Montgomery Canal Conservation Management Strategy (1.2MB PDF)

4.1 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
For a situation as complex as the Montgomery Canal, with many overlapping and sometimes conflicting interests,
there will be a number of potential ways forward that are capable of delivering improvements. It is therefore
necessary to study a number of alternative options, against the full range of criteria (environmental, social and
economic), as part of the process of defining the best way forward.
This process of appraisal also becomes a requirement under the European Habitats Regulations, where any scheme
deemed to have an impact on the nature conservation interest of the site, has to go through an alternative solutions
process: see Figure 4.1.
Consideration of a Plan or Project (PP) affecting a Natura 2000 Site.
Is the PP directly connected with or necessary
to the site management for nature conservation
No
Yes
Is the PP likely to have significant effects
on the site
Yes
No
Access implications for site’s
conservation objectives
Will the PP adversely affect the integrity
of the site
Yes
No
Are there alternative solutions
Yes
No
Redraft the PP
Does the site host a priority
habitat or species
No
Yes
Are there imperative reasons of
overriding public interest
Are there human health or safety considerations
or important environmental benefits
No Yes
No Yes
Authorisation must not
be granted
Authorisation may be granted
for other imperative reasons
of overriding public interest,
following consultation with the
Commission. Compensation
measures have to be taken
Authorisation may be
granted. Compensation
measures are taken.
The Commission is
informed
Authorisation may be
granted
Figure 4.1. Decision flowchart for European Habitat Regulations.
62