Cambridge City Council / South Cambridgeshire District Council

To be accompanied by a table which identifies how it provides /encompasses both LPA’s SA and SHLAA assessments. Text in italics are officer prompts to be deleted on completion.

Green Belt Site and Sustainability Appraisal Assessment Proforma

Site Information Broad Location 6-Land South of Addenbrookes and Southwest of Babraham Road Site reference number(s): CC925 Site name/address: Land South of Addenbrookes and Southwest of Babraham Road Functional area (taken from SA Scoping Report): City only Map:

Site description:

Current use(s): Agriculture

Proposed use(s): Residential

Site size (ha): 39.80ha South Cambridgeshire:0.00 ha Cambridge: Assumed net developable area: 19.9-29.85 (assuming 50% net or 75% net) Assumed residential density: 45dph

Potential residential capacity: 896-1343

Site owner/promoter: Owner known

Landowner has agreed to promote site for development?: Yes/No

Site origin: Relevant planning history:

The Cambridge 2006 Local Plan covers this area and promoted the creation of a new urban edge to the north of this site. This is being implemented through the Addenbrooke's and Bell School developments to the north with the intention that this site would remain as Green Belt with an open aspect and view across to the new urban boundary.

See conclusions under Green Belt above, on conclusions of Inspector on Minerals and Waste Examination in relation to land on the southern fringe.

No relevant planning applications for residential use.

Conformity with the Council’s Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) Criteria Performance (fill with Comments relevant colour R G B or RR R A G GG etc and retain only chosen score text) Is the site within an area R = No that has been identified as G = Yes suitable for development in the SDS? Flood Risk Criteria Performance Comments Is site within a flood zone? R = Flood risk zone 3 Green:The location lies A = Flood risk zone 2 entirely within Flood Risk G = Flood risk zone 1 Zone 1 (the lowest level of river flood risk). The location however is subject to surface water drainage issues. Is site at risk from surface R = High risk, Amber: Fairly significant water flooding? A = Medium risk surface water issue toward G = Low risk the north of the site. Careful mitigation required which could impact on achievable site densities as greater level of green infrastructure required.

Green Belt Criteria Performance Comments What effect would the See below Dinah development of this site have on Green Belt purposes, and other matters important to the special character of Cambridge and setting? To preserve the unique Distance from edge of the Dinah character of Cambridge as defined City Centre in a compact and dynamic Kilometres to approximate City with a thriving historic centre of site core To prevent communities in RR = Very significant impacts Dinah the environs of Cambridge R = Significant negative from merging into one impacts another and with the City. A = Some impact, but capable of mitigation G = No impact

To maintain and enhance RR = Very high and high Dinah the quality of the setting of impacts Cambridge R = High/medium impacts A = Medium and medium/minor impacts G = Minor and minor/negligible impacts GG = Negligible impacts Key views of Cambridge / R = Significant negative Dinah Important views impact from loss or degradation of views. A = Negative impact from loss or degradation of views. G = No or negligible impact on views Soft green edge to the City R = Existing high quality Dinah edge, significant negative impacts incapable of mitigation. A = Existing lesser quality edge / negative impacts but capable of mitigation G = Not present, significant opportunities for enhancement. Distinctive urban edge R = Existing high quality Dinah edge, significant negative impacts incapable of mitigation. A = Existing lesser quality edge / negative impacts but capable of mitigation G = Not present Green corridors penetrating R = Significant negative Dinah into the City impact from loss of land forming part of a green corridor, incapable of mitigation A = Negative impact from loss of land forming part of a green corridor, but capable of mitigation G = No loss of land forming part of a green corridor / significant opportunities for enhancement through creation of a new green corridor Designated sites and other R = Significant negative Dinah features contributing impacts incapable of positively to the character of satisfactory mitigation the landscape setting. A = Negative impacts but capable of mitigation G = Not present / no impact on such features The distribution, physical RR = Very significant Dinah separation, setting, scale negative impacts incapable and character of Green Belt of satisfactory mitigation villages (SCDC only) R = Significant negative impacts incapable of satisfactory mitigation A = Negative impacts but capable of partial mitigation G = No impacts or minor impacts capable of mitigation

