environmental scoping report - escp. ptop env scoping_main document.pdf · this environmental...

P O R T C H E S T E R C A S T L E T O P A U L S G R O V E F C E R M S C H E M E

Environmental Scoping Report

Prepared for

Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership

December 2016

[ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING REPORT.DOC] I

Document History

Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove FCERM Scheme

Environmental Scoping Report

Client: Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership

CH2M Project No. 666551

Document No. 666551/005

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by

1 16/5/2016 Initial Draft (for Consultation) E Hewitt J Walker

1.1 5/9/2016 Final Draft (for Consultation) - J Walker L Trim

2 14/12/2016 Final - J Walker

3 19/12/2016 Minor amendments - L Denham

In preparing this report, CH2Mrelied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the Client and third parties, which information has not been independently verified by CH2M and which CH2M has assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while CH2M has utilized its best efforts in preparing this Report, CH2M does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth in this Report which are dependent or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by third parties or the client. This Report is intended for Client’s sole and exclusive use and is not for the benefit of any third party and may not be distributed to, disclosed in any form to, used by, or relied upon by, any third party without prior written consent of CH2M which consent may be withheld in its sole discretion. Use of this Report or any information contained herein, if by any party other than Client, shall be at the sole risk of such party and shall constitute a release and agreement by such party to defend and indemnify CH2M and its affiliates, officers, employees and subcontractors from and against any liability for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential or special loss or damage or other liability of any nature arising from its use of the Report or reliance upon any of its content. To the maximum extent permitted by law, such release from and indemnification against liability shall apply in contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability, or any other theory of liability.

[ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING REPORT.DOC] II

Contents Section Page

Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Need for the Scheme ...................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Need for EIA, HRA and WFD Assessment ........................................................................ 7 1.4 Purpose of this Scoping Report ....................................................................................... 7 1.5 How to Comment on this Report .................................................................................... 7 1.6 Report Structure............................................................................................................. 8

Project Development ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Shoreline Management Plan Options.............................................................................. 9 2.3 Strategy Options........................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Long List Scheme Options ............................................................................................. 10 2.5 Assessment of Long List ................................................................................................ 12 2.6 Short List Options ......................................................................................................... 12 2.7 Assessment of Short List ............................................................................................... 14 2.8 Consultation Carried Out to Date .................................................................................. 15

The Preferred Option ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Scheme Description ...................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Construction Methods and Programme ........................................................................ 18 3.3 Future operation .......................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Decommissioning ......................................................................................................... 19

Key Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 20 4.2 Air quality and climate change ...................................................................................... 20

4.2.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 20 4.2.2 Key issues, risks and scope for mitigation ......................................................... 21 4.2.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 21

4.3 Archaeology and cultural heritage ................................................................................ 21 4.3.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 21 4.3.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation ....................................... 24 4.3.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 25

4.4 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................. 26 4.4.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 26 4.4.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation ....................................... 34 4.4.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 35

4.5 Landscape and visual amenity ...................................................................................... 35 4.6 Land use and the local community................................................................................ 52

4.6.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 52 4.6.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation ....................................... 53 4.6.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 53

4.7 Ground conditions and coastal geomorphology ............................................................ 54 4.7.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 54 4.7.2 Potential Impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation ....................................... 55 4.7.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 55

4.8 Material assets and sustainability ................................................................................. 55 4.9 Traffic and Transportation ............................................................................................ 56

4.9.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 56

SECTION 1

[ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING REPORT] III

4.9.2 Key issues, risks and scope for mitigation ......................................................... 56 4.9.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 56

4.10 Water resources ........................................................................................................... 57 4.10.1 Baseline conditions .......................................................................................... 57 4.10.2 Key issues, risks and scope for mitigation ......................................................... 57 4.10.3 Further assessment required ........................................................................... 58

4.11 Cumulative impacts ...................................................................................................... 58

Other Assessments Undertaken........................................................................................................... 59 5.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening ................................................................. 59 5.2 Preliminary Water Framework Assessment .................................................................. 59

Scope of Detailed Assessment ............................................................................................................. 60

Conclusions and Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 62

References ........................................................................................................................................... 63

Tables

Table 1. Shoreline Management Plan policy options .......................................................................... 9 Table 2. Strategic management options ........................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Generic scheme options ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Short List Options ............................................................................................................... 13 Table 5. Preferred scheme options .................................................................................................. 17 Table 6. Existing Designations within 2km of the Scheme ................................................................ 26 Table 7. Details of relevant protected species records within the predicted zone of influence ......... 31 Table 8. Scope of environmental issues requiring assessment ......................................................... 60

Figures

Figure 1 Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove outline business case study location plan .............. 1 Figure 2 Reaches and sub-reaches for the scheme (including description of existing flood defence assets) 2 Figure 3 Depth of flooding as a result of a 1 in 200 year flood event (present day) ................. 5 Figure 4 Depth of flooding as a result of a 1 in 200 year flood event (in 100 years) ................. 6

Appendices

Appendix A Long List Options

Appendix B Preferred Scheme Options Plans

Appendix C Environmental Site Appraisal Plans and Indicative Landscape Plans

Appendix D Appraisal of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assets

Appendix E Ecological Survey Reports

Appendix F Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report

Appendix G Water Framework Directive Assessment

SECTION 1

[ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING REPORT] IV

SECTION 1

[ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING REPORT.DOC]

1

1Background 1.1 Introduction The Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership is proposing to carry out improvements to the coastal defences between Portchester Castle in Portchester and Port Solent in Paulsgrove, in Fareham and Portsmouth, Hampshire.

This Environmental Scoping Report for Consultation has been prepared as part of the process required to support the outline business case submission for an application for funding and technical approval for the proposed scheme. This report, in particular, aims to address environmental issues associated with the scheme. It identifies and describes the environmental issues, constraints and opportunities relating to the proposed scheme, reports on the development of options and their appraisal, recommends the actions required to further assess or manage environmental issues during subsequent phases of the scheme implementation, and it has been prepared for consultation purposes to ensure that these are addressed appropriately during subsequent stages of scheme development.

The location of the scheme is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1 Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove outline business case study location plan

SECTION 1


2

Figure 2 Reaches and sub-reaches for the scheme (including description of existing flood defence assets)

SECTION 1


3

SECTION 1


4

1.2 Need for the Scheme The existing defences along the coastline of the scheme comprise a range of types that include concrete seawall, concrete bagwork wall, sheet piling, concrete revetment, a stone seawall and raised ground built over the years to different standards of protection. The current standard of protection ranges from 1 in 1 year to 1 in 200 year. Recent years have shown that even a 1 in 1 year flood event can cause overtopping of the defences in some places, with flooding behind the defences. Flood mapping shows that 361 residential properties and 198 commercial properties as well as Portchester Sailing Club, Castle Primary School, Trafalgar Wharf development area, recreation areas and the A27 (a major transport route) are at risk of flooding from a 1 in 200 year flood event at present. The risk of flooding is predicted to rise over time, with 662 residential properties and 292 commercial properties being at risk in 2115. This level of flood risk not only has a direct impact on property and assets, but also affects investor confidence in the area, which is an important factor in the local and regional economy. In addition, the residual life of the defences ranges from less than 5 years (notably at Portchester Castle and Sailing Club) to 30 years.

The proposed scheme is required to lower the risk of flooding and address these concerns.

The depth of flooding that would occur as a result of a 1 in 200 year event (present day and in 100 years) is shown in Figure 3 (present day) and Figure 4 (in 100 years).

SECTION 1


5

Figure 3 Depth of flooding as a result of a 1 in 200 year flood event (present day)

SECTION 1


6

Figure 4 Depth of flooding as a result of a 1 in 200 year flood event (in 100 years)

SECTION 1


7

1.3 Need for EIA, HRA and WFD Assessment It is likely that planning permission will be required from the two Local Planning Authorities, Fareham Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council for the scheme for work carried out down to Mean Low Water in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A Marine License is also likely to be required from the Marine Management Organisation for works below Mean High Water Springs.

Due to the nature of the scheme and the high environmental sensitivity of its location, it is envisaged that an Environmental Impact Assessment will be required in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015) and the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (as amended 2011 and 2015).

The need for EIA will be confirmed by seeking a screening/scoping opinion from Fareham Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council and the MMO.

Due to the location of the scheme within an internationally designated area, a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) will be required for the scheme under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and due to its location within a designated waterbody, a Water Framework Directive (WFD) Assessment will also be required under The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003.

Other environmental consents that are likely to be required as the scheme progresses include SSSI Assent (tied into the planning consent), Scheduled Monument Consent and an Environmental Permit. The need for further consents and licenses may be identified as the scheme progresses.

1.4 Purpose of this Scoping Report This Scoping Report has been prepared to:

Present a summary of the key baseline environment and initial identification of potential impacts and opportunities that may result from the proposed scheme

Record the option selection process undertaken and present our preferred option

Present the results of the HRA Screening and WFD Screening Assessment undertaken for the scheme

Seek comments from statutory consultees, key stakeholders and the public on the option selection and environmental scoping process

Seek the views of Natural England and the Environment Agency on the need for further HRA and WFD Assessment

Set out the proposed scope of further environmental assessment work required to progress the scheme through the detailed design and approval process.

Assist the Local Planning Authorities (possibly via the Coastal Concordat agreement) and the MMO in the scoping opinion process.

1.5 How to Comment on this Report We would welcome your views on the content of this report, the scheme being developed and the proposed scope of the associated EIA.

This report is available to download from http://www.escp.org.uk/PortchesterPaulsgrove

http://www.escp.org.uk/PortchesterPaulsgrove

SECTION 1


8

The consultation on this document mediated via the Local Planning Authorities or the Costal Concordat (process still to be confirmed at time of writing) will run for a five week period. Comments should be returned, either by following the instructions on the web site above, or by e-mail to:

Gavin Holder <[email protected]

or by post, to:

Gavin Holder,

Havant Borough Council,

Southmoor Depot and Offices,

2 Penner Road,

Havant,

PO9 1OH.

The MMO will run a separate consultation process, which will run for up to 13 weeks. Comments mediated via the MMO should be returned as instructed by the MMO.

All comments received will be recorded and acknowledged, and used to assist both the Local Authorities (via the Coastal Concordat if adopted) and the MMO in the decision making process in relation to the need for detailed EIA), to steer the future development of the scheme and for scheme funding purposes.

1.6 Report Structure This report has been prepared in eight sections as follow:

Section 1: Background

Section 2: Project Development

Section 3: The Preferred Option

Section 4: Key Issues

Section 5: Other Assessments Undertaken

Section 6: Scope of Detailed Assessment

Section 7: Next Steps

Section 8: References

mailto:[email protected]

SECTION 2

[ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING REPORT.DOC] 9

2Project Development 2.1 Introduction

The scheme has been proposed to align with the North Solent Shoreline Management Plan and the approved Portchester to Emsworth FCERM Strategy (the strategy). The study area for the scheme, which is defined by a western boundary at Hospital Lane to the west of Portchester Castle to Port Solent in the east, aligns with the boundaries of Reach 1 of the strategy and the eastern boundary of the neighbouring approved River Hamble to Portchester Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy (AECOM, 2015). The total length of the frontage is approximately 2.15 km (consisting of approximately 555m of Fareham Borough Council frontage and 810m of Portsmouth City Council frontage with discrete sections of privately owned frontage, as shown in Figure 1.

The option appraisal process has reviewed and built upon the option appraisal undertaken during the Shoreline Management Plan and the strategy, and has progressed through a long list to short list stage before reaching the preferred scheme option. A summary of this process is provided below. It has been reported in detail in the Options Appraisal Report for the scheme. A copy of the Options Appraisal Report is available on request.

2.2 Shoreline Management Plan Options The North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) (New Forest District Council 2010) subdivided the study frontage into policy units (PUs). Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove is covered by PU5a21. The Shoreline Management Plan reviewed the four generic policy options for the assessment of flood and erosion risk, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Shoreline Management Plan policy options

Policy Description

No Active Intervention

There would be no further active intervention by the operating authority. Without intervention the condition of the defences would deteriorate leading to failure. This would result in increased flood and erosion risk for the hinterland.

Hold The Line

This would involve maintaining the existing defences in their present positions and reducing or maintaining the level of flood and erosion risk in areas.

Advance The Line This policy involves the construction of a new defence seaward of the existing defences. Due to the pressures around the majority of the UK coastline, this is rarely selected as a policy as it generally results in larger, more expensive structures. However, there are some instances where the benefits from development on the reclaimed area outweigh the additional cost of the structures.

Managed Realignment The policy of managed realignment involves the placement of new defences landward of the existing defences, or realigning to higher ground. This policy can be achieved through the partial or complete removal of the existing defences or through regulated tidal exchange. This policy would be gradually implemented and regularly monitored in order to study any potential effects on the overall coastline.

The preferred policy option was selected following a rigid option selection process, assessing the environmental, technical and economic elements of each option to ensure that the preferred option can be delivered in an environmentally acceptable way. The preferred Shoreline Management Plan

SECTION 2


10

generic policy option for the Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove study area was identified as Hold the Line. This option was progressed to the strategy stage for further appraisal.

2.3 Strategy Options The long list strategic management options (which included the preferred option as well as others) for review and consideration at the strategy stage are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Strategic management options

Generic Management Option (Strategy)

Description

No Active Intervention Walk away from the defences, undertaking no further work, including no maintenance or repair. The defences would deteriorate over time and fail and natural processes would be allowed to take their course. No Active Intervention is used in appraisal to act as a baseline against which all other options are tested. This option relates to an SMP No Active Intervention Policy Option.

Do Minimum This is a minimum intervention action, with works being undertaken in a reactive manner, i.e. repairing breaches should they occur. This option relates to an SMP Hold the Line Policy Option.

Maintain Maintenance and repairs do not change the defence or its performance, but simply maintain it in good working order or restore it to its previous condition in the event of a breakdown. The standard of protection would reduce over time due to sea level rise (flood risk would increase). This option relates to an SMP Hold the Line Policy Option.

Sustain An option that responds to potential increases in risk from climate change, urban development and land use change into the future. Sustain the defences and current standard of flood protection through works, constructing new defences where necessary. The level of flood risk would stay constant over time. This option relates to an SMP Hold the Line Policy Option.

Improve Improve the defences, usually through replacement with a new structure or the addition of new structural elements. The current standard of flood protection is increased (flood risk is reduced). This option relates to an SMP Hold the Line Policy Option.

Managed Realignment Managed realignment involves the placement of new defences landward of the existing defences, or realigning to higher ground. This option relates to an SMP Managed Realignment Option.

Advance the Line Construct new defences seaward of the existing defences to reclaim an area of land. This option relates to an SMP Advance the Line Policy Option.

The preferred strategy option for the reach from Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove was to Improve to 1.33%AEP (1 in 75 year) standard of service.

2.4 Long List Scheme Options All potential Hold the Line options - which allow an improvement to the standard of flood protection, in addition to the Do Nothing and Do Minimum options - which are always considered for comparative purposes, have been reviewed during the current scheme option appraisal with a view of optimizing the standard of defence where possible.

SECTION 2


11

The range of generic management solutions for implementation of the strategic option, which vary in terms of their method of implementation and the standard of flood defence provided, considered are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Generic scheme options

Management Solution / Structure

Description

Sheet pile wall Sheet piles are used to construct a vertical retaining wall which serves as a cut-off from the water body.

Concrete wall A concrete wall is constructed to provide a vertical retaining wall which serves as a cut-off from the water body. The wall may be constructed from precast units or cast on site.

Upstand wall A wall positioned along the crest of an existing structure either on the current alignment or setback landward. It provides additional protection from water over-washing reducing the risk of flooding of the areas behind the wall, without the need to raise the crest level of the main structure.

