Summary: Intervention & Options
Department /Agency: Title:
Defra Impact Assessment of submitting Bolton Fell Moss as a
candidate Special Area of Conservation under the
Stage: Final Version: 5 Date: 17 July 2008
Available to view or download at:
Contact for enquiries: Chuin Kee Telephone: 0117 372 8272
What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?
Following infraction proceedings by the EC, (which alleged that the UK had submitted insufficient sites
of some habitat types) the UK has given a commitment to submit Bolton Fell Moss to the EC as a
candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) under the EC Habitats Directive. This is the
underlying reason for government intervention and will enable the UK to achieve its stated intention to
preserve and enhance biodiversity. The target for submission is 31 August 2008.
It should be noted that while this Impact Assessment provides key information on the costs and
benefits of the proposed designation of Bolton Fell Moss, it is established case law that such a
decision can only be taken on scientific grounds (i.e. the site must meet the relevant criteria and host
relevant habitat/species types for designation under the Habitats Directive) and no account can be
taken of other factors, including socio-economic ones.
What are the policy objectives and the intended effects?
1. To complete the UKs list of terrestrial SACs as required under the EC Habitats Directive. Degraded
raised bog still capable of natural regeneration is a habitat type listed under the Directive as requiring
protection, and Bolton Fell Moss is one of the largest of these habitats in England.
2. To remove the threat of referral of the case to the ECJ, and possible infractions fines.
3. To secure the future protection of the biodiversity interests of the site (by buying-out the extant peat
extraction rights and securing long term interests).
What policy options have been considered? Please justify any preferred option.
Option 1. Do nothing. This is not a realistic option, as it would result in the case being referred to the
ECJ. We judge that we would lose such a case, and be required to submit the site anyway.
Option 2. Submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC to the EC as soon as possible after 31 August 2008,
having secured the future protection of the site, principally through acquisition of peat extraction rights.
Option 3. Submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC to the EC by the 31 August 2008 deadline. Option 3 is
the preferred option as it will complete the UK's list of terrestrial SACs and remove the threat of
referral to the ECJ but with a risk that the long term protection of the site has not been secured.
When will the policy be reviewed to establish the actual costs and benefits and the achievement of the
desired effects? Management of the site will be undertaken by NE, in consultation with landowners &
in accordance with the management plan. This is still being drawn up but will include reviews of
effectiveness at significant milestones. Full records of actual costs & benefits will be kept.
Ministerial Sign-off For final proposal/implementation stage Impact Assessments:
I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available
evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of
the leading options.
Signed by the responsible Minister:
Summary: Analysis & Evidence
Policy Option: Option Description: Submit the site as a cSAC by 31 August 2008.
ANNUAL COSTS Description and scale of key monetised costs by „main
affected groups‟ This is the best broad estimate currently
One-off (Transition) Yrs available of the costs to Defra in order to buy-out the peat
£ 10m extraction rights on Bolton Fell Moss and for restoration of the site,
including ancillary costs such as legal fees and VAT. An acurate
costing is dependent on ongoing negotiations as is the timing and
amount of any deffered payments resulting from a possible staged
cessation of peat extraction. Restoration costs of about 1m will be
incurred over a period of four years with costs falling in
subsequent years. It is assumed these costs will be incurred from
Average Annual Cost
(excluding one-off) 2009/10
£ 0.25m Total Cost (PV) £ 10.92m
Other key non-monetised costs by „main affected groups‟ Possible job losses in the local area
as peat extraction ends, possibly mitigated by use of employees on restoration work for a period,
or transfer of the workforce to another local site.
ANNUAL BENEFITS Description and scale of key monetised benefits by „main
affected groups‟ No direct monetised benefits. However, an
One-off Yrs indirect benefit will be to avoid potentially heavy infraction fines.
£ Estimates for these are provided in the main text below.