A landscape which has a R = Significant negative Dinah strongly rural character impacts incapable of satisfactory mitigation A = Negative impacts but capable of partial mitigation G = No impacts or impacts capable of mitigation Overall conclusion on RR = Very high and high Dinah Green Belt impacts R = High/medium impacts A = Medium and medium/minor impacts G = Minor and minor/negligible impacts GG = Negligible impacts Impact on national Nature Conservation Designations Criteria Performance Comments Would allocation impact R = Site is on or adjacent to No upon a Site of Special an SSSI with negative Scientific Interest (SSSI)? impacts incapable of mitigation A = Site is on or adjacent to an SSSI with negative impacts capable of mitigation G = Site is not near to an SSSI with no or negligible impacts Impact on National Heritage Assets Criteria Performance Comments Will allocation impact upon R = Site is on a SAM or No a Scheduled Ancient allocation will lead to Monument (SAM)? development adjacent to a SAM with the potential for negative impacts incapable of mitigation A = Site is adjacent to a SAM that is less sensitive / not likely to be impacted or impacts are capable of mitigation G = Site is not on or adjacent to a SAM Would development impact R = Site contains, is No upon Listed Buildings? adjacent to, or within the setting of such buildings with potential for significant negative impacts incapable of appropriate mitigation A = Site contains, is adjacent to, or within the setting of such buildings with potential for negative impacts capable of appropriate mitigation G = Site does not contain or adjoin such buildings, and there is no impact to the setting of such buildings Part B: Deliverability and Viability Criteria Criteria Performance Comments Is the site allocated or R = Site or a significant part Green: The adopted Core safeguarded in the Minerals of it falls within an allocated Strategy, Policy CS16, and Waste LDF? or safeguarded area, identifies Cambridge south development would have as a Broad Location for a significant negative impacts new Household Recycling A = Site or a significant part Centre (HRC). This site falls of it falls within an allocated within this broad location. or safeguarded area, Policy CS16 requires major development would have developments to contribute minor negative impacts to the provision of HRCs, G = Site is not within an consistent with the adopted allocated or safeguarded RECAP Waste area. Management Guide. Contributions may be required in the form of land and / or capital payments. This outstanding infrastructure deficit for an HRC must be addressed, such infrastructure is a strategic priority in the NPPF.

The north west part of this site lies within the Waste Consultation Area (CS30) which surrounds the strategic allocation at Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge (CS19); the allocation is for a replacement clinical waste energy from waste facility. The designation / allocation are made through the adopted Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

The suggested Duty to Cooperate criteria should be added to this site assessment

Cambridge south:

A planning application for the Addenbrookes Energy Centre is expected shortly.

Is the site located within the R = Site is within the PSZ Air Safeguarding Area - No Cambridge Airport Public A = Site or part of site within erection of buildings, Safety Zone (PSZ) or the SZ structures and works Safeguarding Zone? G = Site is not within the exceeding 150ft (45.7m) in PSZ or SZ height Is there a suitable access to R = No CCC Highways (Ian Dyers the site? A = Yes, with mitigation team to provide details) G = Yes Would allocation of the site R = Insufficient capacity. All Sites (A14) have a significant impact on Negative effects incapable the local highway capacity? of appropriate mitigation. With regard to the A14 (and A = Insufficient capacity. no doubt the Highways Negative effects capable of Agency will be providing an appropriate mitigation. update on this), you may be G = No capacity constraints aware that the Department identified that cannot be for Transport announced in fully mitigated July that the A14 improvement scheme has been added to the national roads programme. Design work is underway on a scheme that will incorporate a Huntingdon Southern Bypass, capacity enhancements along the length of the route between Milton Interchange to the North of Cambridge and Huntingdon, and the construction of parallel local access roads to enable the closure of minor junctions onto the A14. The main impact, in relation to Grange Farm and other potential Local Plan sites, is that existing capacity constraints on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon will be removed. The funding package and delivery programme for the scheme is still to be confirmed, and major development in the Cambridge area, which will benefit from the enhanced capacity, will undoubtedly be required to contribute towards the scheme costs, either directly or through the Community Infrastructure Levy. The earliest construction start would be 2018, with delivery by the mid-2020s being possible. All Sites (Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Requirements)

It is worth reiterating that All of these sites are This site is of a scale that would trigger the need for a Transportation Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP), regardless of the need for a full Environmental Impact Assessment. This requirement is mentioned in the text for some sites, but not all.

There is potential for overspill parking to occur within the development site from Addenbrookes Hospital, which should be highlighted in the car parking section.

Size of development not specified.

