ensure that the HRA for the core strategy was comprehensive with regard to the issues impacting on the site and subsequent project based HRA.

Section 5.5.5 Port of Rye suggests there is no potential expansion of the port of Rye. Our understanding is that there is currently a pre-application for development of a wharf. This proposal should have been considered in the HRA and the impacts it may have alone and in-combination. The current proposal is the result of discussion and negotiation over a considerable period of time.
Natural England has been closely involved with this application to help ensure that this development might be delivered without impacting significantly on the designated site, however an addendum to the HRA is required to acknowledge this impact and consider how the core strategy should respond (please see above).

Rother Core Strategy Habitat Regulations Assessment (sites other than the
Dungeness complex)

Natural England is satisfied with the HRA for the remaining N2K sites within the district. The HRA for the remaining N2K sites within the District appear robust and Natural England agrees with the conclusions of which sites to be screened out. Pevensey Levels was the only site screened in; we are satisfied that inclusion of policies as recommended in the HRA conclusions would avoid a significant effect on the site.

Policy EN5: Biodiversity and Green Space
Overall this biodiversity and green space is positive particularly in regard to developing new areas for biodiversity (BOA and Sussex BAP) and greenspace (having regard to NE‟s ANGSt ) and working to deliver biodiversity gains and we welcome this policy. However the natural environment in the district is very rich and highly designated and the policy fails to mention the need to protect and enhance designated nature conservation in accordance to their hierarchically protection status and provide policy hooks as to how this might be achieved.
Natural England is happy to work with Rother to build on this policy.
The issue of climate change and the need to ensure capacity for the natural environment to adapt in a changing climate also needs to be included in this policy either as an overarching theme or appended to the appropriate points in the policy. Protecting and enhancing in a changing climate is a strategic objective in the plan for the natural environment however this has not been interpreted
into policy.
Section 17.41 states:
"It is recognised that there is a need to manage recreation and tourism activities so they do not harm the integrity of these sites. More generally, green infrastructure can be used to avoid adverse impacts on biodiversity through buffering or provision of alternative sites for outdoor recreation. Whilst recognising the need for sensitive management of green infrastructure activities."
Again this is good supportive text but no mention is made in policy as to how green space or any other measures will alleviate pressure on Natura 2000 sites, some policy hook is required to show this is part of the GI functions. Natural England are working with Shepway District to address similar issues in their core strategy through additional GI and exploring the role of a strategic
partnership to monitor access on the site and respond accordingly. A joint approach by Rother and Shepway working with other agencies and stakeholders could be implemented to address this.

Section 17.40 incorrectly lists the internationally designated sites within the district as "The protected sites comprise the Pevensey Levels Ramsar Site, the Pett Level Special Protection Area (SPA) and proposed Ramsar Site, and the Dungeness Special Area of Conservation (SAC), several Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and one National Nature Reserve (NNR). Of more local interest are the Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs). In addition, Rother
has one of the highest concentrations of „ancient woodland‟ in the country, and the highest in the South East; this being a nationally important and endangered habitat."
These should in fact be named in the following way
Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Dungeness Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
Dungeness to Pett Level Special Protection Area (SPA)
Dungeness Romney Marsh and Rye Bay potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and
proposed Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Site)

Policy EN6: Flood Risk Management
(iv) Proposed flood protection measures should have full regard to sensitive areas
designated with specific nature conservation and biodiversity interests such as RAMSAR, SAC, SPC, LNR or SSSI.
NE is pleased to see point (iv) in the Flood Risk Management policy. We would like to see reference to flood risk management taking account of natural coastal processes particularly in undeveloped stretches of the coastline and in relation to nature conservation sites where these processes are fundamental to the interest features of the site.

Similar recognition (see repesentation on EN6) of designated sites and natural process that support them needs to be reflected in policy EN7 in relation to development and flood risk where appropriate.

Natural England welcomes the policies in SRM1 Towards a Low Carbon Future, TR2 Integrated Transport and TR3 Access and New Development in the Rother Core Strategy.

Natural England welcomes the policies in SRM1 Towards a Low Carbon Future, TR2 Integrated Transport and TR3 Access and New Development in the Rother Core Strategy.

Natural England welcomes the policies in SRM1 Towards a Low Carbon Future, TR2 Integrated Transport and TR3 Access and New Development in the Rother Core Strategy.