Average Annual Benefit
£ Total Benefit (PV) £
Other key non-monetised benefits by „main affected groups‟ Habitat and species conservation
protection benefits from the new European site designation. Reduction of carbon emissions in the
in the short term through reduced oxidisation of the peat (which occurs when it is disturbed by for
example extraction and processing) and in the long term through increased carbon sequestration
by the restored site biomass. If the peat processing factory closes down, there will also be
minimal health benefits from reduced pollution in the local area due to the cessation of plant
works and associated heavy vehicle operations.
Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks The key assumption is that Defra/NE will be able to secure
the future protection of the site. A key risk is that the complexity of the land ownership
arrangements on the site will delay this process. This option carries an infractions risk of its
own, if we submit the site without having secured its future protection. However, such a move by
the Commission would need to try to break new ground in the treatment of candidate sites, and
would also need to start from the early consultative stages. There are clear precedents for sites
to be submitted without their future having being secured in advance. It is because the risk of
not submitting the site is an early and sudden referral to the European Court of Justice that our
recommendation is to go ahead with submission of the site now.
Price Base Time Period Net Benefit Range (NPV) NET BENEFIT (NPV Best estimate)
Year 2008 Years 4 £ N/A £ N/A
What is the geographic coverage of the policy/option? England
On what date will the policy be implemented? 31 August 2008
Which organisation(s) will enforce the policy? Natural England (NE)
What is the total annual cost of enforcement for these organisations? £
Does enforcement comply with Hampton principles? Yes
Will implementation go beyond minimum EU requirements? No
What is the value of the proposed offsetting measure per year? £ n/a
What is the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions? £ unknown but
Will the proposal have a significant impact on competition? No
Annual cost (£-£) per organisation Micro Small Medium Large
Are any of these organisations exempt? Yes/No Yes/No N/A N/A
Impact on Admin Burdens Baseline (2005 Prices) (Increase - Decrease)
Increase of £0 Decrease of £ 0 Net Impact £0
Key: Annual costs and benefits: Constant Prices (Net) Present Value
Evidence Base (for summary sheets)
[Use this space (with a recommended maximum of 30 pages) to set out the evidence, analysis and
detailed narrative from which you have generated your policy options or proposal. Ensure that the
information is organised in such a way as to explain clearly the summary information on the preceding
pages of this form.]
1. Proposal: EC Habitats and Wild Birds Directives - towards completion of the UK’s
terrestrial Special Area of Conservation (SAC) network
Council Directive 92/43/EC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and
Flora was adopted in 1992 with the purpose of establishing common levels of conservation
throughout the European Union for those habitats and species perceived to be under threat.
Central to the Directive‟s objectives is the establishment throughout the EU of a suite of
protected sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) together with Special Protection Areas
designated under the EC Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC); this site will, if
accepted by the EC, form part of the EU wide ecological network known as Natura 2000.
This Impact Assessment (IA) sets out the impacts of submitting Bolton Fell Moss, in Cumbria,
as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) to the EC. It assesses the costs, benefits
and risks of the policy options in order to provide information to help decision-makers. The
assessment has been made using the best evidence available. In some instances it has been
necessary to make assumptions and estimates where hard information is limited and to make
informed estimates about the likely business response to policy measures.
Domestic legislation is not required to achieve this proposal.
It should however be noted that this Impact Assessment is essentially for information
only. It cannot be taken into account in any decision about site designation. It is
established case law that such a decision can only be taken on scientific grounds and no
account can be taken of other factors, including socio-economic ones.
2. Purpose and intended effect
The proposal is to forward one new English cSAC to address the EC allegation that we have
submitted insufficient sites of this habitat type (degraded raised bog still capable of natural
regeneration). It is expected that submission of this site will satisfy the EC and result in the
infraction case being closed. We hope that submission of the site will also finalise the UK‟s suite
of terrestrial SACs.