Site on Southern edge of Cambridge. Requirement for transport modelling using the Cambridge Sub-Regional Model (CSRM to consider wider strategic impact).

Full Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plans (TP) for residential, schools and employment sites required.

Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 3, Cambridge Area Transport Strategy and Southern Corridor Area Transport Plan will need to be taken into account.

Potential impact on M11 Junction 11.

No direct rail access, but connection to Cambridge Station via extended Guided Busway or enhanced local bus services likely to be required. Also – potential for cycle access to Great Shelford Station. Opportunities to enhance walking and cycling routes between the site and Cambridge city centre, Addenbrookes Hospital and other key facilities. Opportunities to develop and enhance bus services connecting to Cambridge city centre, the railway station and other key destinations – using Cambridge Guided Bus where possible. Potential requirement to enhance Park and Ride site to provide greater capacity. A1307 corridor will need to be considered – capacity constraints at Addenbrookes Junction and along corridor into Cambridge will need to be addressed. Would allocation of the site R = Insufficient capacity. As it stands the A14 have a significant impact on Negative effects incapable corridor cannot the strategic road network of appropriate mitigation. accommodate any capacity? A = Insufficient capacity. significant additional levels Negative effects capable of of new development traffic. appropriate mitigation. There are proposed minor G = No capacity constraints improvements to the A14 in identified that cannot be the short term (within 2 fully mitigated years), which are expected to release a limited amount of capacity, however the nature and scale of these are yet to be determined. The Department for Transport are also carrying out a study looking at improving things longer term, in the wake of the withdrawn Ellington to Fen Ditton Scheme. This site has the potential advantage of dispersed trip- making patterns in relation to the Strategic Road Network (SRN), and the site is likely to be well related to central Cambridge for much of its trip-making. Given the above it is likely that a substantial proportion could be delivered without any adverse impact upon the SRN. A robust assessment would be required to determine what this proportion might realistically be. Is the site part of a larger R = Yes major impact Yes, this site could be part site and could it prejudice A = Some impact of a larger site and development of any G = No impact potentially provide a link strategic sites? through to the Addenbrooke’s Road to the west, but this would be dependent on further releases of land outside of the city boundary. The site could also be linked to the Bell School site, although the proposal for that site does not provide for a road link through at present. The inclusion of additional land might also maximise development opportunities and provide a better opportunity for the formation of a sustainable community. However, its not likely that the development of this site alone would unduly prejudice other sites because of various existing access roads in the area. Are there any known legal R = Yes issues/covenants that could G = No constrain development of the site? Timeframe for bringing the R = Beyond 2031 (beyond Myles to ring the County site forward for plan period) Council for an development? A = Start of construction indication of their between 2017 and 2031 intentions and potential G = Start of construction timescales. between 2011 and 2016 Would development of the R = Yes, significant Improved utilities required. site require significant new / upgrades likely to be The developer will need to upgraded utility required but constraints liaise with the relevant infrastructure? incapable of appropriate service provider/s to mitigation determine the appropriate A = Yes, significant utility infrastructure upgrades likely to be provision. required, constraints capable of appropriate mitigation G = No, existing infrastructure likely to be sufficient Would development of the R = School capacity not Education comments site be likely to require new sufficient, constraints education provision? cannot be appropriately mitigated. A = School capacity not sufficient, constraints can be appropriately mitigated G = Non-residential development / surplus school places

Level 2 Accessibility to existing centres and services Criteria Performance Comments How far is the site from the R = >800m Site is over 800m from nearest District or Local A = 400-800m nearest local centre centre? G = <400m How far is the nearest R = >800m Site is over 800m from health centre or GP service A = 400-800m nearest health centre or GP in Cambridge? G = <400m service. Would development lead to R = Development would No a loss of community lead to the loss of one or facilities? more community facilities incapable of appropriate mitigation G = Development would not lead to the loss of any community facilities or appropriate mitigation possible How far is the nearest R = >3km Site is between 1 and 3km secondary school? A = 1-3km from nearest secondary G = <1km or non-housing school. allocation or site large enough to provide new school How far is the nearest City preference: Site is over 800m from primary school? nearest primary school R = >800m A = 400-800m G = <400m or non-housing allocations or site large enough to provide new school

R = >3km A = 1-3 km G = <1km or non housing allocation or site large enough to provide new school

Would development protect R = Significant negative Green: The site would the shopping hierarchy, effect probably be large enough to supporting the vitality and A = Negative effect support a new Local Centre viability of Cambridge, G = No effect or would or neighbourhood shops. Town, District and Local support the vitality and The nearest Local Centre is Centres? viability of existing centres Wulfstan Way, but this is a considerable distance. The distance to Wulfstan Way would mean that a new Local Centre on this site is unlikely to have an impact on the existing hierarchy.