Setback wall A wall positioned along landward of the existing flood defence line. It provides additional protection from flood waters reducing the risk of flooding of the areas behind the wall, without the need to raise the crest level of the main structure.

Revetments Revetments are a form of armouring to slopes. The revetment can be of either rigid or flexible construction. A variety of revetments are available to suit varying degrees of exposure. Armouring using close-fitting concrete blocks or slabs is often favoured for shallower slopes. Armouring with rock provides significant wave energy dissipation and toe scour protection for more exposed areas.

Embankments / land raising

Increasing the height of the land between the water body and assets to reduce water over-washing. Where large increases in height are required land raising may take the form of an earth / clay embankment with a wide crest to allow access / maintenance.

Demountables Flood defences which are set in place when there is a risk of flooding. Defences are removed during normal conditions.

Gabions A cage or box filled with rocks or concrete. Used as erosion protection and as retaining walls, but they are permeable to flood water.

Offshore breakwaters These structures are detached from the shore, generally aligned parallel to the beach. They can significantly reduce the energy of the incoming waves.

Beach recharge A recharge of beach material is a soft coastal defence solution to combat erosion. Sediment is imported from outside the sediment system/cell, often from an offshore site.

At the strategy stage, the study area was divided into 5 reaches according to the type, condition and standard of protection of the existing defences. These reaches have been retained, but Reach 1 is now covered by the River Hamble to Portchester FCERM Strategy and does not affect flooding within the remaining study area, and Reach 4, which comprises Trafalgar Wharf, is being addressed by the site owners. Neither of these reaches have been included within the current study, although it should be emphasised that there has been ongoing consultation with representatives of Trafalgar Wharf via the project steering group to ensure that the scheme is consistent with proposals for flood defence along the Reach 4 frontage (and Reach 4 will be subject to a separate approval process at an appropriate time by the site owners). The scheme addressed at the long list stage therefore comprised Reaches 2, 3 and 5 only (as illustrated on Figure 2).

SECTION 2


12

A long list of feasible options was drawn up for each of the three reaches. The location of these reaches (with sub-divisions) included within the scheme is shown in Figure 2. Long list options considered for each reach are set out in Appendix A.

2.5 Assessment of Long List All long list options were screened and assessed using an Options Appraisal Matrix. Key parameters included:

• Strategy / policy

• Affordability

• Technical suitability, including but not limited to:

o Buildability

o Ease of construction access

o Adaption to climate change

• Health and safety

• Environmental opportunities and constraints, including but not limit to:

o Biodiversity / habitats

o Heritage

o Visual impact, landscape, public access and amenity

o Water quality

It should be noted that the privately owned defences of Reaches 2a and 2b2 and the moat, outfall and concrete steps between Reaches 2b2 and 3a have not been considered within the OBC as it is assumed that all future maintenance and refurbishment will be undertaken by the existing owners and maintainers. The off-site flood risk due to over-washing at Reach 2b2 will be mitigated by property protection to two properties in Hospital lane and a set back wall at the sailing club to protect residences in Portchester.

The main environmental reasons that options were eliminated from further consideration was land-take within the internationally designated inter-tidal area, adverse impacts on the nationally designated heritage site (either direct impacts or visual impacts) and effects on community recreation assets or commercial assets.

The best potential viable options for each stretch were taken forward along with the Do Nothing and Do Minimum options to a short list for more detailed appraisal. The full assessment of the long list options is provided in the Options Appraisal Matrices contained in the Options Appraisal Report for the scheme. A copy of the Options Appraisal Report can be made available on request.

2.6 Short List Options The short listed options for each Reach and their sub-reaches are shown in

Table 4.

No short list options have been considered for Reaches 2a and 2b(2). Reach 2a is privately owned, whilst Reach 2b(2) is maintained by English Heritage, and it has been assumed that all future maintenance and refurbishment of the defences along these reaches will be undertaken by the existing owners and maintainers.

SECTION 2


13

Table 4. Short List Options

Reach Option Number Description

Reach 2b(1) – Portchester Castle (south frontage)

0 Do Nothing

1 Do Minimum

2 Revetment (with rock armour (2A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (2B))

3 Revetment (with rock armour (3A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (3B)) and property protection

Reach 3a – Sailing Club 0 Do Nothing

1 Do Minimum

2 Sheet pile wall and setback wall

3 Concrete vertical wall and setback wall

4 Vertical wall and upstand wall and setback wall

Reach 3b – Recreation Ground

0 Do Nothing

1 Do Minimum

2 Sheet pile wall

3 Concrete vertical wall

4 Revetment with toe along line of existing seawall (with rock armour (4A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (4B))

5 Vertical wall and land raising

Reach 3c – Castle Shore Park

0 Do Nothing

1 Do Minimum

2 New revetment on existing line with upstand wall (with rock armour (2A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (2B))

3 New revetment on existing line with land raising (with rock armour (3A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (3B))

Reach 5a – Southern Water Pumping station

0 Do Nothing

1 Do Minimum

2 Sheet pile wall along existing revetment crest line (2A) or toe line (2B)

3 Sheet pile wall along existing revetment toe line (3A) or toe line (3B)

4 New revetment on existing line with upstand wall (with rock armour (4A) or reno-mattress ((or similar) 4B))

Reach 5b – Southampton Road

0 Do Nothing

1 Do Minimum

2 Sheet pile wall

3 Concrete vertical wall

4 Revetment with toe along existing line and land raising (with rock armour (4A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (4B))

5 New revetment on existing line with upstand wall (with rock armour (5A) or reno-mattress (or similar) (5B))

6 Raised embankment / landscaping

SECTION 2


14

Reach Option Number Description

7 Vertical wall and upstand wall

2.7 Assessment of Short List All options on the short list were subject to more detailed appraisal against a suite of environmental objectives alongside an appraisal of technical feasibility and cost.

The environmental objectives against which the short list options were assessed, are:

To protect the integrity and, where practicable, enhance the status of designated and protected sites, fauna and flora within the study area, including SPAs (and the potential SPA), Ramsar sites, SSSIs, SINCs and habitats and species protected by national and Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species of principal value

To protect from loss or damage, and enhance if possible, nationally and regionally designated and non-designated cultural heritage assets and archaeology on land and at sea

To minimise changes to the coastal morphology along the frontage upon which other environmental features depend

To protect geological resources and avoid adverse effects from contaminated land

To ensure appropriate flood risk management to properties at risk from flooding

To protect and enhance appropriate sustainable forms of land use that will sustain current land use and the local economy, and to encourage future development in accordance with planning policy objectives and avoid conflict with features protected by planning policy

To protect and contribute towards a healthier human environment and behaviour, in particular, through protecting and enhancing access to the countryside and amenity resources, and providing equality of access to these resources

To protect the national rail network, trunk roads, a-roads, local infrastructure and economic concerns on which the regional economy depends

To conserve and enhance, if practicable, designated landscapes/ townscape and areas of high landscape/ townscape quality, and to avoid significant adverse impacts on sensitive views of high amenity value

To minimise the use of non-renewable resources and the generation of waste

To protect the quality of surface, ground and tidal waters and to avoid effects on water flows and water body morphology

To meet / input to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive Water Bodies

To prevent impacts on the Shellfish / Bathing Waters during FCERM construction

In general, due to the international importance of the inter-tidal area adjacent to the scheme, an over-riding decision-making factor during option selection was the permanent footprint (and any permanent physical damage as a result of construction) within the inter-tidal area, and the potential for disturbance to birds using the area. This is in accordance with advice from Natural England.

Consideration of impacts on the scheduled monument, which is of national importance, and its setting, alongside the inter-related factor of impacts on the landscape and the visual impact of the defences, were also key decision-making factors. In terms of the scheduled monument, Historic

SECTION 2


15

England advised that they consider the potential impacts on the setting of Portchester Castle to out-weigh the effects of the increasing risk of flooding to the castle over time.

The environmentally preferred options are therefore those that afford the benefits of a reduced risk of flooding to local assets, whilst resulting in no land-take within the inter-tidal area (and minimising land-take on the landward side of the defences), and offering the highest potential to screen birds from the presence of humans and dogs alongside a visually acceptable solution that reduces potential impacts on the scheduled monument and the landscape.

The detailed results of the option appraisal from short list to preferred option are summarised in the Appraisal Summary Tables, which are presented in the Options Appraisal Report (a copy of which can be made available on request).

2.8 Consultation Carried Out to Date Throughout the development of the scheme, the project team has engaged with the local community, businesses and public bodies both near to and with an interest in, the Portchester to Paulsgrove coastline.

The detail of how the public and organisations have been involved and consulted throughout the project development is set out in more detail within the project Communications and Collaboration Plan included as a supporting appendix to the business case submission.

A project Steering Group was set up to work in partnership to develop technically, economically and environmentally sustainable coastal flood and erosion risk defences along the coastline from Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove.

The role of the Steering Group has been to guide the delivery of the project, sharing knowledge and best practice, and providing feedback and input to decision making. Established in summer 2014, the project steering group consists of representatives from the following organisations:

ESCP – Project management and wider team support

CH2M Hill – Consultant

FBC – lead authority, landowner and planning authority

PCC – planning authority for scheme and Trafalgar Wharf

Environment Agency – funding and approvals

Quadrant Estates – developer

Trafalgar Wharf – site owners and potential for development

Natural England – statutory consultee

Historic England / English Heritage – statutory consultee and landowner

Hampshire County Council – landowner and consultee

HCC Archaeology

Queens Harbour Master - consultee

Marine Management Organisation – consultee

Crown Estates – consultee

Southern Water – asset owner

SECTION 2


16

Portchester Sailing Club – secretary and foreshore officer Public Exhibitions

A public exhibition was held at the Castle Street Centre on Thursday 17th March 2016 to give local residents, and those with an interest, the opportunity to find out more about the coastal defence improvements being developed from Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove. This took place once the short-list of coastal management options had been developed. Over 190 people came and 121 questionnaires were filled out at the event. A further 8 were filled out via the online questionnaire.

A second public exhibition was held at the Castle Street Centre on Thursday 28th July 2016. It gave local residents, and those with an interest, the opportunity to find out more about the leading options. A total of 128 people attended and 82 questionnaires were completed at the event. Other engagement methods such as letters, leaflets, email updates, website and social media were also used to support the consultation.

In summary, 95% of people reported that they now have a better understanding as to why the coastal defence options have been chosen, 94% either strongly or mostly supported the overall leading options across the scheme area and 91% of those visiting the exhibition said the information presented helped their understanding of the scheme.

The feedback received during the consultation period was used to inform the leading option selection process.

SECTION 3


3The Preferred Option 3.1 Scheme Description

The proposed scheme will extend from Hospital Lane, to the west of Portchester Castle to Port Solent, in Paulsgrove, covering a total length of 2.15 km of coastline as shown in Figure 1.

The preferred scheme options at this outline design stage include a combination of replacement sheet pile walls and new rock armour or reno mattress (or similar) revetments in combination with land raising or upstand walls using a combination of sheet steel piling, concrete and rock. Additional finishing materials may be used to provide cladding, but these details will be determined at a later, detailed design stage.

All preferred options, except along Reach 3a, comprise on-line defence options (i.e., they are aligned along the existing line of the defences), with an improved design standard of protection to a uniform 1 in 200 year standard of protection in 100 years (taking account of the effects of climate change) which will involve raising the height of the defences. Along Reach 3a, a section of setback wall is proposed. None of the preferred options will result in a final footprint that encroaches into the inter-tidal area than the current sea defences.

A summary of the preferred options for each reach are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Preferred scheme options

Reach Preferred Option Details

2b(1) Option 3A New revetment on existing line with property protection - rock armour

Rock armour revetment to replace existing concrete wall. Revetment crest height to match existing land levels. Revetment aligned to avoid loss of SPA/SSSI habitat but will reduce SINC area (locally designated site) by 5-6m along line of revetment. Property protection.

3a Option 2 - Sheet piled wall and setback wall

Sheet pile wall to replace existing bagwork wall with a setback wall. Height of wall to increase by c.1.0-1.5m to 4.23m AOD. Concrete capping beam to form top of wall. Potential for wall to be stone clad on seaward side.

3b Option 2 - Sheet piled wall Sheet pile wall to replace existing sheet pile wall. Height of wall to increase by c.0.5-0.75m to 4.23m AOD. Concrete capping beam to form top of wall.

3c Option 2B - New revetment on existing line with upstand wall – rock armour or reno mattress (or similar)

Rock armour or reno mattress (or similar) revetment and low upstand concrete wall at crest of revetment to replace existing revetment. Height of defence to increase by c.0.5-0.7m to 4.23m AOD. Removal of rubble in front of sea wall could create additional 450m2 SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designation area.

5a Option 4A - New revetment on existing line with upstand wall – rock armour

Rock armour revetment to replace existing concrete revetment and upstand concrete wall at crest of revetment. Height of defence to increase by c.1.1-1.5m to 4.65m AOD. Existing outfalls to be reinstated.

5b Option 4A – Revetment with toe along existing line and land raising – rock armour

Rock armour revetment and land raising to replace existing seawall and revetment. Height of defence to increase by c.0.7-1.6m to 4.3m AOD. Existing steps and slipways will be replaced with new steps and slipways. Width of existing grass strip between Southampton Road and seawall to be reduced by up to 10m to allow for larger footprint of higher revetment. Informal footpath adjacent to existing seawall to be realigned c. 7m to north.

In terms of height, the new height will match existing along Reach 2, 4.23mAOD along Reach 3, 4.65mAOD in Reach 5a and 4.3mAOD along Reach 5b. The variation in defence height required relates to variations in wave climate along the frontage and varying permeability of options which affects wave absorption abilities. The extent of raising will be dependant of the existing height, which varies along the frontage. The raising therefore varies between 0.6m and 1.5m.

SECTION 3


18

A set of plans showing the key components and cross sections of the preferred proposed scheme options is presented in Appendix B.

3.2 Construction Methods and Programme The construction programme will be dependent on agreement between interested parties on the preferred option (which will be confirmed during this consultation process), on securing funding for the scheme and on it’s a successful progression through detailed design and the planning process. However, at present, it is anticipated that construction will start on site in 2018 and will take two years to complete, with a break over the winter to avoid adverse impacts on the wintering birds in the inter-tidal area.

The methods of construction will be confirmed during the detailed design stage. For assessment purposes, we have assumed tidal working, with sectional completion on most reaches, such that work will take place at low tide on a short section of the defence, allowing completion of that section before high tide. Along Reach 5b, where considerable re-profiling will be required, it may not be possible to complete sections within one tidal window. Where this is the case, silt curtains or other mitigation measures may be required to prevent the suspension of exposed backfill.

Construction will take place from the landward side of the defences where this is possible. However, construction will take place from the foreshore along Reaches 2b, 3a and 5a, where there is limited space for construction plant on land, and possibly along certain sections of Reach 5.

A main site compound and laydown area has been proposed for the open space between Southampton Road and the sea defences, with two satellite areas - one near the Environment Agency pumping station off Cow Lane in Portchester and the other within the overflow car park of Portchester Castle. The location and extent of the proposed site compounds and access routes to the works areas are shown in the general arrangement drawings (100 series) in Appendix B.

Site preparation will take place on a sequential or reach by reach basis to minimise disturbance in any one area. This will include site boundary fencing, marking of any sensitive features or services and soil stripping. Where possible, topsoil will be retained for re-use and stored for a minimum time adjacent to the works. Soil not suitable for re-use on-site will be removed from site and taken for disposal/re-use elsewhere. No contamination testing has been carried out to date. If it is found that the soils are contaminated they will have to be disposed of at an appropriate landfill site.