It is envisaged that the site will be submitted to the Commission as a cSAC only after binding
agreements have been reached with owners/occupiers to secure the future protection of the
site. Essentially this involves buying out the peat extraction rights. This course has been agreed
in principle by Ministers. But further Ministerial approval will be sought before the site is
submitted to the EC.
The EC Habitats Directive is transposed into National legislation (England and Wales) by
means of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 [SI 1994/2716] (“the
Regulations”). These provide the legislative framework to contribute to the Directive‟s
requirement for a coherent European ecological network of protected sites, known as Natura
The Habitats Directive requires each Member State to submit a list of cSACs to the EC so it can
adopt them as sites of Community importance (SCI). The terrestrial network of SACs is largely
complete in the UK.
Once the Commission receives a cSAC, it will normally confirm its adoption as a SCI within 13
months. Once adopted the Member State has a further 6 years to formally designate the site as
By July 2005 all 611 sites submitted to the European Commission by the United Kingdom had
been designated as Special Areas of Conservation, with only a few site insufficiencies
remaining. Since that time, further sites have been submitted to the EC as cSAC and now only
two sites remain to complete the UK‟s list of SACs: Bolton Fell Moss in England (degraded
raised bog still capable of natural regeneration) and the River Faughan in Northern Ireland
Reference to the European Court of Justice
In 1997, the UK received a Reasoned Opinion that insufficient candidate SACs had been
submitted. Following the moderation meetings in the autumn of 1999, the UK was informed in
January 2000 that a reference under Art 226 of the Treaty would be made to the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) in relation to the UK‟s failure. The UK received an Additional Reasoned
Opinion of 15th December 2006, made under Article 226 concerning the UK‟s failure to fulfil its
obligations under Article 4(1) of the Habitats Directive. The letter concerned the failure of the
UK to submit to the Commission a sufficient list of proposed Special Areas of Conservation
(SAC) for a number of habitat sites, including degraded raised bogs still capable of natural
Following protracted negotiations with the Commission on a number of potential sites, during
which infraction proceedings were progressed to the point of imminent referral to the ECJ, the
UK has now agreed to submit Bolton Fell Moss to the EC as a cSAC.
(iii) Risk assessment
Failure to submit a sufficient list of SACs may result in:
the UK appearing before the ECJ for failing to implement the requirements of the
reputational damage the UK (and England within the UK) for not meeting its obligations
under the Habitats Directive;
doubt being cast on the UK‟s stated intention to preserve and enhance biodiversity in line
with the Biodiversity Convention signed at the Rio Earth Summit and to achieve Europe‟s
target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010.
(iv) Benefits of SAC designation:
Submitting Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC will enable the site to be formally designated as a SAC
in the near future if it is adopted by the EC. This (together with the submission of an Atlantic
salmon site in Northern Ireland) should complete the UK‟s terrestrial network of SACs under the
Habitats Directive and should lead to the cessation of infraction proceedings against the UK.
Protection of sites in the UK afforded by the Habitats Regulations 1994 is more comprehensive
than the domestic legislative regime for SSSIs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The
Habitats Regulations provide additional measures directed at conserving habitats and species
at a European level.
The site will therefore benefit from:
added habitat and wildlife conservation protection;
peat restoration in the long term, leading to increased carbon sequestration and flood
cessation of peat extraction works and heavy vehicle operations, leading to reduced air
and noise pollution.
(i) Within Government
Defra will consult with all principal departments which have an interest. However, from the
results of an earlier public consultation, significant concerns over the designation of this site are
(ii) Individual site consultations
English Nature (now Natural England), on behalf of Defra, undertook a wide public consultation
in 2000 with owners/occupiers and other key stakeholders concerned with the specific sites. A
small number of objections were lodged, but we expect these to be resolved before submission
of the site to the EC.