Accessibility to outdoor facilities and green spaces Criteria Performance Comments Would development result R=Yes Leave blank in SCDC in the loss of land protected G=No by Cambridge Local Plan policy 4/2 or South Cambridgeshire Development Control policy SF/9? (excluding land which is protected only because of its Green Belt status).Is the site defined as protected open space or have the potential to be protected

If the site is protected open R=No Leave blank in SCDC space can the open space be G=Yes The site owner must replaced according to CLP provide details of how this Local Plan policy 4/2 can be achieved Protection of Open Space or South Cambridgeshire Development Control policy SF/9 (for land in South Cambridgeshire)? If the site does not involve any RR = No, the site by virtue of No obvious constraints that protected open space would its size is not able to provide prevent the site providing development of the site be the minimum standard of OS full on-site provision. able to increase the quantity and is located in a ward or and quality of publically parish with identified accessible open space deficiency. /outdoor sports facilities and . achieve the minimum R= No, the site by virtue of standards of onsite public its size is not able to open space provision? provide the minimum standard of OS.

G = Assumes minimum onsite provision to adopted plan standards is provided onsite

GG = Development would create the opportunity to deliver significantly enhanced provision of new public open spaces in excess of adopted plan standards

Supporting Economic Growth Criteria Performance Comments How far is the nearest main R = >3km Site is within 1km of an employment centre? A = 1-3km employment centre. G = <1km or allocation is for or includes a significant element of employment or is for another non- residential use Would development result R = Significant loss of Development would not in the loss of employment employment land and job lead to the loss of land identified in the opportunities not mitigated employment land identified Employment Land Review? by alternative allocation in in the Employment Land the area (> 50%) Review. A = Some loss of employment land and job opportunities mitigated by alternative allocation in the area (< 50%). G = No loss of employment land / allocation is for employment development Would allocation result in A = Not within or adjacent Site in: the Shelfords and development in deprived to the 40% most deprived Stapleford LSOA 8292: 3.62 areas of Cambridge? Super Output Areas within and adjacent to Queen Cambridge according to the Edith’s LSOA 7995: 3.99 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010. G = Within or adjacent to the 40% most deprived Local Super Output Areas (LSOA) within Cambridge according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010. Sustainable Transport Criteria Performance Comments What type of public R = Service does not meet The site has a reasonable transport service is the requirements of a high public transport service, accessible at the edge of quality public transport particularly with the Park & the site? (HQPT) Ride site at Babraham A = service meets being just a few metres requirements of high quality from the eastern edge of public transport in most but the site, but does not meet not all instances the Local Plan (Policy 8/7) G = High quality public definition of high quality transport service public transport.

How far is the site from an R = >800m More than 800m. existing or proposed train A = 400 - 800m station? G = <400m

What type of cycle routes RR = no cycling provision Amber: provided there are are accessible near to the and traffic speeds >30mph good links to the Bell site? with high vehicular traffic School cycle links to volume. Red Cross Lane and up to Long Rd. R = No cycling provision or a cycle lane less than 1.5m width with medium volume of traffic. Having to cross a busy junction with high cycle accident rate to access local facilities/school. Poor quality off road path.

A = Medium quality off-road path.

G = Quiet residential street speed below 30mph, cycle lane with 1.5m minimum width, high quality off-road path e.g. cycleway adjacent to guided busway.