All work will be undertaken following liaison with the landowners and the local community to minimise disruption to local people and infrastructure. All site activities with potential to cause disturbance and measures required to protect and enhance the environment will be managed and/or implemented in accordance with a Construction and Environmental Management Plan. This will form a key tool by which environmental assets will be managed before, during and after the works are implemented, and it will be prepared during the detailed design stage. Traffic generated (including the movement of materials on the road network and on site) will be managed in accordance with a Traffic Management Plan and waste will be managed in accordance with a Site Waste Management Plan. All of these will be prepared in consultation and in agreement with the relevant authorities before the start of construction, and the appointed contractor will be required to adhere to the specifications.

Reinstatement will take place on a sequential basis as sections or reaches are completed. It will be undertaken to comply with the Indicative Landscape Plans (discussed further in Section 4) and the Construction and Environmental Management Plan.

SECTION 3


19

3.3 Future operation During operation, the new defences will be subject to periodic inspection and maintenance works.

Periodic inspection of the defences will be required to monitor their condition. This will be carried out from the landward side of the defences.

3.4 Decommissioning No decommissioning works are proposed.

SECTION 4


4Key Issues

4.1 Introduction This section presents a summary of baseline conditions, identifies the key issues of potential concern, outlines mitigation and enhancement options that may be considered, and proposes what further assessment will be undertaken to progress the scheme through detailed design and the planning process for each environmental subject. Future baseline has been described where this is considered likely to change from existing baseline as a result of known factors such as climate change and land use development. Subjects covered comprise:

Air quality and climate change

Archaeology and cultural heritage

Biodiversity

Landscape and visual amenity

Land use and the local community (including noise and vibration)

Ground conditions and coastal geomorphology

Traffic and transportation

Water resources

Additional specific assessments undertaken to address the Habitats Regulations and the Water Framework Directive are reported in Section 5.

Key features described in this section in proximity to the scheme are shown in the Environmental Site Appraisal Plans, presented in Appendix C.

4.2 Air quality and climate change 4.2.1 Baseline conditions There are two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within Fareham; one on Gosport Road, the other on Portland Street. These were declared due to exceedances of Air Quality Standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), generally associated with vehicle exhausts. Monitoring data from 2014 suggest that both AQMAs should remain in place.

There are five AQMAs in Portsmouth, with the closest being one along the M275 and a second along the A207. These were also declared due to exceedances of NO2. Recent monitoring results suggest that air quality has improved since 2005 when the AQMAs were originally declared.

There are no AQMAs within Portchester or Paulsgrove.

All of the AQMAs fall outside the study area, the closest being the two AQMAs in Portsmouth noted above (along the M275 and along the A207), which are more than 2.5 km to the southeast and one in Fareham, which is more than 4.5 km to the west.

The predominant wind direction within the Solent originates from the west southwest and average wind speeds range between 12 knots (6.2m/s) and 14 knots (7.2m/s) (Eastern Solent Partnership, 2014, Windfinder, 2014).

Projections for climate change and its effects on sea levels and flood risk within the study area have been evaluated for the scheme, based on current Environment Agency guidance. The results, which

SECTION 4


21

predict a sea level rise on 0.78 metres over the next 100 years within the study area have been used to inform the flood management requirements proposed.

4.2.2 Key issues, risks and scope for mitigation During construction, there is potential for temporary adverse impacts on local air quality as a result of excavations and the operation of construction plant. Given that the prevailing wind is from the west, southwest, the most likely receptors are those to the east (i.e., users and ecology of the harbour) and north (residents along Southampton Road). However, these can be mitigated by the adoption of standard good working practice during construction, such that no significant adverse impact is envisaged.

During operation, there will be minimal maintenance and no significant impact on air quality.

The scheme will have no effect on climate change, but will be designed to accommodate the predicted effects of climate change on the local community in terms of flood risk. The effects of climate change are also of relevance to other environmental parameters such as cultural heritage, biodiversity, landscape and land use, although it is noted that the effects of coastal squeeze on inter-tidal habitats and biodiversity of holding the line will be addressed through the IROPI agreement and regional habitat creation project to be administered by the Environment Agency.

4.2.3 Further assessment required Standard good practice working practices will need to be specified for inclusion within the Construction and Environmental Management Plan and construction contract documentation for the scheme, but no further assessment in relation to air quality or climate change is proposed, although the effects of climate change on other environmental factors such as sea levels, flood risk, biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape and land use will need to be considered.

Recommendation 1: No detailed assessment of air quality will be required.

Recommendation 2: Standard good practice measures should be specified for inclusion within the Construction and Environmental Management Plan to ensure adverse impacts are avoided.

Recommendation 3: The effects of climate change (to be examined as part of scheme design rather than as part of the EIA) on sea levels and flood risk, and subsequent impacts on biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape and land use will need to be understood (whilst noting that the effects of coastal squeeze on inter-tidal habitats and biodiversity will be addressed through the regional habitat creation programme.

4.3 Archaeology and cultural heritage 4.3.1 Baseline conditions An appraisal of archaeological and cultural heritage assets, covering designated and non-designated features, unknown archaeology and geo-archaeological assets, has been undertaken for the scheme. The results are presented in Appendix D. A summary is provided below.

4.3.1.1 Designated features There are no World Heritage Sites, Registered Battlefields or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens along the line of the scheme options.

The Portchester Castle Scheduled Monument lies at the south-west corner of the scheme, at the southern end of the historic village of Paulsgrove, with the main street of the village (Castle Street) terminating at the castle. The main walls of the castle comprise the Roman fort Portus Adurni built in the late 3rd or early 4th centuries. They form a square of approximately 200 metres wide and enclose

SECTION 4


22

between 2.3 and 3.6 hectares (ha). The scheduled area comprises approximately 7.5 ha and includes the castle walls, moat and outer and inner baileys, with the exception of the Church of St Mary and its churchyard, which lies in the south-east corner of the castle’s outer bailey. The schedule extends to the edges of the inter-tidal area.

There are no further scheduled monuments within the wider study area.

There are five listed buildings within the Portchester Castle walls, and a further three outside the castle walls. These are:

Portchester Castle, the Grade I listing that encompasses all the listed structures below and the scheduled monument

the Grade I listed Church of St Mary, built circa 1133 inside the walls of the Roman fort when Henry I founded a small priory of Augustinian Canons

Grade II listed lamp in the churchyard

the churchyard wall formed from red brick and flint

a lychgate into the churchyard, created to celebrate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee in 1897

three Grade II listed cottages which lie at the edge of the scheduled area of the castle, near the junction of Castle Street and Hospital Street

Away from the castle, there are 45 listed buildings located either side of Castle Street in Portchester, concentrated in the core of the historic village and there are two further Grade II listed buildings at the northern end of the scheme, on Southampton Road and Jubilee Avenue.

There would seem to be no inter-visibility between the listed buildings and the sea defences within the study area.

The old village of Portchester and Portchester Castle are incorporated within the Portchester Conservation Area. The Conservation Area boundary extends from Castle Street to the edge of Portsmouth Harbour, encompassing Castle Shore Park.

4.3.1.2 Non-designated archaeological features Fareham Borough Council area

There are two archaeological monuments recorded on the Historic Environment Record (HER) which lie along or abut the line of the scheme:

An earthwork to the south of Portchester Castle, which are possibly the remains of an Iron Age promontory fort. Part of the ditch lies in the beach and inter-tidal zone south of the castle

A find spot comprised a number of Neolithic flints found on the beach south of Portchester Castle

There are no other known archaeological monuments within the line of the proposed scheme.

Inside the castle walls, there are 8 records shown on the HER:

A find spot of flint tools

A find spot with Late Iron Age pottery

A find spot consisting of Romano-British pottery

A record representing the Anglo-Saxon occupation of the castle

SECTION 4


23

Medieval features in the outer bailey of the Norman Castle, which could date to the earlier Anglo-Saxon period

Two medieval (13th and 14th century) limekilns excavated in the castle

The medieval tower and associated buildings built in the north-west corner of the castle enclosure

The former site of 18th century barrack blocks in the north-east quarter of the castle enclosure considered to be the foundation trenches of barrack blocks constructed during the Napoleonic period when the castle was in use as a prison

The Wyllie Memorial 15m south of Church of St Mary

The following HER records are located a short distance from the scheme:

A find spot comprising Portchester Sea Banks where Mesolithic flints were recovered from mud on an old land surface

The site of possible Jetty or loading area north of Portchester Castle for off-loading harbour vessels

Two other HER records are located immediately to the north of the castle walls:

A redeposited chalk deposit underlying modern topsoil found in Portchester Castle car park

The remains of Napoleonic barrack buildings and a parade ground built outside the walls of the fort for its use as a prisoner of war camp

Portsmouth City Council area

There are several archaeological HER entries recorded at the northern edge of the harbour at Paulsgrove to the north of the Southampton Road. These comprise:

An archaeological watching brief at Paulsgrove Primary School, Allaway Road, probably 20th century in date

A circular feature (possibly a barrow ring ditch) visible on post-war aerial photographs to the north of the railway line between Southampton Road and Allaway Avenue, now within the playing fields of King Richard's School

An archaeological watching brief at Paulsgrove Primary School showing a series of modern features as well as some prehistoric flints and 18-20th century artefacts

The site of former Second World War pillbox (MPM1644) off Allaway Avenue, Paulsgrove

A private house built circa 1935, converted into a public house circa 1945 and requisitioned by the Civil Defence during the Second World Wars, thought to be the only modern style public house in Portsmouth

Find spot of pottery and brick believed to be of Roman date found at Paulsgrove House in the late 19th/ early 20th century

At the same location as above, archaeological trial trench investigations revealed an almost intact mid-17th century rectangular stone-built outshot building with wooden partitions

Maritime and marine archaeology

There are no Protected Wrecks recorded on the Historic England dataset or available on the Maritime Archaeology Trust interactive plan along the line of the scheme or in the wider study area.

SECTION 4


24

No detailed non-designated dataset of wrecks has been obtained for the study. However, an examination of available online resources website (http://www.a2s-geoportal.eu/#/vessels/hwtma/957/info) identified a wreck on the edge of the harbour to the south and east of the scheme. This comprises the site of an unknown sailing vessel which sank with cargo classed as ‘sensitive’.

Overall, it is known that the Harbour is a major archaeological resource relating to the history of maritime Britain. However, given that the harbour is set at the foot of a chalk escarpment and is a drowned river basin, and that the harbour is likely to have been part of a terrestrial surface in the prehistoric era (see immediately below), the marine archaeological resource within the project area does not appear to have been firmly established.

4.3.1.3 Unknown archaeology and geo-archaeological assets Evidence from the Maritime Archaeology Trust (in collaboration with the Department of Geography of the University of Portsmouth) indicates that there is potential for archaeological finds within the inter-tidal area of the harbour of interest to the understanding of sea level and climate change, and early human settlement and development in Britain, while the potential shipwreck resource in the marine zone is significant. There is also potential for the remains of crashed aircraft in the marine area, with many recorded losses dating to the Second World War.

The inter-tidal zone around the edge of Portsmouth Harbour has been subject to an archaeological Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment survey by Wessex Archaeology. This survey has been undertaken along a large section of the English coastline and has comprised field survey to inform knowledge of the coastal historic environment. The data generated will inform future Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) and has the potential to add to this report, but the results are not yet in the public domain. Future assessments will be able to utilise this data.

4.3.1.4 Future baseline The location of Portchester Castle on the coast is integral to its function, form, understanding and current appreciation. Under current conditions, water occasionally overtops the sea defences, resulting in sea water reaching the castle walls. The seawall currently has a standard of protection of >1% AEP (1 in 1 year) standard of protection. Over time, with sea level rise, the frequency and erosive effect of this, and the occurrence of flooding within the castle is likely to increase. Portchester Conservation Area and its many listed building are also at risk of flooding. Again, this is likely to increase over time due to sea level rise.

4.3.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation Portchester Castle Scheduled Monument is the major cultural heritage feature and constraint to the scheme. Historic England, who formed part of the steering group during the current study, was keen to ensure no direct impact on the castle, adverse impacts on its setting or a visual separation of the castle from the water, which is regarded as an important factor adding context and value to the site.

The proposed scheme will not directly affect Portchester Castle or affect the risk of flooding at the castle.

There will be no change to the defences immediately in front of Portchester Castle and there will be no additional visual separation between the castle and the water. There will therefore be no change to the immediate waterfront setting of the castle. However, any change to the appearance (particularly in terms of the form, height and materials of the defences) of the defences within reaches adjacent to the castle has potential for impacts on the wider setting of the castle. The significance of any impact and whether this will be negative or positive will depend on detailed design, but there is opportunity to maintain and enhance the castle’s visual setting through sensitive

http://www.a2s-

SECTION 4


25

design (see Section 4.5 for further details on the assessment of impacts on the landscape and setting of Portchester Castle).

In terms of buried archaeology, despite modern development around much of the perimeter of the harbour, there is also a high potential for buried archaeology on the west side of the harbour, due to the nearby presence of the castle and the relatively undeveloped nature of the shoreline to the north of it.

The construction of the final option will entail intrusive groundworks in the form of, for example, sheet-piling and likely excavation into buried environments to place the foundations for new concrete flood walls. Such impacts have the potential to remove, truncate, compress and otherwise damage unknown buried archaeology.

Much of the area of the existing flood defences has been reclaimed from the harbour but nevertheless will overlie natural deposits at depth. Furthermore, buried palaeoenvironmental deposits are known to exist within Portsmouth Harbour, although the resource is unknown along the line of the entire scheme. Therefore, where sheet-piling or other intrusive work is required by the design, this has the potential to sever, truncate and distort organic deposits interleaved within buried layers of alluvium.

In summary, the scheme has the potential to affect historic buildings and buried archaeology both directly and indirectly. The local planning authorities will be likely to take into account the presence of this resource and the need to mitigate potentially adverse impacts to it.

4.3.3 Further assessment required It will be important to manage the risks associated with the final option by ascertaining the potential for, and presence, extent and significance of the buried archaeological resource prior to scheme implementation. The need to do so is enshrined in the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework, Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Whilst sympathetic design will minimise impacts to the historic environment, where impacts cannot be avoided, archaeological and/ or geo-archaeological intervention might be required to ascertain the level of risk present.

Recommendation 1: Potential impacts will need to be subject to a detailed assessment to locate areas of greatest heritage risk. This will include the establishment of a comprehensive baseline and an impact assessment based on the preferred option.

The cultural heritage desk-based assessment will be composed in accordance with a specification approved by the local planning authorities and Historic England. The assessment will be undertaken in line with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) standard and guidance documents (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment, December 2014) and will consult sources including:

A recent HER dataset

Historic maps

Archaeological publication, such as journals

Unpublished archaeological reports

Ground investigation data

Photographs from a site walkover survey

SECTION 4


26

The results of the assessment will be used to form both the basis of the EIA and produce an archaeological mitigation strategy and the Heritage Statement required for planning purposes

Recommendation 2: consultation with the local planning authorities and Historic England may point to the need for a phase of ‘up-front’ archaeological evaluation to assess the presence, extent and significance of any buried archaeological and geo-archaeological resources. Further consultation will also be required to discuss the landscape enhancements and opportunities for mitigation of any adverse impact and enhancement to the setting of Portchester Castle. The results of such a survey, where necessary, and consultation should inform future mitigation strategy.

Recommendation 3: forthcoming ground investigation (GI) in advance of detailed design should be carried out under archaeological watching brief. This will preserve any archaeology disturbed by the GI by record and add knowledge on the ground conditions and archaeological potential.

Recommendation 4: a number of further documents and consents will be required to support the planning application. These are likely to include scheduled monument consent and listed building consent.