Conservation NGOs support the cessation of peat processing on Bolton Fell Moss and its new
European site designation, as it will help towards the reduction of carbon emissions through
reduced oxidisation of peat, which occurs when it is disturbed, increased carbon sequestration
through restored site biomass and the possible cessation of processing plant and associated
vehicle operations. Designation of the site will also provide more robust protection to habitats
and species within the site.
Three options have been identified:
Option 1: Do nothing – i.e. do not submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC to the EC. We do not
regard this as a realistic or acceptable outcome as it would be contrary to a
commitment we have already given to the EC, and would result in an appearance
before the ECJ – following which we would almost certainly have to submit the site
for designation anyway, and face heavy infractions fines.
Option 2: Submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC as soon as possible after the 31 August
deadline, having secured the future protection of the site, principally through the
acquisition of the peat extraction rights.
The risk here is that the delay beyond 31 August might result in prompt action by
the EC to refer the UK to the ECJ. There is a good possiblity of this happening,
given that the case has been ongoing for some years and the UK recently gave a
commitment to the EC to submit this site by the 31 August. However, the risk
would be mitigated if the UK could demonstrate that it had made every effort to
meet the deadline but had no choice but to delay the submission for sound
reasons. Submission of the Northern Ireland Atlantic salmon site by the deadline
would be further evidence that we intend to honour the commitment already given.
Option 3: Submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC by 31 August deadline, but without having
secured the long term protection of the site. The benefit of this approach is that it
would enable the UK to meet its commitment to the EC, which would hasten the
removal of the existing infraction risk.
The risk is that we could fail to secure the protection of the site quickly, which
could result in new infraction proceedings. In addition, we could find ourselves in a
weaker bargaining position with local owners and occupiers in our attempt to
reach agreements relating to the future protection of the site.
In our view option 3 is the preferred option as it meets the commitment we have already
given to the EC to submit the site as a cSAC and should allow the UK enough time to
secure the long term interests of the site before new infractions proceedings can take
effect. Such a move by the Commission would need to try to break new ground in the
treatment of candidate sites, and would also need to start from the early consultative
stages. There are clear precedents for sites to be submitted without their future having
being secured in advance. Option 1 would run counter to the UK policy of identifying and
submitting the most appropriate sites for wildlife and habitat conservation and avoiding
an appearance in the ECJ. Option 2 would run the risk of the UK being promptly referred
to the ECJ. It is because the risk of not submitting the site is an early and sudden
referral to the European Court of Justice that our recommendation is to go ahead with
submission of the site now.
5. Costs and Benefits
Option 1 (the „do nothing‟ option):
There are no direct or immediate financial costs involved in this option.
In due course, however, administrative and legal costs will be incurred on mounting a defence
to the infraction proceedings and paying any EU penalty for non-compliance with the Habitats
Directive. Although instances of fines being imposed are relatively rare (presumably because
Member States take action before infractions proceedings get that far), the ECJ can impose
very heavy fines. A Member State was recently fined a lump sum of Euro 20 million, plus Euro
58 million for every six months it failed to comply with a judgment of the ECJ.) Following any
judgment we anticipate that all the costs linked to option 3 would have to be incurred anyway.
Non-financial costs include reputational ones linked to reneging on a commitment already given
to the EC and the loss of UK standing and possibly influence in the environmental community
generally both within the UK and EU (including amongst NGOs with significant influence).
Option 2 (submitting the site as a cSAC as soon as possible after the 31 August 2008):
If the EC decide to continue its infractions proceedings, the UK could face heavy fines (as set
out in Option 1). Referral to the ECJ might also mean that we lost the Commission‟s willingness
to compromise on this habitat type, and would run the risk of their returning to their previous
position, arguing for two Cumbrian bog sites rather than the one we are now putting forward – at
twice the cost.