GG = Quiet residential street designed for 20mph speeds, high quality off- road paths with good segregation from pedestrians, uni-directional hybrid cycle lanes. SCDC Would development RR = Score 0-4 from 4 criteria SCDC to complete for edge of reduce the need to travel and below City Sites promote sustainable transport R = Score 5-9 from 4 criteria choices: below A = Score 10-14 from 4 criteria below G = Score 15-19 from 4 criteria below GG = Score 19-24 from 4 criteria below SCDC Sub-indicator: Distance Within 400m (6) SCDC to complete for edge of to a bus stop / rail station Within 600m (4) City Sites Within 800m (3) Within 1000m (2) Beyond 1000m (0) SCDC Sub-indicator: 10 minute service or better (6) SCDC to complete for edge of Frequency of Public Transport 20 minute service (4) City Sites 30 minute service (3) 60 minute service (2) Less than hourly service (0) SCDC Sub-Indicator: Typical 20 minutes or less (6) SCDC to complete for edge of public transport journey time to Between 21 and 30 minutes City Sites Cambridge City Centre (4) Between 31 and 40 minutes (3) Between 41 and 50 minutes (2) Greater than 50 minutes (0) SCDC Sub-indicator: Distance Up to 5km (6) SCDC to complete for edge of for cycling to City Centre 5-10Km (4) City Sites 10-15km (3) 15Km+ (2) 20km + (0) Air Quality, pollution, contamination and noise Criteria Performance Comments Is the site within or near to R = Within or adjacent to an Green:The site is not within an AQMA, the M11 or the AQMA, M11 or A14 the Air Quality Management A14? A = <1000m of an AQMA, Area. The site is however M11 or A14 large enough to have G = >1000m of an AQMA, potential impact on air M11, or A14 quality from traffic generation particularly as close to Addenbrookes. More than 1000 metres from an AQMA, M11 or A14. Would the development of R = Significant adverse Red: The site is large the site result in an adverse impact enough to have a significant impact/worsening of air A = Adverse impact adverse impact on air quality? G = Minimal, no impact, quality from traffic reduced impact generation particularly as close to Addenbrookes. An air quality assessment is essential. Are there potential noise R = Significant adverse Amber: Site adjacent to a and vibration problems if impacts incapable of major road, frontages will the site is developed, as a appropriate mitigation be the noisiest part of the receptor or generator? A = Adverse impacts site from the road. Some capable of adequate uses particularly industrial mitigation could affect existing G = No adverse effects or residential. Noise capable of full mitigation assessment and potential mitigation measures required.

Are there potential light R = Significant adverse Green: From purely the pollution problems if the site impacts incapable of residential amenity point of is developed, as a receptor appropriate mitigation view the light impact from or generator? A = Adverse impacts development would require capable of adequate assessment in the ES but mitigation could be fully mitigated. G = No adverse effects or capable of full mitigation Other agencies should be consulted regarding the impact on wild life, night sky and the County Council regarding impact on public highways. Are there potential odour R = Significant adverse Amber: Potential odour problems if the site is impacts incapable of problems for certain types developed, as a receptor or appropriate mitigation of development. generator? A = Adverse impacts capable of adequate mitigation G = No adverse effects or capable of full mitigation Is there possible R = All or a significant part Amber: The site has former contamination on the site? of the site within an area potentially contaminative with a history of activities. Further contamination which, due to assessment is required. physical constraints or economic viability, is incapable of appropriate mitigation during the plan period A = Site partially within or adjacent to an area with a history of contamination, or capable of remediation appropriate to proposed development G = Site not within or adjacent to an area with a history of contamination Protecting Groundwater Criteria Performance Comments Would development be R = Within SPZ 1 within a source protection G = Not within SPZ1 or zone? allocation is for greenspace Groundwater sources (e.g. wells, boreholes and springs) are used for public drinking water supply. These zones show the risk of contamination from any activities that might cause pollution in the area.

Protecting the townscape and historic environment (Landscape addressed by Green Belt criteria) Criteria Performance Comments

Would allocation impact R = Site contains, is No upon a historic adjacent to, or within the park/garden? setting of such areas with potential for significant negative impacts incapable of appropriate mitigation A = Site contains, is adjacent to, or within the setting of such areas with potential for negative impacts capable of appropriate mitigation G = Site does not contain or adjoin such areas, and there is no impact to the setting of such areas Would development impact R = Site contains, is No upon a Conservation Area? adjacent to, or within the setting of such an area with potential for significant negative impacts incapable of appropriate mitigation A = Site contains, is adjacent to, or within the setting of such an area with potential for negative impacts capable of appropriate mitigation G = Site does not contain or adjoin such an area, and there is no impact to the setting of such an area Would development impact A = Site contains, is No upon buildings of local adjacent to, or within the interest (Cambridge only) setting of such buildings with potential for negative impacts capable of appropriate mitigation G = Site does not contain or adjoin such buildings, and there is no impact to the setting of such buildings Would development impact A = Known archaeology on County Archaeology staff to upon archaeology? site or in vicinity complete comments. G=No known archaeology on site or in vicinity