4.4 Biodiversity 4.4.1 Baseline conditions This section on biodiversity covers terrestrial, inter-tidal and marine biodiversity. Two ecological surveys have been undertaken for the scheme. These comprise an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove, undertaken by Hampshire County Council (October, 2015) and a Phase 2 Vegetation Survey conducted in September 2015, with all seaward vegetation recorded to NVC level, by Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (December 2015). Further information has been obtained from a review of the reports and also web-based information [using www.magic.gov.uk].

The study area comprises a 2km radius for designated sites (although some sites within the study area extend well beyond this distance), whilst that of the habitat surveys comprises an approximately 20m-wide strip landward of the existing coastal defences, extended where necessary into areas that may provide potential access routes, and 20m to the seaward side of the defences.

Portsmouth Harbour, although a large industrialised estuary with hard edges to the inter-tidal area, together with the adjacent Chichester and Langstone Harbours, forms one of the most important sheltered intertidal areas on the south coast of England (Natural England, 2015). It is nationally and internationally designated as Portsmouth Harbour Special Protect Area (SPA), Portsmouth harbour Ramsar site and Portsmouth Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its importance to biodiversity. There are, in addition, a number of locally designated terrestrial Sites of Interest to Nature Conservation (SINCs).

Key features described in the text are shown in the Environmental Site Appraisal Plans (Appendix C), and copies of the full Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report and the survey reports for the inter-tidal areas, together with accompanying plans, are provided in Appendix E.

A Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening has also been carried out on the preferred option. The results of the HRA are summarised in Section 5.

4.4.1.1 International and national designations A summary of existing designations within 2km of site are provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Existing Designations within 2km of the Scheme

http://www.magic.gov.uk

SECTION 4


27

Site Name Distance to frontage

Designated feature

Portsmouth Harbour SPA

0km Qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European important migratory species:

Over winter

dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla (Oct – Apr)

also nationally important species:

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa (Sept – Feb)

Dunlin Calidris alpine (Nov – Mar)

Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator (Nov – Apr)

Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar site

0km Ramsar Criterion 3:

intertidal mudflat areas with extensive beds of eelgrass (Zostera angustifolia and Zostera noltii) supporting dark-bellied brent geese populations

High densities of mud snail Hydrobia ulvae supports wading birds.

Saltmarsh areas supporting common cord-grass (Spartina anglica), extensive areas of green algae Enteromorpha spp., sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and sea purslane (Halimione portulacoides)

Saline lagoons supporting nationally important species

Ramsar criterion 6:

Wintering Dark-bellied brent goose populations Branta bernicla bernicla

Other noteworthy flora and fauna:

Eelgrass Zostera marina,

Golden samphire Inula crithmoides

Little egret Egretta garzetta (peaks in spring/autumn)

Black-tailed godwit

Starlet sea anemone Nematostella vectensis

Lagoon sand shrimp Gammarus insensibilis

Solent and Dorset potential SPA

0km Currently under consultation. The potential area includes sub-tidal areas not covered by the existing SPA, and a landward boundary either at MLW or (within Portsmouth Harbour, where it abuts the SPA) at MHWL. It has been proposed for:

Common, Sandwich and Little tern

Portsmouth Harbour SSSI

0km Mudflats

Eelgrass beds

Saltmarsh

Starlet sea anemone

Lagoon sand shrimp

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola

Black-tailed godwit

Dunlin

Dark-bellied brent goose

Wigeon Anas penelope

Portsdown SSSI

840m Calcareous grassland – lowland

Scrub margin habitat

Fly Orchid

SECTION 4


28

Invertebrates (including green bush cricket)

Fareham Creek Recommended Marine Conservation Zone

Fareham Creek recommended Marine Conservation Zone (rMCZ) is a small area that extends west from Portchester Castle over Fareham Lake with sheltered muddy gravels that provide habitat for a range of species, but notably for native oysters Ostrea edulis which live in the creek. Defra has indicated that although there is enough evidence to support designation of this site for native oysters, further evidence is required before they will consider designating the site for two additional habitats recommended by stakeholders (http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/MCZ/fareham-creek). The designation is currently on hold as Defra has indicated that there is not enough evidence to support designation.

4.4.1.2 Local and non-statutory designations The study area is part of the Portsmouth Harbour Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) under the BirdLife International IBA Programme, a non-statutory worldwide initiative to identify and protect a network of sites considered critical for the conservation of the world's birds. It is also part of a network of Solent Waders & Brent Goose Strategy (SWBGS) sites linked with the qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar.

There are five SINCs within the 1km of the scheme. Only three of these are of relevance to the scheme. These comprise:

• Castle Shore Park SINC, comprising a small area of mixed herb-rich semi-improved grassland, coastal grassland, bramble scrub and plantation woodland. The recently-developed grassland has a good species diversity and benefits from appropriate management

• Portchester Paddock SINC, comprising a small area of predominantly-improved grassland adjacent to Castle Shore Park. Relaxation of grazing has allowed a notable coastal element to develop, and four old meadow indicator species are present

• Urchins Copse SINC, comprising a mix of coastal grassland and plantation woodland. Grassland varies from improved to semi-improved, with no old meadow indicators noted. The site supports the County Scarce fiddle dock Rumex pulcher and golden samphire Limbarda crithmoides.

SINC and Bird distribution maps are presented within the Phase 1 Habitat Survey report (Appendix E).

4.4.1.3 Habitats, flora and fauna Habitats

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey describes the habitats within the study area as follows:

Overall, the vegetation within much of the survey area is considered to be of limited ecological value. The entire northern shoreline between Port Solent and Trafalgar Wharf is of negligible botanical value, as is Castle Shore Park recreation area and the small patches of such habitat abutting the castle walls.

Areas of greater botanical interest are the two SINCs (Castle Shore Park and Urchins Copse) and the fringe of coastal grassland/saltmarsh grassland along the sea defences. The two SINCs are by definition of County value. Although there are a small number of more notable plant species present, none of these are explicitly protected by law.

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/MCZ/fareham-creek).

SECTION 4


29

• Port Solent to Trafalgar Wharf: almost entirely managed improved grassland dominated by ryegrass Lolium sp. with associated hardstanding and is of minimal ecological value. There are occasional patches of coastal species such as sea purslane Halimione portulacoides, sea couch Elytrigia atherica and sea beet Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima alongside the sea wall and within cracks in the hardstanding and pavements. A number of planted specimen trees such as pines Pinus sp are present.

• Trafalgar Wharf to Castle Shore Park SINC: limited vegetation cover around the well-developed Trafalgar Wharf, with occasional patches of sea couch, sea beet and sea purslane-dominated saltmarsh vegetation atop the sloped concrete sea defences. Occasional areas of bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., scrub and tamarisk Tamarix sp. are present.

The area behind Trafalgar Wharf: a gravelled footpath runs south fringed by rank grasses, herbaceous vegetation and shrubs. The footpath then runs along the sea defences and fringed on the seaward side by a strip of moderately herb-rich grassland.

• Castle Shore Park SINC: immediately west of the existing sea defences, comprising an area of predominantly neutral grassland and plantation woodland with areas of developing scrub and coastal grassland. A narrow steep saline ditch runs along its eastern edge. Grassland within the SINC is herb-rich.

On the seaward side of the SINC is an area of saltmarsh grassland (Photo 1) dominated by sea couch and including fennel, wild parsnip, wild carrot and spear-leaved orache Atriplex prostrata. The non-native everlasting pea Lathyrus latifolius is also present here.

Photo 1. Sea couch-dominated saltmarsh on seaward side of Castle Shore Park SINC (Hampshire County Council, 2015)

• Castle Shore Park SINC to Portchester Castle: The bulk of the land situated between the Castle Shore Park SINC and Portchester Castle comprises open, managed amenity grassland of negligible botanical value. At the extreme southern edge of the amenity grassland is Portchester Castle public car park and Portchester Sailing Club.

The coastline fringing the sailing club is characterised by a managed hedge (Photo 2). A small semi-circle of vegetated shingle is present at the slipway, containing spear-leaved orache, sea purslane and sea couch.

SECTION 4


30

Photo 2. Managed hedge and patch of saltmarsh adjacent to sailing club

• Portchester Castle coastline: immediately north of the castle is a narrow moat surrounded by managed amenity grassland. The coastline surrounding the eastern and southern edges of Portchester Castle is characterised predominantly by a thin strip of coastal vegetation immediately seaward of the footpath and containing sea couch and sea purslane. The castle moat contains areas of sea purslane and grass-leaved orache, indicating saline conditions.

• South of the castle, Urchin’s Copse SINC: small area of coastal/neutral grassland and plantation woodland and scrub. A thin strip of saltmarsh vegetation is present along the sea defenses containing abundant sea purslane, sea couch, shrubby sea blite Suaeda vera and several clumps of the nationally important golden samphire Inula crithmoides.

• Inter-tidal vegetation: The Phase 2 vegetation survey of the inter-tidal areas identified the key aspects of vegetation along the defenses as:

o The survey findings indicate that there is no eelgrass Zostera spp. within the 20m survey area (the closest areas identified on the magic website are located approximately 650m to the southwest and, more extensively, 700m to the west of study area).

o A one acre section of mixed SM6 chord-grass Spartina anglica saltmarsh and SM8 annual glasswort Salicornia saltmarsh is present at SU 62439 04949, and there are small patches of Spartina vegetation at various locations within the 20m survey area.

o There are very few small remnant patches of vegetated shingle present, typically within sheltered spots at the base of the sea defences. The vegetation is considered to be similar to SD2 sea sandwort Honkenya peploides, sea rocket Cakile maritima community, consisting almost exclusively of Atriplex prostrata, grass-leaved orache Atriplex littoralis and Beta vulgaris ssp. Maritima.

o SM24 Elytrigia atherica saltmarsh is present alongside the sea wall and also on the landward side and is considered to be the vegetation community most likely to develop post-works.

o The nationally scarce and county scarce golden samphire Inula crithmoides is locally common on the sea wall immediately south of Portchester Castle and rare on the sea wall just south of the main Trafalgar Wharf works.

o The nationally scarce and county scarce stiff salt-march-grass Puccinellia rupestris is present in the cracks between the coastal defence works and the gravel path on the immediate eastern edge of Portchester Castle.

SECTION 4


31

Terrestrial fauna

Results of the desk review and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Report indicates the following protected species within the study area:

Table 7. Details of relevant protected species records within the predicted zone of influence

Species Distance to Site

Details

Pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus sp. 0.18km W 2 records, from 1999 and 2000 of injured bats at dwelling on Castle Street, Portchester. No further details.

Small blue Cupido minimus 0.1km W Several records between 2004 and 2012 from Castle Shore Park SINC. Associated with kidney vetch.

Bloxworth snout (moth) Hypena obsitalis 0km*1 Recent records from 2013 from SU6204. No further details.

Associated with pellitory-of-the wall.

Lackey (moth) Malacosoma Neustria 0km* Records from 2010. Associated with thorns and other widespread

shrubs.

Saltern dwarf (moth) Biselachista scirpi 0km* Records from 2010. Associated with sea clubrush.

Dark elm case-bearer (moth) Coleophora limosipennella 0km* Records from 2004. Associated with elm.

Golden samphire Limbarda crithmoides 0km

Records from 2001 and 2003 from coastline immediately south of Portchester Castle – confirmed during site visits to be present adjacent to Portchester Castle.

(Hampshire County Council, 2015)

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat report indicates the likely presence of species as follows:

Amphibians: the waterbodies within the study area are brackish and therefore not suitable for amphibians. Negligible potential for supporting amphibians.

Badger: There was no evidence of Badgers during the survey. Low potential for supporting badger.

Bats: Trees within the working area are not considered to offer any potential to support bats, although the site is thought to offer moderate potential for foraging bats. Moderate potential for supporting bats.

Dormice: The habitat within the study area is thought to be too isolated to support dormice, and there are also no previous records of dormice within or in the surrounding study area. Negligible potential for supporting dormice.

Invertebrates: the site overall is considered to offer moderate potential for supporting rare/notable invertebrate species

Reptiles: there is the presence of suitable habitat and the records of two reptile species. It is confirmed that the site supports reptiles

Breeding and roosting birds: The survey considers woodland, scrub and mature tree habitat within the study area to provide high potential nesting opportunities, although no evidence was

SECTION 4


32

noted at the time of the survey (time of year was thought to be a limiting factor). Refer to the survey report (Appendix E) for the full list of species identified as part of the survey. The site and area in proximity to the site is considered to hold a lack of high-tide wader roosting habitat. The grassland areas within the immediate vicinity of the site and lager grassland immediately north of the castle (SWBGS site F16, Castle Shore Park) is also not considered suitable. The area is regularly frequented by dog walkers.

However, a recent study undertaken by ESCP (the Solent Wide Network of Strategic Environmental Sites Scoping Study, March 2013) identifies the area adjacent to the sailing club, extending south past Portchester Castle into the harbour as roost sites and suggests that there is connectivity in bird movement between Portsmouth Harbour and the main roost sites at Langston Harbour and Chichester Harbour to the east. The Phase 1 Survey promotes that new high-tide roosts for waders would be a relatively simple enhancement option to the preferred option.

Marine fauna

A Field Studies Council (FSC) report (Howard et al, 1988) noted that the mud in Portsmouth Harbour supports two species of international importance including the tubeworm Hydroides ezoensis which is widespread in the Solent and the polychaete Janua (Dexiospira).

Several species of fish utilise Portsmouth Harbour for spawning and nursery grounds including Bass. Migratory species and those of conservation importance and UK BAP priority species, sea trout, lamprey and eel are all known to pass through Portsmouth Harbour at various times (Eastern Solent Partnership, 2014).

As well as being on the UK BAP priority list, the European eel is also listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List and is protected by EU legislation under Annex ll of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species). The eel is also a species of principal importance for the purpose of conservation of biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Natural England, 2013).

Seasearch Marine Surveys have recorded the short-snouted seahorse (Hippocampus spp.) in the Solent, just outside Portsmouth Harbour. This species is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly harm or disturb any seahorse, or damage, destroy or disturb their places of shelter. Seahorses in British waters are generally found in eelgrass and shallow kelp habitat of which there are extensive areas within Portsmouth Harbour (Eastern Solent Partnership, 2014, Royal Haskoning DHV, 2012b), although no eel grass has been recorded adjacent to scheme (the nearest being a small area located approximately 650m southwest of the study area (Portchester Castle) and a more extensive area being located approximately 700m to the west).

Seals are frequently observed in Portsmouth Harbour. The complex network of channels and creeks connect as a single system with the intertidal basins of Langstone and Chichester Harbours when drained of water at low tide. The shallow harbour with its extensive intertidal mud and sand banks are ideal for seals (Eastern Solent Partnership, 2014, Wildlife Trusts, 2010). Seals are listed under Annex II of the Habitats Directive and protected under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970. Grey seal is listed as an Appendix III species under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) 1979, which prohibits the deliberate disturbance/capture/killing of species and disturbance of their breeding grounds.

A number of cetaceans are noted within the area in and around Portsmouth Harbour:

most commonly (albeit infrequently) recorded species in inshore waters within this area is the bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncates

SECTION 4


33

harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena frequent as occasional visitors

common dolphin Delphinus delphis and long finned pilot whale Globicephala melas have also been recorded but are noted to be infrequent to the area

All cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and amendments), under which it is an offence to take, injure or kill these species. Disturbance in their place of rest, shelter or protection is also prohibited. All species of cetacean are protected under the EU Habitats Directive 1992 at Annex IV and under the Bern Convention.

Harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin are also protected under Annex II of the Habitats Directive 1992. In addition, harbour porpoise are also listed as an OSPAR threatened species listed in Appendix II of the Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals) 1982.

4.4.1.4 Future baseline The natural change to the area that would occur without the scheme in place would be a loss of marine and inter-tidal habitat due to coastal squeeze against the hard defences. The loss of habitat due to coastal squeeze has been assessed under the Shoreline Management Plan 2 and agreements are in place to secure compensatory habitat at the regional level. Measures will be administered by the Environment Agency (through schemes such as habitat creation at the Medmerry managed realignment site).