However, if the UK was given time to secure the protection of the site, the likely expenditure and
opportunity costs would fall under the following three headings:
a) The principle costs will fall to Government, and relate to the buy-out costs for peat
extraction consents, restoration of the land and related ancillary costs such as legal and
other fees and VAT. It is broadly estimated that these will be around £10m in total, based
on a previous peat extraction consent buy out and a valuation done on behalf of NE in
2002. Although we have a good idea of the amount of extractable peat left on the site, we
do not yet know the full extent of the peat extractors‟ and land owners‟ rights to that
resource. We therefore cannot provide a firm figure at this time, Initial costs are likely to
fall in 2008/9, although the timing and amount of subsequent payments will depend on
the negotiations and any agreed staged cessation of peat extraction. Restoration and
associated costs will be incurred for approximately four years and will cease a year after
peat extraction finally ends. A £10m provision has been created to cover the anticipated
b) On-going costs falling to Natural England relating to the management and
restoration of the site will initially be around £50K per year, falling after a couple of years
to around £30K per year thereafter. At this stage these costs can only be estimated
because it may take up to five years before NE begin taking on these costs. In the
meantime, the intention will be for the peat extractors to carry on limited peat extraction
and site restoration as part of the management plan.
c) Administrative costs that might fall to local government and other Competent
Authorities who are responsible for implementing the controls (primarily on development)
on protected sites contained in the Habitats Directive. These controls include those
contained in regulation 50 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 which require Competent
Authorities to review any planning or other consents on protected sites that may
adversely affect the integrity of the site and affirm, modify or revoke them. Again, without
knowing whether any such consents exist, it is impossible to estimate the costs.
Option 3 (Submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC by 31 August deadline, without having secured
the future protection of the site).
The likely expenditure and opportunity costs would fall under the three headings (a-c) as set out
in Option 2.
However there is a risk that the buy-out costs (a) could be increased if our bargaining position
becomes compromised (through possible protracted negotiations with the peat extractors and
local owners / occupiers). We can, if this happens, ask the planning authority to review the
existing peat extraction permissions under regulation 50 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 which
would almost certainly result in their revocation, leaving compensation to be sorted out later.
This would be complicated, but we would expect the peat extractors and local owners /
occupiers to want to avoid it at least as much as we do.
Option 1 (the „do nothing‟ option):
No benefits are identified from the „do nothing‟ option.
Option 2 (submitting the site as a cSAC as soon as possible after the 31 August deadline):
The benefit of this option is that it might allow the UK further time to secure the long term
interests of the site prior the site being submitted to the EC as a cSAC. This option would also
enable the UK to meet its obligations under the Habitats Directive.
However this option carries the risk of prompt referral to the ECJ for not honouring its
commitment given to the EC to submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC before 31 August 2008.
Referral might mean that we also lost the Commission‟s willingness to compromise on this
habitat type, and would run the risk of their returning to their previous position, arguing for two
Cumbrian bog sites rather than the one we are now putting forward – at twice the cost..
Option 3 (Submit Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC without securing the future protection of the site).
The benefit of this option is that it honours a commitment already given to the EC to submit
Bolton Fell Moss as a cSAC before 31 August 2008 and meets UK obligations under the
Habitats Directive. It also avoids the risk of the Commission returning to their previous position,
arguing for the submission of two Cumbrian bog sites rather than the one in order that
sufficiency for this habitat is met.
However negotiations with the peat extractor and land owners is proving to be protracted and
the future protection of the site following its submission as a cSAC, by ending the extraction of
peat is yet to be secured. This option therefore carries an infractions risk of its own, if we
submit the site without having secured its future protection.
Such a move by the Commission would need to try to break new ground in the treatment of
candidate sites, and would also need to start from the early consultative stages, avoiding an
early and sudden referral to the European Court of Justice. There are also clear precedents for
sites to be submitted without their future having being secured in advance.