Making Efficient Use of Land Criteria Performance Comments Would development lead to the R = Significant loss (20 ha or Majority of site on Grade 2 loss of the best and most more) of grades 1 and 2 land land. versatile agricultural land? A = Minor loss of grade 1 and 2 land G = Neutral. Development would not affect grade 1 and 2 land. Would development make use R = No No of previously developed land G = Yes (PDL)? (CITY) Would development make use A=No of previously developed land G=Yes (PDL)? (SCDC) Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Criteria Performance Comments Would development impact R = Contains or is adjacent to The majority of the site is upon a locally designated an existing site and impacts currently arable land with the wildlife site i.e. (Local Nature incapable of appropriate key ecological features Reserve, County Wildlife Site, mitigation associated with the field City Wildlife Site) A = Contains or is adjacent to boundaries i.e hedgerows, an existing site and impacts drainage ditches and tree capable of appropriate belts. As with much of the mitigation arable land surrounding the G = Does not contain, is not City it still support good adjacent to or local area will be populations of farmland birds developed as greenspace such as skylark and grey partridge, as well as Brown Hares. Corn Buntings are regular breeding species in these fields. The hedgerows also support breeding linnet, yellowhammer and whitethroat.

The Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy identifies the area is adjacent to a number of nature conservation designations (some of which overlay each other) including Sites of Strategic Scientific Interest (East Pit and Limekiln Hill), Local Nature Reserves (Cherry Hinton Pits, Beechwoods), Protected Roadside Verges (Worts Causeway, Limekiln Hill), County Wildlife Sites (Netherhall Farm).

The Hedgerow west of Babraham Road is a Local Nature Reserve and runs along the northern edge of the site. Does the site offer opportunity R = Development involves a The whole site is of strategic for green infrastructure loss of existing green importance for Countywide delivery? infrastructure which is Green Infrastructure and is incapable of appropriate proposed for landscape scale mitigation. chalk grassland restoration in A = No significant opportunities the adopted 2011 or loss of existing green Cambridgeshire Green infrastructure capable of Infrastructure Strategy. The appropriate mitigation vision is to link up the existing G = Development could deliver isolated sites with significant new green Wandlebury, Gog Magogs, infrastructure Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve and the natural green space of the Clay Farm development.

Species of particular note currently known on or adjacent to the site include breeding Peregrine Falcon, Barbastelle Bat, Glow Worm, Grape Hyacinth, Moon Carrot, White Helloborine, Grey Partridge, Corn Bunting, and Brown Hare. It appears no ecological information has been submitted at this time. Full ecological surveys would be required in order to assess potential impacts. Would development reduce R = Development would have a habitat fragmentation, enhance negative impact on existing native species, and help features or network links deliver habitat restoration incapable of appropriate (helping to achieve Biodiversity mitigation Action Plan targets?) A = Development would have a negative impact on existing features or network links but capable of appropriate mitigation G = Development could have a positive impact by enhancing existing features and adding new features or network links Are there trees on site or R = Development likely to have There are protected trees just immediately adjacent protected a significant adverse impact on outside the by a Tree Preservation Order the protected trees incapable of northern boundary of the site. (TPO)? appropriate mitigation Pre-development tree survey A = Any adverse impact on to British protected trees capable of Standard 5837 may be appropriate mitigation required. G = Site does not contain or adjoin any protected trees Any other information not captured above?

Conclusions Cross site comparison What is this? Level 1 Conclusion (after RR = Very significant Add brief commentary here allowing scope for constraints or adverse mitigation) impacts R = Significant constraints or adverse impacts A = Some constraints or adverse impacts G = Minor constraints or adverse impacts GG = None or negligible constraints or adverse impacts Level 2 Conclusion (after R = Significant constraints Ditto. Could potentially be allowing scope for or adverse impacts done to 5 levels. mitigation) A = Some constraints or adverse impacts G = Minor constraints or adverse impacts

Overall Conclusion R = Site with no significant Ditto. Could potentially be development potential done to 5 levels. (significant constraints Sites ranked A or G will be and adverse impacts) taken forward for viability A = Site with development assessment by consultants potential (some constraints or adverse impacts) G = Site with development potential (few or minor constraints or adverse impacts) Viability feedback (from R = Unlikely to be viable, consultants) A = May be viable G = Likely to be viable