A Natural England condition report in 2014 reported the following factors as affecting the future condition of the inter-tidal area:

extensive signs of bait digging within Paulsgrove Lake intertidal area

coastal squeeze from the combined effect of sea level rise and the presence of hard defences (to be offset via the Regional Habitat Creation Programme)

disturbance to feeding and roosting birds (there is a public footpath along the Castl Shore and recreation ground frontage) which is subject to investigation within the Solent Bird Disturbance Project

Enteromorpha and ulva covering the intertidal mudflats. The Solent Diffuse Water Pollution Plan (DWPP) is in place with actions to address the dense algal mats across the whole harbour

litter and discarded man-made items such as traffic cones and shopping trolleys

Natural England have drafted formal future conservation objective advice for Portsmouth Harbour SPA which incorporates advice relating to Portsmouth Harbour SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. The advice ‘fulfils Natural England’s responsibility under the Habitat Regulations, to give advice on how to further the conservation objectives for Portsmouth Harbour SPA, the activities that are capable of affecting the qualifying features and the processes which they are dependent upon’ (Natural England, 2015). This advice will need to be incorporated within the scheme.

The objectives are to ensure that, subject to natural change, the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring:

the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features

the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features

the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely

SECTION 4


34

the populations of the qualifying features

distribution of the qualifying features within the site

bird interest features have been assessed as being in `favourable’ condition

4.4.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation 4.4.2.1 Designated areas

The scheme will not result in encroachment into the nationally or inter-nationally designated areas and there will be no permanent footprint within the designated areas, although there will be a temporary landward loss of 5m to 6m from Urchins Copse SINC (a locally designated site) during construction.

Opportunity to protect and, where possible, improve the conservation status of the designated sites (together with national and local sites) located within and around the Portsmouth Harbour SPA, Ramsar site and SSSI. This will include improved screening of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and the potential Solent and Dorset SPA from human disturbance on land.

The scheme may present biodiversity opportunities to improve existing habitat or create new estuarine/intertidal habitat within the study area, with benefits for associated species. Options include the opportunities for the use of eco-concrete and marginal habitat can be developed during detailed design. The scheme may have the potential to detrimentally affect water quality resulting in changes in the balance of aquatic ecosystems, salinisation and eutrophication of water bodies.

Timing of construction to avoid the winter period to avoid adverse impacts on over-wintering birds.

The timing of construction works may have to be sensitive to protected, rare and notable species (fish, birds and marine mammals).

The sailing club, extending south past Portchester Castle into the harbour is considered important as roost site (the Solent Wide Network of Strategic Environmental Sites Scoping Study, March 2013.

At present there are few high-tide roost opportunities in the immediate area. These comprise rapidly-eroding saltmarsh and decaying wrecks. A new high-tide roost for waders would be a relatively simple enhancement option to the SPA/Ramsar. Given that there are no constraints in terms of eelgrass bed, the creation of a small island could be considered, although the loss of mudflats would need to be considered in discussion with Natural England.

Removal of shrub to aid access for construction needs to be considered. This could result in additional visual disturbance during the construction period and possibly following construction. However, there may be opportunity to incorporate addition planting as part of the landscape design to be further developed during detailed design.

4.4.2.2 Marine ecology Potential temporary loss of coastal habitat due to construction activities on the foreshore (i.e.

trampling and truck movements.

Potential temporary Impacts to water quality affecting benthic communities.

Temporary impact on marine invertebrates due to noise and vibration generated by sheet piling activities on the foreshore.

SECTION 4


35

Potential long-term impact on marine ecology due to potential erosion of foreshore sediments at site of works.

Long-term prevention of uncontrolled pollution incidents by protecting potentially contaminated land sites.

Potential improvements to coastal habitats where there are opportunities to remove obsolete objects/structures and incorporate habitat enhancements by the use of eco-concrete and marginal habitats.

Displacement / interruption of natural behaviour of marine mammals as a result of underwater noise from the sheet piling (using pile driving).

Construction works within the vicinity of coastal water bodies may interrupt the natural behaviour of marine mammals.

Further assessment of impacts on the marine environment is presented within the WFD Assessment as reported in Section 4.10.

4.4.3 Further assessment required Given the international designation and importance of Portsmouth Harbour and the presence of notable and protected species, potential impacts on biodiversity will be a key factor during detailed design and assessment.

Recommendation 1: A full ecological assessment will be required in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK (CIEEM, 2006), which comprises the two stages (namely, the identification and valuation of features and the assessment of impact significance). Further surveys are likely to be required to determine the presence or absence of protected species and careful consideration will be required to establish a suitable mitigation strategy. This work will also be required to support the design (including the design of any enhancement options) and the consenting process for all significant works, in consultation with Natural England, Environment Agency and MMO.

Recommendation 2: Further consultation with Natural England the Environment Agency and the MMO will be required to ensure that suitable mitigation is agreed (subject to detailed specification post-planning) to avoid impacts on designated sites, notable species and protected species by means of an Environmental Management Plan as part of the assessment process.

Recommendation 3: Due to the proximity of the scheme to, and potential impact on the Natura 2000 sites, an HRA screening of the scheme has been undertaken in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (see Section 5). This will need to be reviewed in the light of any design changes or refinements as the scheme progresses through the detailed design stage to ensure that the conclusions remain valid.

4.5 Landscape and visual amenity 4.5.1 Baseline conditions 4.5.1.1 Landscape character and visual amenity baseline conditions The study area is located within Natural England’s National Character Area (NCA) 126: South Coast Plain. The key characteristics of the NCA, as defined by Natural England, that are relevant to the site are:

The plain slopes gently southwards towards the coast. From the coastal plain edge there are long views towards the sea and the Isle of Wight beyond.

SECTION 4


36

Coastal inlets and ‘harbours’ contain a diverse landscape of narrow tidal creeks, mudflats, shingle beaches, dunes, grazing marshes and paddocks.

The coastline provides feeding grounds for internationally protected populations of overwintering waders and wildfowl and is also extensively used for recreation.

Along the exposed, open coastal plain and shoreline, tree cover is limited to isolated wind-sculpted woodlands and shelterbelts.

The area has significant urban development, with settlements along the coastline dominated by the Portsmouth conurbation, suburban villages and seaside towns including Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Worthing linked by major road and rail systems.

Historic fortifications along the coast include the Roman fort at Portchester and 19th-century defences and later naval installations built to protect the Portsmouth naval dockyard.

The NCA profile notes that:

Portsmouth Harbour has a heavily developed shoreline with docks and associated industrial development dominating the landscape. The long history of intervention to reduce the risk of flooding and erosion means that the shoreline is generally in a highly modified form.

Large lengths of this complex stretch of coastline are in an unnatural form. Much of the coastal frontage has been developed so only limited sections of the shoreline are free to erode naturally, meaning little sediment material goes into the coastal system. As a result of higher water levels, ‘coastal squeeze’ will occur. This will lead to beaches, intertidal areas and amenity value being reduced or lost.

The NCA profile also notes the following ‘Statements of Environmental Opportunity’:

SEO 1: Plan for and manage the effects of coastal change by allowing the operation of natural coastal processes and improving the sustainability of current management practices along the diverse coastline to successfully integrate the needs of the natural environment, landscape, local communities, agriculture and recreation amid significant urban stretches.

Means by which this could be achieved include:

Supporting the adaptability of coastal features and habitats to sea level rise and enhancing/creating opportunities for natural adaptation and/or migration where appropriate, to aid the long-term alleviation of coastal flooding in accordance with the strategies of the Shoreline Management Plans.

Enhancing the area’s internationally important natural coastal landscapes, namely Portsmouth Harbour SPA, significantly restoring and expanding their coastal habitats – including intertidal mudflats, coastal salt marsh, saline lagoons and coastal grazing marsh – to improve resilience to climate change while aiding flood alleviation and contributing significantly to biodiversity.

Where existing flood defences are reinforced, working with partners to limit adverse impacts on biodiversity, public access and historic interest.

Identifying further opportunities to create compensation habitats for those lost to coastal squeeze, aiming to ensure no net loss of habitat, benefiting biodiversity and the regulation of coastal erosion and flooding.

SECTION 4


37

Promoting access opportunities which educate people about the vulnerability of the coastal habitats in the NCA and encourage visits of a low-impact nature that avoid any adverse impacts on agricultural management, landscape, habitats and wildlife.

Improving access to the coast for walking, cycling and disabled people and encouraging reduced car use; and securing opportunities for the public to enjoy the natural environment through the implementation of the England Coast Path while ensuring appropriate protection of sensitive sites.

SEO 2: Plan for the creation of a strong landscape framework within and around major settlements and identified growth areas, while managing and enhancing existing greenspace and access, and balancing the needs of agriculture, communities and the natural environment.


Creating new areas of multifunctional greenspace within and surrounding identified growth areas, including community food gardens and significant areas of new saline and freshwater wetlands forming sustainable urban drainage systems to improve water quality, provide a local recreational resource, enhance landscape setting and aid flood alleviation.

Seeking to maintain and enhance areas of open countryside in this heavily urbanised NCA, to preserve the distinct settlement pattern and ensure that local communities have access to greenspace for their wellbeing and enjoyment.

Promoting and enhancing the rights of way network throughout the area, especially along the coast and linking to the South Downs, while developing new permissive access that links towns and settlements to quality greenspace and other areas of interest as part of a cohesive network of inspiring access provision for all.

SEO 4: Manage the rich archaeological and historic resource and geological exposures within the farmed, coastal and peri-urban landscape, including the longstanding associations of horticultural and maritime industries and the military, enhancing a strong sense of place.


Promoting the heritage of the urban areas, including the strong maritime and military associations; and engaging communities with their local history and strengthening the physical links with the important historic landscapes that surround them.

Promoting and protecting the historic environment along the coast – notably Portchester Castle and military remains, including the Napoleonic coastal fortification – and recording heritage features at risk of sea level rise.

Providing educational opportunities and interpretation of historic and geological features to improve understanding and enjoyment.

The preferred Shoreline Management Plan generic policy option (and the preferred scheme option) for the Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove study area is Hold the Line. This effectively precludes the realisation of opportunities relating to SEO1 (i.e. the restoration or expansion of SPA intertidal habitat) as part of the scheme but enables opportunities relating to SEO2 (such as the creation of multifunctional greenspace, orchards and freshwater wetlands) and SEO4 (protection and promotion of local heritage, specifically Portchester Castle) to be considered as potential enhancement measures which could be enabled by the scheme.

At a county level, Hampshire County Council have produced a set of Landscape Character Area (LCA) Assessments, of which the southern part of the site (Portchester Castle to Trafalgar Wharf) lies within ‘9f: Gosport and Fareham Coastal Plain’ LCA. The northern part of the site (adjacent to the

SECTION 4


38

A27 Southampton Road) lies within ‘10b Portsmouth Harbour’ for which there is currently no landscape assessment. Within the ‘9f: Gosport and Fareham Coastal Plain’ LCA, relevant references to the site are limited; the importance of Portsmouth Harbour for its biological value is noted, including the SSSI, Ramsar, SPA and numerous SINCs. It is noted that the defence of Portsmouth Harbour and the British navy has been of key influence on this character area. Portchester Castle is noted as a fine example of a Saxon castle with Roman origins which retains a dramatic presence from the water. The rich naval history with forts is listed as a key quality; predicted sea level rise affecting construction is noted as a threat while retaining and improving the settings of the fort(s) is promoted as an opportunity. Varied coastal views is listed as another key quality, potentially threatened by sea defence work and increasing height of structures where there is public access or from landward public open space which may limit or restrict views. Opportunities include modifications to design of sea defences to ensure retention of views from the landward sides over the coastline.

At a local authority level, the southern part of the site (Portchester Castle to Trafalgar Wharf) lies within the study area of the Fareham Borough Landscape Assessment (Fareham Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, May 1996). The northern part of the site (adjacent to the A27 Southampton Road) lies within Portsmouth Council administrative boundary, for which there is currently no landscape assessment at a local authority level. With regard to the Fareham Borough Landscape Assessment, the report notes that the basic underlying geology is formed by a deep chalk bed, overlain on the coastal plain by the clays and clayey sands of the Bracklesham Beds with deposits of alluvium and gravel on the coastal marshes. Brown Earth soils also overlie the gravels and sands and are typically deep, silty and well-drained; coastal exposure is the main limiting factor and areas closest to the sea tend to remain under pasture. The southern part of the site is defined as comprising two landscape character types: an urban landscape type entitled ‘Traditional village centre’ covering Portchester Castle and the built components of the village, and ‘Open coastal amenity land’ covering the recreation ground and Castle Shore Park. ‘Traditional village centre’ landscape types characterise the oldest parts of the Borough’s towns and villages. These are typically areas of close-knit housing of mixed character and ages but predominantly traditional or vernacular in style. They usually form the core of an historic settlement and have a strongly linear or nucleated form, often focused upon an area of communal open space. ‘Open coastal amenity land’ is described as having similar characteristics to the open coastal plain farmland (flat, coastal plain; open character with varying strength hedgerow and tree structure; coastal exposure evident in wind-pruning and salty air; sparse settlement pattern and remote, undeveloped character; extensive views across coastal plain and out to sea) but with a distinctive amenity character; typically occupied by intensively managed sports pitches or rough, unkempt grassland; benches and other municipal landscape elements; windswept, coastal character; recreational activity reduces sense of remoteness.

More specifically, the Fareham Borough Council landscape assessment classifies the south-western half of the site as being located within Landscape Character Area 39: Portchester Village, defined as including the historic core of the village centred on the Castle and extending up Castle Street. The essential characteristics of Portchester Village are:

a coherent grouping of mainly 18C houses with a tight frontage to Castle Street which together form a delightful, traditional village streetscape of high visual and urban quality (a Conservation Area).

the small-scale and intimate character of the streetscape and the varied but harmonious rooflines and building heights.

the dominance of Portchester Castle with its impressive keep and stone walls and its attractive coastal setting.

SECTION 4


39

important areas of open space east of Castle Street and surrounding the Castle which are vital to its setting and provide a valuable recreational resource in their own right.

Priorities for enhancement are defined as:

maintaining and protecting the exceptional urban quality of the village and the setting of the Castle.

managing the coastal greenspace to maintain the castle’s setting.

The area is not, however, identified as one of the Borough’s Areas of Special Landscape Quality as this designation focuses specifically on landscape interests outside urban areas and the cultural heritage and ecological interests of the locality are more appropriately covered by other designations (Conservation Area, Scheduled Monument, Listed Buildings and SPA/SSSI).

Similarly, as the south-west part of the site within Fareham Borough Council boundary lies entirely within the Portchester Conservation Area, the report found no need to designate it as an Area of Special Character.

At a site specific level, the southern part of the site is located within the Portchester (Castle Street) Conservation Area for which Fareham Borough Council have produced a Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (Adopted January 2014). Relevant extracts from this report are as follows: “The open land around the castle and to its east and west has ... survived and is of great importance both to the setting of the castle and the character of the conservation area.”

“The wider setting of the village and castle comprises Portsmouth Harbour, the low-lying coastal land and the long high ridge of Portsdown Hill to the north. The exposed location of the castle makes it a prominent landmark…The castle and the village can be appreciated in this wider setting from many viewpoints. These include the ridge of Portdown Hill, the M27 and the M275. It is visible across the water from the south and also from North harbour, the A27, Port Solent, Portsmouth and Gosport. The views across the peninsula…from Port Solent…remain remarkably unspoilt.”