The establishment of a scientifically justified and comprehensive suite of candidate SACs in
ensure a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of the EC Habitats
support the successful outcomes to the Government‟s “A Better Quality of Life” key
actions and commitments;
help to combat threats to biodiversity in order to help meet the Government‟s
commitment to halting biodiversity loss by 2010
encourage the development, management and promotion of agricultural practices that
protect and enhance the countryside and wildlife, thereby helping to reverse the trend
support the UK‟s well-developed strategy to protect our biodiversity and the
challenges of the Rio Earth Summit;
safeguard and improve the public‟s enjoyment of environmental and biodiversity
reduced carbon emissions in the long term through increased carbon sequestration
as the peat bogs regenerate.
increased local health benefits from reduced pollution in the local area due to the
possible cessation of plant works and heavy vehicle operations.
overall reduction in peat extraction, processing and transport operations should also
reduce overall carbon emissions due to oxidisation of disturbed peat..
A healthy active peat bog results in reduced discolouration of drinking water
compared to that sourced from a degraded bog. This leads to reduced treatment
costs for water companies.
Sectors and groups affected
Primarily, the company with peat extraction rights and possibly some land owners and
occupiers on this site will be affected by the site designation. However they will receive the
appropriate amount of financial compensation from Defra for their loss. A £10m provision has
been created to cover the anticipated costs.
Nothing in the public consultation exercise indicated that any other sector would be significantly
Some job losses in the local area might result from the relocation of the company‟s peat
processing factory. However, jobs are likely to be created in the vicinity of the new factory. The
relocation is also likely to reduce the number of miles required to transport raw peat and peat
products, thereby reducing the number of vehicle transport operations in total.
6. Equity and Fairness
A number of important points can be made in relation to equity and fairness. No one
individual‟s or company‟s interest is singled out for additional environmental restrictions. Where
financial loss is a direct result of designation, this is compensated. Controls on some activities
on the site are already substantially set by notification as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). The submission of the site should not directly create:
impacts resulting in increased rural poverty;
impacts effecting vulnerable people (e.g. the elderly, ethnic minorities, those with
impacts that differentially affect gender or race equality.
7. Small Firms’ Impact test
The primary effects on any business will be for them to require consents if they plan to develop
their landholdings and subsequently be assessed against the conservation objectives of the
European site, and where necessary to have existing permissions amended or revoked (and
compensation paid). A full assessment of the incidence or quantity of applications for
development or other consents likely to affect the site is not possible. These may have been
granted in the past, or may still be at the initial consideration stage. The consultation and maps
appropriate to the site do not appear to coincide with traditionally problematic conflicts such as
existing housing, infrastructure developments or coastal developments.
Arrangements already exist, under management agreements designed to protect and enhance
the SSSI conservation value of agriculture holdings, to provide compensation to those SME
businesses for any controls on their business activities which arise from the designation as a
8. Competition Assessment
The principal economic sector that may be affected by the designation proposals is the peat
sector. If the site is submitted, the sector would need to follow the measures outlined in the
Habitats Regulations 1994 which prevent plans or projects from being carried out which are
likely to impact on the site. Moreover, the peat sector will lose a key resource for raw peat
materials. This could increase competition for peat resources. Peat extraction is now limited to
a few sites and companies. In 2005, 13.3% of peat extracted in GB came from Bolton Fell Moss.
3.44 million m3 of peat is used in the UK annually, of which 96% is used as growing media and
66% of which is used by gardeners. The amateur gardening market accounted for a 54%
increase in the use of peat between 1993 and 1999. 65% of all peat used in the United Kingdom
is imported from other countries, including Eire and the Baltic states (DETR, 2000).
9. Enforcement, Sanctions and Monitoring/Implementation and Delivery Plan
Monitoring of the site will be undertaken by NE to see whether the systems of control are
working effectively and to ensure that the nature conservation objectives are being met.
Compliance costs are expected to be minimal and therefore a new system for formal monitoring
would not be justified.
The Government should however be broadly aware of any costs to business due to modification
or rejection of development proposals, since most planning applications adversely affecting
SACs are expected to be called in for decision by the Secretary of State. In addition, any
existing permissions for which modification or revocation was proposed would be referred to the
appropriate Secretary of State for confirmation.