Photo 3: Portchester Castle from Marina Keep at Port Solent

SECTION 4


40

“The importance of open land, trees and planting around the castle and the village is particularly evident in long distance views, especially from Portsdown Hill. The relationship between the castle and the surrounding open land is very important to its character and setting.”

“Castle Street widens at its southern end. It possesses a special character that has changed little since the C19.”

“The rear garden land on the eastern side of Castle Street abuts the open space boundary, separated by a hedge and trees…Its open character, combined with that of the adjacent open space, is of vital importance to the wider setting of the conservation area and to the setting of the castle. It becomes prominent foreground in views of the castle and critical to its setting. Significant trees and a drop in ground level limits the impact of two backland plots adjacent to the outer earthworks of the castle.”

“The conservation area contains large areas of open land that are of great importance to the setting of the village and the castle…On the eastern side of the settlement a large area of coastal open space lies between the rear garden boundaries of Castle Street and the shore. The open character of this land is vital to both the setting of the historic village and the castle. There are important and impressive views of the castle from throughout this area. The views are marred by the presence of overhead cables and the unfortunate sheet piling that forms a hard an unnatural edge to the shore.”

“The immediate setting of the castle comprises the open land and shoreline that closely surrounds the castle. The area is dominated by the walls and bastions of the castle. It possesses significant architectural and historic interest as it comprises the earthworks outside the curtain wall that were part of the castle defences. These are part of the Scheduled Monument and maintaining their survival and integrity is important.”

“To the south and east the shoreline lies immediately adjacent to the castle walls, particularly on its eastern side. The informal loose surfacing of footpaths in this area which are free of edging contributes to the castle’s setting.”

“To the north the setting of the castle and its outer earthworks has been harmed by the extensive carpark”

“The use of simple timber fencing, field gates, timber for the footbridge and timber trip rails around the castle retains an informal rural character that should be continued.”

“Portchester Sailing Club’s waterside activities contribute to the character of the conservation area. The clay tiled clubhouse is low lying, small in scale and generally quite well screened which makes it recessive in views of the castle. The sailing club activities and stored boats are screened by important planting and trees.”

“In an area lacking in local building stone, the use of brick predominates: there is also some use of flint. Local Fareham red brick, characteristic of Hampshire, can be seen on the majority of buildings and walls in the conservation area, laid in a variety of bonds.”

“The use of natural surfacing materials, kerbs and paving is important to character.”

“Trees and planting make a significant contribution to views and setting of the castle particularly across the open space. There are also significant trees in the vicinity of Waterside Lane leading to the shore that contribute to the setting of the castle…There are a number of tree belts, tree groups and general plantings that provide screening. These separate the castle grounds from the southern end of Castle St and Hospital Lane as far as the shore; screen the sailing club and clubhouse;”

“Key features to conserve and enhance [include]: the setting of Portchester Castle; the many important views of Portchester Castle from throughout the conservation area; the important long distance views of the castle in its wider setting; the open land...which provides a setting for the castle; the many trees, groups of trees and widespread planting; the loose surfaces and absence of

SECTION 4


41

formal pavements and kerbs on roads and footpaths where it contributes to character; traditional building materials and techniques that are important in maintaining the character and appearance of the conservation area.”

The following description of the site landscape character derives from a site visit undertaken on 31 May 2016 by CH2M:

The south-west end of the site comprises an area of publicly accessible open space comprising rough grassland (Urchin’s Copse SINC) with patches of scrub located between the southern walls of Portchester Castle and the harbour foreshore (see Photo 4). The area is backed by a dense band of broadleaf woodland and scrub to the west of the castle and separated from the foreshore by a dilapidating existing concrete retaining floodwall wall approximately 1 metre high, adjacent to which is an intermittent thin strip of saltmarsh vegetation. The area contains two seats and the Allen King’s Way long distance footpath runs along the southern edge of the area parallel to the shoreline to its termination inside the castle walls.

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are its sense of visual and physical space and tranquillity, its close relationship with the foreshore and sea, its value as a naturalistic and visually low key foreground setting for the castle, unrestricted public access and open views of the castle and harbour. Detractors include the erosion of the grass sward caused by pedestrian access along the footpath and the concrete retaining floodwall.

Photo 4: Public open grassland to west of Portchester Castle

At the eastern end of the grassland area the foreshore runs close around the south-eastern and east side of the castle, separated from the base of the castle walls by the concrete retaining floodwall (see Photos 5 and 6). The concrete wall supports the seaward side of a wide shingle gravel path that provides public access around the seaward side of the castle and a good vantage point for open panoramic views to the south, east and north over the harbour and beyond. Although well used, the path is not designated as a public footpath around the south-eastern side of the castle. The castle walls are constructed from a range of materials but predominantly comprise black, white and grey flints bedded in a coursed pattern in thick lime mortar, with smaller areas of squared and course rubble stone (probably Quarry Stone, a Bembridge Limestone from the Isle of Wight) and a minimal use of red brick in places.

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are the simple visual harmony arising from the similarities in texture, tones and colours of the shingle foreshore, concrete retaining wall, gravel

SECTION 4


42

footway and castle walls, the visual simplicity arising from the limited range of landscape elements present in the view, its sense of open visual and physical space and tranquillity, its close relationship with the foreshore and sea, its value as a visually recessive setting for the castle, unrestricted public access and open views of the castle and harbour. Detractors include patches of erosion of the footpath surface and to a limited extent, the concrete retaining wall.

Photo 5: South-east corner of Portchester Castle and foreshore.

Photo 6: Eastern side of Portchester Castle and foreshore, looking north towards Portsdown Hill.

Immediately to the north of the north-eastern corner of the castle, the landscape character becomes more diverse as the range of landscape elements present in the vicinity increases to include a timber jetty, the moat and outfall, iron railings, a convoluted concrete retaining wall alignment including steps, trees and hedges, split chestnut post and rail fencing and the sailing club concrete boat access ramp. The path along the edge of the foreshore is designated from this point north as a public footpath, as is the footpath that leads inland from this point to run past the castle car park to Castle Street.

SECTION 4


43

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are the natural elements of mown grass and mature trees around the castle’s northern walls which are of value as a visually recessive setting for the castle, the timber fencing and jetty, the water-filled moat, the close relationship with the foreshore and sea and clear views of the castle and over the harbour. Detractors include the visual complexity created by the multiplicity of iron railings, complex concrete retaining wall features, bollards, posts and stone blocks on the foreshore, Key Clamp railings and boundary features including Heras fencing around the sailing club and the concrete bagwork retaining wall.

Photo 7: View north-west towards sailing club from jetty adjacent to north-east corner of castle.

To the north of the sailing club, the foreshore public footpath comprises a narrow gravel path that runs immediately adjacent to the concrete capped bagwork retaining wall that demarcates the transition from foreshore to dry land (see Photo 8). The footpath is constrained on the landward side by a dense band of vegetation (predominantly elm hedging, elm trees and ivy) that serves to screen the sailing club in views from the east. Further north, adjacent to the recreation area (see Photo 9), the bagwork wall changes to a sheet pile wall capped with a concrete beam and the vegetation to the landward side of the gravel footpath thins out and becomes intermittent though more species-rich (hawthorn, sycamore, oak and elder) opening up views to the west towards the castle across the recreation ground. The footpath is raised up above the general level of the recreation ground by approximately 1.5m as it runs along the top of a grassed embankment located directly behind the retaining wall at the landward edge of the foreshore. A drainage ditch at the base of the embankment supports a fringe of marginal wetland species. The recreation ground comprises open rough-mown amenity grassland with a few clumps of maritime pine and a play area, backed on its landward boundary by a consistent band of trees and hedging that effectively screens most of the residential properties to the west.

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are the natural elements of trees, scrub and grassland, water-filled ditches, the close relationship with the foreshore and sea and clear views over the harbour. Detractors include the concrete capping beam on the sheet pile wall, areas of surface erosion on the footpath route, areas of dumped rubble and detritus on the foreshore and un-vegetated areas of concrete revetment.

SECTION 4


44

Photos 8 - 9: View south-east from foreshore footpath towards castle across recreation ground.

To the north of the recreation ground, adjacent to Castle Shore Park, the character of the landscape and range of landscape elements present remains similar although the sheet pile wall changes to a flexible concrete revetment and retreats over a short section back away from the edge of the foreshore and the vegetation to the landward side becomes more wooded and less managed (Photos 10 and 11). The drainage ditch on the landward side of the coastal embankment becomes wider and forms a permanent water body and the large scale industrial influence of Trafalgar Wharf becomes more apparent towards the northern end of this part of the site.

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are the natural elements of trees, scrub and grassland, water-filled ditches, the close relationship with the foreshore and sea and clear views over the harbour. Detractors include the concrete capping beam on the sheet pile wall, areas of surface erosion on the footpath route, areas of dumped rubble and detritus on the foreshore and un-vegetated areas of concrete revetment.

Photo 10: View north from foreshore footpath towards Trafalgar Wharf.

SECTION 4


45

Photo 11: View south from foreshore footpath towards Portchester Castle.

At the western end of the Paulsgrove section of the scheme, to the north of Trafalgar Wharf, the landscape is significantly more urban and industrial in character than the Portchester section, although the sea and foreshore comprise a significant natural element which counters to some extent the overall low landscape quality of the area. The landward boundary of the foreshore comprises a dilapidated concrete revetment, directly adjacent to which a wire mesh and barbed wire security fence encloses a brick building which houses a Southern Water pumping station (see Photo 12), behind which is a former petrol station now used as a car wash. Noise levels from traffic are noticeable.

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are the natural elements of the foreshore and sea and clear views over the harbour, the benefits on landscape quality of which are countered by the industrial and commercial influence of Trafalgar Wharf and the adjacent pumping station and former petrol station. Detractors include the disintegrating concrete revetment, the adjacent mesh security fence and structures associated with the pumping station former petrol station and areas of dumped rubble and detritus on the foreshore.

Photo 12: View east of the concrete revetment and pumping station behind.

SECTION 4


46

To the east of the pumping station, the landward edge of the harbour and foreshore is delineated by a vertical, limestone clad seawall that ranges in height from approximately 0.2m to 2.3m high, the lower sections towards the western and eastern ends (see Photo 13). At its eastern end, the seawall takes on a set-back configuration where the top section of the wall is set back to the landward of the footpath (see Photo 14). The lower section of seawall changes to a stone revetment at the very eastern end and the footpath widens out to create a level paved space behind which a clump of trees (maritime pine, aspen, Sorbus intermedia), forms a backdrop (see Photo 17). The seawall incorporates several sets of stone steps and two access ramps (one surfaced in concrete - see Photo 16 and the other with stone setts - Photo 17) along its length. A paved footway (mostly tarmac but the eastern third of the footway is paved with concrete slabs with smaller areas of clay paviours) runs immediately adjacent to the seawall’s stone capping along the full c.800m length of the seawall from the pumping station to the eastern end of the site, adjacent to which are a number of benches facing the harbour. Between the seawall footway and the A27 Southampton Road (see Photo 15) is a mown grass strip which varies in width between approximately 15m and 20m, and varies in vertical profile from generally level at the western end to localised mounding in the centre to a raised embankment at the eastern end.

A small car park is located roughly halfway along the grass strip, through which access to a ramp down to the foreshore is afforded.

The grass strip is bounded on its northern, landward side by the A27 dual carriageway which has tarmac footways on both sides. To the north of the A27, approximately 84 residential properties (a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses, all double-storey) face the A27 and have generally open, panoramic views over the grass strip to Port Solent, the harbour, Portsmouth city (in the far distance), Portchester Castle and Trafalgar Wharf beyond. The front gardens of the majority of houses are bounded by low brick walls, a few have low hedges and generally vegetation is limited or cut to retain the sea views. Six small trees planted in intermittent patches of grass verge on the northern side of the A27 provide a degree of visual screening of views from the adjacent properties.

The key landscape and visual characteristics of this area are the natural elements of sea and foreshore, the openness of the grassland strip, the clear, open views over the harbour and of the sky, the benefits on landscape quality of which are countered by the A27 and its traffic, the suburban character of the adjacent housing area and, to a limited extent, the industrial influence of Trafalgar Wharf. The clumps of trees at either end of the grass strip serve to soften the boundaries with adjacent built areas and frame views over the harbour. Along the line of the flood defence, the squared limestone blocks used in regular courses for cladding and capping the seawall provides aesthetic benefit and helps integrate the seawall with the foreshore, as does the section of squared limestone revetment and stone setts used on the eastern ramp to the foreshore. Detractors include the dilapidated sections of seawall capping and concrete slab paving at the eastern end of the site.

SECTION 4


47

Photo 13: View west of the along the seawall towards the pumping station.

Photo 14: View west along the seawall footway.

Photo 15: Typical view south over harbour from north side of A27.

SECTION 4


48

Photo 16: View east of central ramp, stone clad seawall and benches.

Photo 17: View west of edge of eastern ramp and set-back stone clad seawall.

4.5.1.2 Visual receptors Visual receptors whose visual amenity may potentially be affected by the scheme proposals during construction and operation include the following:

Users of the coastal footpath / footway which runs along the full lengths of both the Portchester and Paulsgrove sections of the scheme.

Visitors to Portchester Castle and grounds.

Users of Portchester Sailing Club.

People on boats within the harbour.

Users of Portchester recreation ground, Castle Shore Park and public footpaths within these areas with direct, close and open views of the site.

A limited number of residential properties on the east side of Castle Street in Portchester with partially screened or glimpsed views of the site.

SECTION 4


49

Workers in Trafalgar Wharf and the car wash on Southampton Road.

Residents in approximately 84 properties along the A27 Southampton Road with direct and predominantly open views of the site and sea.

Car users, pedestrians and cyclists along the A27 and associated footways.

Residents in up to 64 properties in Port Solent with distant and often oblique views to the site.

It is considered unlikely that the visual amenity of potential visual receptors located in Portsmouth, Gosport, Hardway or Portsdown Hill will be significantly affected by the works due to the extensive distances between site and these receptors (1.7km +) and the limited scale of the proposed works. It is therefore proposed to scope the receptors in these locations out of any further visual impact assessment.

4.5.1.3 Planning background – Fareham Borough Local Plan The site lies within the ‘Coastal Zone’ as defined by the FBC landscape assessment report. This land classification no longer appears to be extant in the Fareham Borough Local Plan and may have been replaced by ‘Area outside of defined urban settlement boundaries’. The Core Strategy (Adopted August 2011) policy relating to this states that “Built development on land outside the defined settlements will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development which would adversely affect its landscape character, appearance and function. Acceptable forms of development will include that essential for agriculture, forestry, horticulture and required infrastructure. [..] In coastal locations, development should not have an adverse impact on the special character of the coast when viewed from the land or water”.

The recreation ground and park is designated as ‘Existing Open Space’ on the FBC Local Plan. The Core Strategy policy relating to this states that “The Borough Council will safeguard and enhance existing open spaces and establish networks of Green Infrastructure to add value to their wildlife and recreational functions Development which would result in the loss of or reduce the recreational value of open space, including public and private playing fields, allotments and informal open space will not be permitted, unless it is of poor quality, under-used, or has low potential for open space and a better quality replacement site is provided which is equivalent in terms of accessibility and size”.

The north-eastern part of the site (adjacent to Southampton Road) is designated in the Portsmouth Local Plan as ‘Coastal Zone’ and ‘Open Space’. The corresponding planning policies state:

PH1 Portsmouth Harbour Coastal Zone: “Proposals...must have regard to the following: coastal setting and landscape; public access and waterfront; nature conservation interests”. “Design and landscaping of any proposed development must also reflect the surrounding harbour setting. Proposals must not restrict the existing shoreline access, whilst opportunities to improve it will be encouraged, as public access to the harbour is currently limited.”

PSC13 A Greener Portsmouth: Protect green infrastructure by: “refusing planning permission which would result in the net loss of existing areas of open space...unless there are wider public benefits from the development that outweigh the harm”; “ensuring that development is informed and influenced by the presence of trees on site...if the removal of any tree is unavoidable… a replacement tree should be planted on site unless it is shown to be impracticable to do so”. Enhance green infrastructure by “improving the quality and multi-functionality of the city’s green infrastructure assets, particularly those of low value, so that they cater for the needs of wildlife and a broad section of the community”.

SECTION 4


50

4.5.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation The proposed scheme options are likely to give rise to the following potential landscape and visual impacts:

Potential adverse impacts on landscape character as a result of localised changes to the natural and cultural components that in combination make up the landscape and its aesthetic and perceptual aspects as experienced by people. These changes will result from the introduction of larger scale coastal defences along the shoreline and increased levels of physical and visual severance between shore and sea; changes in the appearance and form of coastal defences (particularly where these do not fit well with the existing character); potential removal of vegetation including trees, scrub, grassland and wetland species; changes in shoreline topography and changes in recreational use of the adjacent areas and public footpath routes. The significance of these impacts is likely to be greater in the more sensitive and high value landscape around Portchester Castle, but the other reaches within the scheme limits also have a generally positive character and are of moderate value and therefore warrant further assessment.

Potential adverse impacts on the visual amenity of people as a result of changes in the content and character of their views. These changes will result from reduced visibility of the foreshore, sea and other views as a result of raising the coastal defences; the introduction of new, potentially visually detracting features and materials; the loss of existing elements including trees and vegetation and potential issues relating to loss of privacy within private properties as a result of elevated views in from raised defences. The visual receptors that are likely to experience changes to their visual amenity are listed in Section 4.5.1.

Potential adverse landscape and visual impacts on the settings of Portchester Castle and Portchester Conservation Area arising from changes to the landscape and visual elements which contribute to the settings of these assets. The assessment of impacts on cultural heritage features in relation to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) (generally direct impacts which will require Scheduled Monument Consent) and under the planning system (impacts on setting) will be undertaken by a cultural heritage specialist but will be informed in part by the landscape and visual impact assessment relating to these aspects.

A detailed landscape design will be developed during detailed design. The detailed design should seek to minimise impacts on existing landscape and amenity resources and to integrate as sensitively as possible into the receiving landscape. This should include minimising adverse impacts on public access, historic interest, sea views and views towards Portchester Castle, open space and trees and the informal, rural character of the Portchester reaches. Wherever practicable, the proposed defences should be designed to replace or augment existing flood defence structures in order to avoid the introduction of new features into the landscape. The preferred option should be developed so as to: minimise direct impacts on vegetation of landscape value, in particular mature specimen trees; minimise impacts on valued existing views (notably views of the sea from the coast path and private properties and views of Portchester Castle from sea and land); minimise land-take from and maximise integration into publicly accessible amenity areas; restrain works to areas in which the proposed change will fit the receiving landscape as far as is practicable. Existing vegetation should be retained wherever practicable and vegetation protection measures should be put in place prior to the commencement of the construction works. Trees and other vegetation located very close to the working area or impacted by the unavoidable incursion of plant and machinery within the root zones may be given the opportunity to survive by not being removed, in which case they should be monitored during the landscape establishment period. Precautionary measures should be taken in these circumstances to help protect root zones during works as far as is practicable.

SECTION 4


51

In addition, mitigation measures may include:

The re-planting and re-establishment of vegetation removed to enable construction of the scheme, including species-rich and amenity grassland, hedge, scrub and tree planting and wetland vegetation including saltmarsh species where appropriate.

The use of revetment types which maximises the likelihood of vegetation establishing on the face of the revetment (reno mattresses (or similar) may have greater potential in this regard than rock armour). It may be possible to select infill stone for Reno mattresses (or similar) or rock armour types to match as closely as possible the colours and tones of the existing shingle and local historic building materials.

The cladding of any vertical flood defence walls with locally appropriate materials, potentially including; squared limestone cladding stone to match the existing stone used on the existing Paulsgrove flood defence revetment and set back wall (subject to availability and cost); flint and/or dressed squared limestone cladding to match the existing stone used on Portchester Castle; Fareham red brick to clad any flood walls forming part of the setback option in the vicinity of Portchester Castle.

The raising of footpath levels behind new flood defence walls in order to maintain sea views over the flood defence for all users of the coast path, including DDA compliant ramps etc (subject to the need to avoid undue disturbance to birds using the SPA).

In addition to these measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the scheme, there are a number of enhancement measures that could be progressed and implemented as part of or in association with the scheme to assist delivery of elements related to the ‘Statement of Environmental Opportunity’ identified by Natural England as referred to in Section 4.5.1. These include:

Measures which will assist to develop the recreation ground and Castle Shore Park as multifunctional greenspace. These potentially could include the establishment of orchards or other measures to create community food gardens; new wetland habitats to function as sustainable urban drainage systems as well as biodiversity gains and the promotion and enhancement of the public right of way network adjacent to the length of the flood defence scheme.

Measures which will improve the setting of Portchester Castle. These potentially could include the removal of existing detractors such as the multiplicity and complexity of shoreline features around the north-east corner of the castle which could be rationalised and simplified as part of the scheme proposals.

Measures which will promote the historic environment and provide educational opportunities of historic features. These potentially could comprise interpretation boards developed in conjunction with relevant stakeholders which explain the environmental drivers, purpose and function of the scheme and how these relate to the receiving historic environment.

4.5.3 Further assessment required Given the sensitivity and value of the landscape and visual resources associated with Portchester Castle and the Portchester Conservation Area as well as the residential properties along Southampton Road, potential landscape and visual impacts are likely to form a key consideration during detailed design and assessment.

Recommendation 1: In order to assess the significance of these impacts, to inform the detailed design and support the planning application for the scheme, it is recommended that a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the preferred option should be undertaken. It should follow

SECTION 4


52

current Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd Edition). Visual impacts on the potential visual receptors identified in this report should be assessed from public vantage points and potential impacts on landscape character should be assessed and measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate adverse effects should be confirmed.

Recommendation 2: The Indicative Landscape Plan (ILP) that has been prepared in outline during the current study should be developed, to indicate the landscape and visual receptors which will be affected by the preferred option, the proposed mitigation during both construction and post-scheme completion and any environmental opportunities to be delivered as part of the scheme.

4.6 Land use and the local community 4.6.1 Baseline conditions The study area is predominantly a residential area that falls between two settlements of Fareham and Portsmouth, located around Paulsgrove Lake, which is part of Portsmouth Harbour.

Fareham, a market town, lies to the north west of Paulsgrove Lake, Portsmouth Harbour and the study area. It includes the growing suburb of Portchester, centred to the west of Paulsgrove Lake. Portchester contains many historic houses, Portchester Castle, its grounds and Castle Shore Park (located the shoreline of Paulsgrove Lake between the castle and Trafalgar Wharf), and is a popular visitor destination.

Portsmouth is a major maritime city to the south east of the study area and has been home to the British Royal Navy for more than 500 years.

The 2011 Census population of Fareham was 111,600 and Portsmouth 205,100.

Trafalgar Wharf is home to a number of marine and boat based commercial operations. Businesses include a boat storage facility (The Drystack), with quayside boat launch lift, mooring pontoon, re-fuelling and restaurant facilities, and a number of other commercial enterprises which make use of the docking facilities.

The general area, and Portsmouth Harbour included, is popular with birdwatchers during the wintering bird season (October - April inclusive) and it is well used for water sports, including sailing, windsurfing and canoeing, all year round, although predominantly during the summer season. Informal recreation forms an important local resource. The footpath from Southampton Road to Portchester Castle and Castle Street in Portchester along the coast is discontinuous (not currently being available through Trafalgar Wharf) and not surfaced, although parts of the path to either side of Trafalgar Wharf are relatively well used for informal amenity and dog walking.

Portchester sailing club is located adjacent to the castle. Facilities include a large clubhouse, 200 moorings, and a boat park for storing dinghies during the summer and smaller cruisers during the winter. The club operates for 12 months of the year with various activities both on and off the water.

Port Solent Premier Marinas is a large award winning luxury facility based at the west of Paulsgrove Lake. Facilities include 24hr access to the Solent, pontoon connected to the entrance of the marina within Paulsgrove Lake and a full range of marina recreation facilities.

There are two commercial shellfish fisheries within the lake, comprising cockles and manila clams, both of which are hand-picked. Commercial sized shellfish are thought to be present in areas of the Lake, particularly around Portchester Castle (Shellfish water quality report, 2012).

SECTION 4


53

It should be noted that without improvements to the flood defences, significant land use resources, including residential and commercial property, cultural heritage and recreational assets will be at increasing levels of risk from flooding from the sea. The increasing levels of flood risk will also increasingly affect development pressure and economic development in the locality.

4.6.2 Potential impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation The proposed scheme will reduce the risk of flooding to residences and businesses within Portchester village, and to Portchester Castle, Castle Shore Park and the recreation area, which will result in a significant benefit to these assets and the local community. It will also help to improve investor confidence in the local area, particularly within Portchester and Trafalgar Wharf (although the latter will be subject to separate flood management investment and will not benefit directly).

There are opportunities for improvements to the footpath along the coast to be incorporated within scheme design. Any improvements need to be balanced against the potential for adverse impacts on the ecological interests of Portchester SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site and Solent and Dorset potential SPA as a result of increased usage or increased visibility of humans or dogs, which could cause increased disturbance to birds. Effects are most likely to be significant along the frontage to the south of Trafalgar Wharf, which is currently quieter and in locations where head and shoulders are visible against the skyline. In consideration of the balance of effects, it should be recognised that the increased height of the proposed sea defences will provide some degree of screening to birds. There may also be an option to incorporate additional planting of trees and scrub. The incorporation of interpretation boards could be used to raise awareness of the natural environment to counter any increased usage of the footpath.

There is also potential for improvements to the path for cyclists along the A27, but at present, it is understood that there are no proposals to continue a footpath through Trafalgar Wharf, and limited potential for improvements to the south of Trafalgar Wharf due to space restrictions.

Construction of the scheme is likely to result in noise and vibration (particularly where piling is proposed) and a temporary restriction of access to the coast. This has potential to result in disturbance to local residents, people using the area for recreation and amenity and could affect birds using the SPA. Vibration could also affect buildings (notably Portchester Castle and listed buildings). Consideration will need to be given to methods and timing of construction to reduce disturbance and damage from noise and vibration, and the need for diversions of footpaths will also need to be considered. Although there is potential for noise disturbance during operation as a result of people and dogs on footpaths, any impact is unlikely to be significant. No detailed assessment of this aspect is required.

4.6.3 Further assessment required The benefits to land use, the local community and businesses will be evaluated as part of the costs benefit analysis that will be carried out to support the Outline Business Case for the scheme, and this will be further developed during detailed design. It will be important to understand the results of this analysis and report them in terms of land use and the local community within the ES, but limited further assessment is proposed.

Recommendation 1: The EIA should make use of information generated during scheme development and the cost/benefit analysis to assess the likely effects of changes to flood risk on local assets, the local community and the local economy, including residents, schools, amenities and businesses. The assessment should also address marine interests including water-based amenities, recreation and commercial fishing/shell-fisheries.

SECTION 4


54

Recommendation 2: Temporary closure or diversion orders are likely to be required for the scheme during construction.

Recommendation 3: Opportunities for improvements to foot paths along the coast should be assessed with due consideration of potential disturbance to birds within the SPA.

Recommendation 4: The requirements for noise and vibration monitoring should be reviewed during detailed design. At present, it is not envisaged that a detailed assessment of noise during operation will be required, but consideration should be given to measures required to mitigate disturbance to local residents, people using the area for recreation and amenity, and birds using the SPA, as well as means to ensure no damage to buildings (notably, Portchester Castle and listed buildings.

4.7 Ground conditions and coastal geomorphology 4.7.1 Baseline conditions Portchester Lake and inner harbour is situated within Portsmouth Harbour, which is an almost completely land locked tidal inlet. The inner harbour is constrained by defences, groynes and reclaimed land. A detailed desk study of ground conditions (Geotechnical and Contaminated Land desk study) has been undertaken for this project and is available on request. Envirocheck data show made ground to the south of Southampton Road, at the industrial wharf, and at Castle Shore Park, along Marina Drive at MHS Excellent and roads along the east side of the harbour. A landfill site is identified in the vicinity of Portchester Castle. There is also likely to be a high risk of Unexploded Ordnance, particularly within the inter-tidal area.

The harbour contains extensive mudflats and saltmarshes. The inner harbour is a shallow subtidal area with water depths between 1m and 3m below Chart Datum, whereas the majority of the outer harbour has water depths between 8.5m and 9.5m below CD, and has been subject to dredging (RHDHV, 2012b).

The tidal regime within Portsmouth Harbour, and within other harbours and areas of the Solent, is complex due to the influence of the Isle of Wight and the constricted harbour entrances. The effects include a rapidly changing tidal range, extended high water duration and complex patterns of tidal flow, including strong ebb and flood currents through the harbour entrances (Eastern Solent Parnership, 2014, RHDHV, 2012a). The strongest currents in the Solent are found at the entrance of Portsmouth Harbour, with peak speeds of greater than 1.5m/s (HR Wallingford, 1995a, b).

The narrow entrance to Portsmouth Harbour prevents much of the externally generated wave energy from entering the harbour. Internal wave generation (i.e. waves created by wind across the water surface within the harbour) is the most important method of wave creation within the harbour. Due to the direction of the prevailing winds (from the west southwest) the south facing coastline of the harbour is most exposed to wave attack (Eastern Solent Partnership, 2014, East Solent Coastal Group, 1997).

Sediment is transported into the Portsmouth Harbour from the eastern Solent (Bray et al., 2004). The principal sources of sediment to the harbours are from marine and fluvial sources and coastal erosion. Inside the harbour marine sediment is sourced from alongshore sediment transport from west to east reaching the entrance to the harbour.

There is limited shoreline within Portsmouth harbour that is in its natural state. It can therefore be assumed that the shoreline contributes little to the overall sediment budget. There is also limited freshwater flow into both harbours suggesting relatively little suspended sediment being introduced this way (Bray et al., 2004).

SECTION 4


55

Due to the narrow entrance to the harbour, which restricts waves entering, the most important driver of sediment transport within the harbour is tidal currents. As a result of the lower velocity but longer duration flood tide compared to higher velocity, lower current velocity of the ebb tide, there is net transport of suspended sediments (including fine sand, silts, clays and organic particles) into the harbour (Eastern Solent Partnership, 2014, Bray et al., 2004). An assessment of foreshore profiles around Portchester Castle and longer term predictions for erosion indicate that erosion is not a significant issue in the study area. Localised areas of scour have however been noted.

4.7.2 Potential Impacts, key risks and scope for mitigation Disturbance of potentially contaminated land and inter-tidal areas has potential to result in pollution within Portsmouth Harbour, which could affect biodiversity features of international interest, people using amenity areas and the harbour for recreational purposes and site workers. Whilst the presence of potentially contaminated land within the study area has potential to result in significant impacts on these receptors, it should be possible to avoid impacts through design and the adoption of good working practices.

The construction of sea defences has potential to change local coastal processes during construction and operation. However, at this location, the proposed scheme will not affect the overall alignment of the defences, and although minor changes to the geometry of the defences to effect local reductions in wave energy, scour and therefore the erosive force of the wave, no significant impact on the coastal morphology of the harbour is envisaged. However, the indirect effects and any impacts as a result of coastal squeeze have potential to result in impacts on the international ecological interest of the harbour.

Given that Portsmouth Harbour is relatively well contained, no change to the wider coastal morphology or ecological interests outside the harbour is envisaged.