10. Post-implementation review
Submitting this cSAC is not proposing new legislation, so once they are adopted by the
Commission, it would be subject to measures and review imposed under the Habitats Directive,
transposed into our current Habitats Regulations 1994.
11. Summary and recommendation
The recommendation is that Option 3 is preferred. The site should be submitted as a cSAC to
the European Commission before 31 August 2008.
Specific Impact Tests: Checklist
Use the table below to demonstrate how broadly you have considered the potential impacts of your
Ensure that the results of any tests that impact on the cost-benefit analysis are contained within
the main evidence base; other results may be annexed.
Type of testing undertaken Results in Results
Evidence Base? annexed?
Competition Assessment No Yes
Small Firms Impact Test No Yes
Legal Aid No Yes
Sustainable Development No Yes
Carbon Assessment Yes Yes
Other Environment Yes Yes
Health Impact Assessment No Yes
Race Equality No Yes
Disability Equality No Yes
Gender Equality No Yes
Human Rights No Yes
Rural Proofing No Yes
SPECIFIC IMPACT TESTS: CHECKLIST
Specific Specific considerations Outcome
Economic Competition • Will the proposal have a significant No significant impact
Assessment impact on competition?
Small Firms • Will the proposal impact on small No significant impact
Impact Test businesses?
Legal Aid • Will the proposal introduce new Yes, under Habitats
Impact Test criminal sanctions or civil penalties? Regulations 23, 26(5),
28, 90(3), 95(4) & 99(4)
Other Economic • Will the proposal bring receipts or No
Issues: savings to Government?
• Will it impact on costs, quality or No
availability of goods and services?
• Will it impact on the public sector, the Yes
third sector, consumers?
• Will the proposal result in new No
• Will the proposal result in a change in No
the investment behaviour both into the
UK and UK firms overseas and into
Environmental Carbon and • Will the proposal lead to change in the Yes, there will be a
Greenhouse emission of Greenhouse Gases? reduction of greenhouse
Gas gasses in the long term
Assessment through peat bog carbon
Other • Will the proposal be vulnerable to the No
Environmental predicted effects of climate change?
Issues: • Will it lead to a change in the financial No
costs or environmental and health
impacts of waste management?
• Will it impact significantly on air No
• Will it involve any material change to Yes. In the long term
the appearance of the landscape or there will be more peat
townscape? bog habitat.
• Will it change the degree of water Yes. More peat bog in
pollution; levels of abstraction of water; the long term should
exposure to flood risk? reduce flood risks.
• Will it disturb or enhance habitat or Enhance
• Will it affect the number of people Yes. Decreased noise in
exposed to noise or the levels of the local vicinity due to
exposure? the cessation of peat
extraction works and
Social Health Impact • Will the proposal have an impact on Positive impact in the
Assessment health, well-being or health inequalities? local area through
Race Equality • Have you considered how to assess Not applicable.
the proposal‟s impact of on race
equality? This is a statutory obligation.
Gender Equality • Have you assessed the proposal‟s Not applicable.
impact on men and women? This is a
Disability • Have you assessed the proposal‟s Not applicable.
equality impact on disability equality? This is a
Human Rights • Will the policy have an impact on Not applicable.
Rural Proofing • Will the policy have a different impact Yes, it will provide better
in rural areas? habitat and wildlife
protection in a rural area.
• Could the proposal have a differential
• Children and young people? No
• Older people? No
• Could the proposal have a differential
o Income groups? No
o Devolved countries? No
o Particular regions of the UK? No
Sustainable SD Principles • Have you considered all of the above Yes. The proposal will
development issues and does the proposal comply enable the regeneration
with Sustainable Development of one of the largest
Principles? degraded raised bogs in
England, and provide
increased protection to
wildlife and habitats.