4.7.3 Further assessment required The potential for the release of contaminants from historic land use will need to be addressed during detailed design, as will any indirect impacts resulting from changes to coastal processes.

Recommendation 1: The detailed design should take account of the potential for contaminated land in the area. During design, there should be a preference to contain potentially contaminated sites to prevent coastal erosion and exposure of potential contaminants and prevent flooding that could result in water pollution. This aspect will require further consideration and assessment as the scheme progresses, and suitable mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts will need to be specified. Mitigating measures will need to be specified within a contaminated land strategy.

Recommendation 2: Although no significant change to coastal morphology is envisaged, this aspect will continue to be evaluated as the scheme progresses through detailed design, and the results will be reported within the ES. The effects of coastal squeeze will also need to be reported. The results will also be used to inform the assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity.

4.8 Material assets and sustainability Construction of the defences and their maintenance over the life-time of the scheme will entail the use of resources, including non-renewable resources. It is Environment Agency and national and local government policy to minimise the use of non-renewable resources and the carbon footprint of construction and sea defence projects as far as practicable. These factors have been taken into account during option selection, but they can be further considered and influenced during detailed design.

SECTION 4


56

Recommendation 1: It is proposed that the use of materials and methods of construction are subject to ongoing evaluation during the detailed design and assessment stage with a view of maximising the sustainability of the design as far as practicable.

4.9 Traffic and Transportation 4.9.1 Baseline conditions The A27 along the south coast immediately north of the study area connects, as part of the main east-west road along the south coast, Brighton to Southampton. Within the study area, it is a busy main road with residential properties stepped back from the road on the northern side. The A27 was the original route along the south coast before the building of the M27 to which it is connected east of the study area. The M27 starts from Portsmouth City and runs along the western coastal edge of Portsea Island within 200 metres of the far north-eastern corner of the study area passing through Fareham to Southampton, and from there to London via the M3 and A3(M). West of the study area, Castle Street, which runs through Paulsgrove Conservation Area leading to Portchester Castle, is a relatively narrow single carriageway with houses abutting the pavement and frequent parked cars which affect the free-flow of vehicles along its length.

Paulsgrove Lake is connected to the rest of Portsmouth harbour via the lower part of Fareham Lake channel (where lagged vessels are moored). The channel then shallows out and once at Portchester Castle the dredged channel leads to Port Solent Marina and Trafalgar Wharf allowing boat access.

4.9.2 Key issues, risks and scope for mitigation During construction, there is potential for temporary adverse impacts on traffic and other road users as a result of the movement of site personnel, transport of construction materials to and from site. Traffic and the activity of construction plant may also disrupt access and cause noise nuisance, dust, air pollutants and visual impact to nearby receptors (residents, walkers, boat users, birds and marine life). Mitigation will be required to avoid potentially adverse impacts on road users and local residents, but with suitable mitigation, no significant adverse impact is envisaged. Potential impacts and mitigation for birds and marine life have been discussed in Section 4.4, and for archaeology, in Section 4.3.

During operation, there will be minimal maintenance and no significant impact on traffic or transportation.

4.9.3 Further assessment required The scheme will not result in significant impacts during operation and as such operational traffic can be scoped out of detailed assessment.

Due to the restricted access to the works area, some disruption to local residents and road users along Castle Street and, to a lesser extent, along Southampton Road, during construction is likely. Although this will be a temporary disruption and it is unlikely, with suitable management, to be significant, suitable mitigation and the potential for indirect impacts resulting by the activity of construction plant (and workers) on other parameters (biodiversity and archaeology) will need to be addressed.

Recommendation 1: No detailed traffic impact assessment is proposed. However, it is proposed that the volume of traffic likely to be generated and plant required during construction is estimated and further consultation is carried out with the highways department of the LPA to establish a suitable route and other measures to ensure a minimum of disruption to traffic and other road users during

SECTION 4


57

construction. It is proposed that these measures will need to be established in outline during the detailed design stage.

The data from this will also be used to inform the assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity and archaeology.

Recommendation 2: A detailed Traffic Management Plan is likely to be required prior to construction. It is envisaged that this will be prepared on completion of the EIA and post-planning. The Traffic Management Plan may be included with the Design and Access Statement. However, the requirement to prepare the Plan will need to be specified as part of the EIA.

4.10 Water resources 4.10.1 Baseline conditions The key water bodies of relevance to the scheme are Portsmouth Harbour and an open ditch that passes behind the existing defences to the south of Trafalgar Wharf, discharging into Portsmouth Harbour through a sluiced maintained by the Environment Agency. The maintenance of water quality within these waterbodies is a key factor affecting the biodiversity value of the inter-tidal area.

Portsmouth Harbour is designated as Shellfish Waters; this requires that the water quality meets the EC Shellfish Waters Directive criteria for harvesting shellfish. The harbour is designated for Native Oyster Ostrea edulis and Hard clam Mya mercenaria. Portsmouth Harbour is also a Classified Bivalve Mollusc Harvesting Area.

There are no designated Bathing Waters within Portsmouth Harbour. The closest Bathing Waters are located on the coast at Portsmouth (South Parade Pair) and Gosport (west of Gilkicker Point).

Portsmouth Harbour is designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone.

A Water Framework Directive Assessment has been carried out for the proposed scheme as part of the option selection process. The results are presented in Section 5.

4.10.2 Key issues, risks and scope for mitigation Potential construction impacts on sediment and water quality include:

Requirement for realignment of the culverts and outfalls and associated channels behind the existing defences along Southampton Road.

Potential to temporarily increase suspended sediment load as a consequence of mobilisation of sediment during construction works on the foreshore.

Remobilisation, dispersion and redistribution of potentially contaminated soil / sediment.

Potential impact on sediment and water quality through accidental spillages.

Potential mobilisation of sediment within intertidal area due to localised erosion associated with any changes in local hydrodynamics and sediment availability, and potentially contaminated land sites.

It is likely that these impacts can be adequately mitigated by the adoption of environmental management practices during construction.

During operation, impacts on sediment and water quality comprise:

SECTION 4


58

Protection of potentially contaminated land sites, preventing future potential pollution incidents.

No adverse impacts on water quality are envisaged.

In addition, there may be opportunities for enhancement of the coastal fringe. Such opportunities include softening of the harbour edges to create marginal habitat, planting with trees and scrub and the use of eco-concrete. Such examples could include pre-planted coir rolls with suitable angiosperm vegetation, spartinas etc., green ladders which can be bolted to sheet pilings to add vertically stratified habitat, and reducing the ‘engineered’ look of the defences. Any measure should try and increase/enhance habitat but also be cost efficient, easy to maintain and not cause deterioration to any species/habitat that exists already.

4.10.3 Further assessment required Recommendation 1: The maintenance of water quality will be an important factor in scheme design, a detailed assessment of water quality will be required at detailed design.

Recommendation 2: The opportunity for enhancement measures such as softening of the harbour edges, planting and the use of eco-concrete should be further evaluated during the detailed design stage.

4.11 Cumulative impacts There are two forms of cumulative impacts that can be considered. The first is cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed scheme in combination with potential impacts associated with other nearby committed developments. The second is the potential for cumulative impacts on specific environmental receptors resulting different types of impacts associated with the proposed scheme.

In this case, we are not aware of any other committed developments that could result in cumulative impacts except those associated with Trafalgar Wharf. Although Trafalgar Wharf is not yet a committed development, a representative of the Wharf has been included on the steering group meetings for the proposed scheme with intent to progress complementary schemes that avoid conflict and maximise opportunities. There are also a number of other projects located in the vicinity that are currently progressing through the approval process and are therefore not yet committed. These include the Tipper Lake FCERM works on the other side of Portsmouth Harbour, and the City Deal Sites, which includes works at Tipner West and Firing Range, East Tipner Housing Development and Horsea Island Development/Port Solent Expansion. No conflicts have been identified to date, but it will be important that the effects of construction (with particular reference to the timing of works) are considered as the scheme progresses.

The potential for significant impacts on specific environmental receptors will need to be considered during the detailed design stage. Provided that significant impacts are avoided, it is likely that significant cumulative impacts can also be avoided. However, possible areas for cumulative impact that should be considered at EIA stage are impacts on biodiversity and fisheries as a result of changes in water quality, land-take, noise disturbance and recreation, impacts on land use and the local community as a result of changes in visual amenity, recreation assets, noise disturbance and traffic disruption and impacts on heritage features a s a result in chances to recreation, access and visual amenity or setting.

SECTION 5


5Other Assessments Undertaken

5.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening A copy of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening assessment is presented in Appendix F.

The conclusion of the HRA Screening was that no likely significant effects are envisaged, although this conclusion should be reviewed as the scheme progresses to detailed design to ensure this conclusion remains valid.

5.2 Preliminary Water Framework Assessment A copy of the preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment is presented in Appendix G.

The recommendations of the preliminary assessment were to undertake a detailed assessment for the final EIA submission in order to satisfy planning requirements because of the potential impacts of the proposed options in relation to water body scale. Mitigation measures to improve habitat under WFD include bioengineered solutions which maintain substrate and allow angiosperms to colonise without compromising the flood risk integrity of the structure should be considered as part of the detailed design to ensure compliance. Recommended measures include hybrid solutions that integrate engineering with habitat gain – i.e. pre-planted coir rolls, joint planted revetments, cellular systems filled with angiosperms and another vegetation suitable for the Harbour, marsh fringe rock revetment and coir stone with vegetation (rock rolls), for example.

SECTION 6


6Scope of Detailed Assessment As stated in Section 1, it is likely that a statutory EIA will be required to support the progression of the scheme through the detailed design and the planning approval process. The scoping study undertaken to date has identified that a number of detailed assessments will be required. Specific recommendations on the nature of these studies are made in Section 4. The scope of subjects to be addressed is summarised in Table 8 below. It should be noted that where no detailed assessments have been recommended, this does not preclude a requirement for some environmental protection or management measures within design or during construction.

Table 8. Scope of environmental issues requiring assessment

Issue Key issues and likely relevance Scoped In or Out

Air quality and climate change

In the long term flood risk to the area will increase due to expected sea level rise. This is a driver for the scheme and as such has been taken into account in scheme design. No significant impact on air quality or climate is envisaged.

OUT

Flora and fauna & HRA issues

The scheme is located at the edge of an SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site, and within or adjacent to other designated sites (including two SINCs and a recommended MCZ). A HRA has been undertaken, concluding that no likely significant effect is envisaged. However, potential impacts on these assets will form a key aspect of detailed design and a detailed ecological assessment should be undertaken. The conclusions of the HRA will also require review.

IN

Cultural heritage A number of cultural heritage features have been identified within the study area including a scheduled monument, Conservation Area and a number of listed buildings. Potential impacts on these and other cultural heritage and archaeological assets should be addressed.

IN

Ground conditions and coastal morphology

No detailed study of ground conditions has been undertaken to date, but the study area is known to include a potentially contaminated site and present a high risk of UXO. Potential impacts on human health and the environment as a result of ground conditions should be assessed. No impact on coastal morphology is envisaged and no detailed assessment is required.

IN

Landscape and visual amenity

Impacts on the landscape and visual amenity should be assessed with particular reference to views and the setting of Portchester Castle.

IN

Land use and the local community (including access, recreation, noise and vibration)

The potential impacts affecting the local community, access and recreation should be assessed in accordance with relevant legation and guidelines. The effects of noise and vibration on residents, wildlife and buildings during construction should also be considered. No detailed assessment of operational noise is required.

IN

Material assets and The use of materials and methods of construction should be subject to ongoing evaluation during the detailed

OUT

SECTION 6


61

Sustainability design and assessment stage with a view of maximising the sustainability of the design as far as practicable, but no detailed assessment is required.

Traffic and transportation

No detailed traffic impacts assessment is proposed, but the volume of traffic generated during construction should be estimated with particular reference to potential impacts on residents, biodiversity and cultural heritage.

IN (outline)

Water quality and WFD issues

A preliminary WFD assessment has been undertaken during option selection. The effects of the proposed options on water quality should be assessed further at detailed design.

IN

Cumulative impacts The potential for cumulative impacts resulting from construction (with particular reference to timing) of Trafalgar Wharf should be considered. The potential for cumulative impacts on specific environmental receptors will also need to be considered during the detailed design stage.

IN

SECTION 7


7Conclusions and Next Steps This Scoping Report has been prepared to report on the environmental scoping process undertaken for the proposed scheme to date. The proposed scope and findings of this assessment have been informed by consultation with the steering group for this project. This included representative from the statutory bodies and a number of key stakeholders.

The assessment undertaken to date has concluded that, given the sensitivity of the location (with internationally designated biodiversity, nationally designated cultural heritage and the proximity of residential and commercial assets), there is potential for significant impacts on the environment and the local community. It is envisaged that through the sensitive option selection process that has been carried out, and with ongoing attention to detailed design, the incorporation of enhancement opportunities and the application of appropriate mitigation, it will be possible to avoid adverse impacts. None-the-less, it is recommended that a detailed EIA will be required to support the planning and funding requirements of the scheme.

Once the results of the assessment and scope of the scheme has been confirmed (following consultation on this Scoping Report), it is recommended that the further work proposed in the preceding sections of this report is progressed during the detailed design stage. This should include the further assessment work recommended together with consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees, further liaison with landowners and the local community, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement with a Construction and Environmental Management Plan to capture the agreed mitigation and enhancement measures.

It is envisaged that the business case for the proposed scheme will be submitted to the Environment Agency in Spring 2017. It is envisaged that the detailed design will progress following approval of the outline business case.

Further consultation and collaboration work will be undertaken during the detailed design stage. It is likely that this will focus on progressing opportunities for enhancements in collaboration with other interested parties. This will include opportunities for planting, landscaping, access, and footpath and drainage improvements.

SECTION 8


8References AECOM, 2015. River Hamble to Portchester Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy

Birdlife, 2015. Portsmouth Harbour Important Bird Area. Viewed online at http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=2578

CH2M, 2015a. Geotechnical Desk Study. Technical Appendix to Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove Outline Business Case. Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership

CH2M, 2015b. Existing Defences Report. Technical Appendix to Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove Outline Business Case. Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership

Defra and Environment Agency, 2012. Shellfish water Quality report: Portsmouth Harbour. Viewed online https://www.cefas.co.uk/media/41392/shellfish-water-quality-investigation-report-portsmouth-harbour.pdf

Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership, 2014. North Portsea Island Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Scheme: Environmental Scoping Report

Halcrow, 2008. Portchester Castle to Emsworth Flood and Erosion Management Strategy. Technical Appendix 7 – Design Criteria.

Hampshire County Council, 2013. Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Hampshire County Council, 2015. ESCP Portchester Castle to Paulsgrove CFERM Scheme: Extended Phase 1 Ecological Survey

JNCC, 2008. Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands: Portmsouth Harbour Ramsar site. Viewed online at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK11055.pdf

JNCC, 2015. Marine conservation advice for Special Protection Area: Portsmouth Harbour (UK9011051). Viewed online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-advice-for-special-protection-area-portsmouth-harbour-uk9011051

Natural England, 1993. Portsmouth Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest citation document. http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003174.pdf

Natural England, 2014. Portsmouth Harbour condition assessment. Viewed online https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/UnitDetail.aspx?UnitId=1017648

New Forest District Council, 2010. North Solent Shoreline Management Plan

Portchester Sailing Club, 2016. Viewed online at www.portchestersc.org

Portsmouth City Council, 2013. Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=2578

https://www.cefas.co.uk/media/41392/shellfish-water-quality-investigation-report-

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK11055.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine-conservation-

http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1003174.pdf

https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/UnitDetail.aspx?UnitId=1017648

http://www.portchestersc.org

SECTION 8


environmental scoping report - escp. ptop env scoping_main document.pdf · this environmental...

Documents