Environmental Statement
March 2017
Prepared by: Turley
Environmental Statement Proposed Development at Haydock Point
Volume 2: Main Text
January 2017
Glossary of Terminology
Term / Abbreviation Definition
Measures which may be implemented at specific points in the Additional mitigation future or when specific events are observed
The ALC system classifies land into five grades (Grades 1-5) based on climate, site specific criteria and soil type, with Grade 3 subdivided into Subgrades 3a and 3b. The best and most Agricultural Land versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a by policy guidance Classification (ALC) (see Annex 2 of NPPF). This is the land which is lost flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs and which can best deliver future crops for food and non food uses such as biomass, fibres and pharmaceuticals.
Website which provides information on existing levels of air Air Pollution Information pollutants and provides details on emission levels likely to System impact on specific habitat types.
Area identified by the local authority, within which there may Air Quality Management be locations where the air quality objectives are not being Area (AQMA) achieved.
A nationally defined set of health-based concentrations for nine pollutants, seven of which are incorporated in Regulations, Air Quality Objectives setting out the extent to which the standards should be achieved by a defined date. There are also vegetation-based objectives for sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Statistical survey of households conducted quarterly by the Annual Population Survey Office for National Statistics, which aims to provide reliable (APS) estimates on a range of key topics including education, employment, health and ethnicity.
Annual survey by the Office of National Statistics to collect Annual Survey of Hours information on the levels, distribution and make-up of earnings and Earnings (ASHE) and hours paid, based on a 1 per cent sample of employee jobs drawn from HM Revenue and Customs records.
An assessment, based on BS 5837:2012, of trees in terms of their potential value within a future development (by one of Arboricultural Implication four quality categories: A, B, C or U). Includes an assessment of Assessment (AIA) the impact of the proposed development on the existing tree stock and measures to minimise any such impact;
Automatic Traffic Count A method of traffic data collection, typically using two rubber (ATC) tubes laid across the carriageway linked to a road side recorded box. The tubes can measure both speed and number of vehicle
movements and in some cases the weight of vehicles passing over.
Average Annual Daily Average annual daily traffic flow using a select link or movement Traffic Flows (AADT) over a seven day 24 hour period.
Average Annual Weekday Average annual daily traffic flow using a select link or movement Traffic Flows (AAWT) over a five day 18 hour period.
Baseline Traffic Flows Traffic flows as surveyed.
Bat Conservation Trust National charity involved in research, conservation, monitoring, (BCT) training and guidance on bat issues.
Best and Most Versatile ALC Grades 1, 2 and 3a by policy guidance (see (BMV)
Biodiversity Action Plan A plan to conserve and/or enhance a habitat or species.
Bird of Conservation Birds are listed as red, amber or green in relation to their risk of Concern (BCC) extinction.
"British Standards" means formal consensus standards as set out in BS 0-1 paragraph 3.2 and based upon the principles of British Standard (BS) standardisation recognised inter alia in European standardisation policy.
The Department of Transport document, CRTN, describes the Calculation of Road Traffic procedures for measuring and calculating noise from road Noise (CRTN) traffic.
Chartered Institute of Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Ecology and (formerly IEEM). The leading professional membership body Environmental representing and supporting ecologists and environmental Management (CIEEM) managers in the UK, Ireland and abroad.
Construction Environment A document prepared to help manage impacts during the Management Plan clearance and construction phase of a development
Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA)
The model procedures (also known as ‘Contaminated Land Report 11’ or ‘CLR 11’) have been developed by the Contaminated Land Report Environment Agency to provide the technical framework for (CLR) applying a risk management process when dealing with land affected by contamination.
A measure of how much demand a road it is experiencing Degree of Saturation (Dos) compared to its total capacity. A document prepared to help manage how deliveries to a Delivery Management Plan development are received.
The ministerial department responsible for moving decision- Department for making power from central government to local councils. This Communities and Local is intended to help put communities in charge of planning, Government (DCLG) increases accountability and helps citizens to see how their money is being spent
DfT is a ministerial department. The department provides Department for Transport policy, guidance and funding to English local authorities in (DfT) order to run and maintain road networks, improve passenger and freight travel and develop new major transport schemes.
The government department responsible for environmental Department of Environment protection, food production and standards, agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs fisheries and rural communities in the United Kingdom of (DEFRA) Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” was introduced in 1992 by the Overseeing Organisations specifically for Trunk Road Works throughout the UK. In England, the Overseeing Design Manual for Roads and Organisation is The Highways Agency. It provides a Bridges (DMRB) comprehensive manual system which accommodates, within a set of loose-leaf volumes, current Standards, Advice Notes and other published documents relating to Trunk Road Works.
A World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Designated heritage asset Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.
Designated or proposed Areas of land recognised as being at least county, importance County Wildlife Sites (CWS) for their nature conservation value.
Desk Based Assessment A Desk-based Assessment takes into consideration all known (DBA) records relating to a defined area
A Circular issued by the Department for Transport in 2013 entitled ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’ which sets out the way in which DfT Circular 02/2013 Highways England will engage with communities and the development industry to deliver sustainable development and, thus, economic growth, whilst safeguarding the primary function and purpose of the strategic road network.
DfT Matrix Publicly accessible Department for Transport website which provides street level traffic count data for A roads and the motorway network in Great Britain.
Ecological Impact A standard process of assessing impacts of development on Assessment (EcIA) features of nature conservation value developed by CIEEM.
DNA that can be extracted from environmental samples, in eDNA Environmental DNA this case great crested newt DNA in water bodies.
How the Project has been specifically designed to avoid or Embedded mitigation minimise the occurrence of adverse environmental effects.
The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by Defra with responsibility for regulating major industry and waste; treatment of Environment Agency (EA) contaminated land; water quality and resources; fisheries; inland river, estuary and harbour navigations; conservation and ecology.
The formal process used to predict the environmental Environmental Impact consequences (positive or negative) of a plan, policy, Assessment (EIA) program, or project prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action.
Environmental Protection Act 1990 which makes provision for Environmental Protection the improved control of pollution arising from certain Act (EPA) industrial and other processes within the UK.
Environmental quality standards concerning the presence in surface water of certain pollutants and substances or groups Environmental Quality of substances identified as priority on account of the Standard (EQS) substantial risk they pose to or via the aquatic environment, as defined within the European Directive 2008/105/EC.
Environmental Statement Presents the findings of an Environmental Impact (ES) Assessment.
Environmental Statement The formal opinion from BMBC on the scope of the EIA. Scoping Opinion (ESSO)
Environmental Statement Presents the proposed assessment methodologies for the EIA. Scoping Report (ESSR)
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Report assessing flood risk from a range of sources.
A logistics led development proposed by Bericote Properties on a site to the north of the A580 East Lancashire Road in Florida Farm North Haydock (Ref 2016/0608). A resolution to approve the planning application was granted at planning committee in January 2017. Number of full-time employees, plus part-time employees Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) converted to a full-time basis.
Surveyed traffic flows with the addition of background traffic Future Baseline Traffic Flows growth and traffic related to committed developments
European protected species under Schedule 2 of the Great Crested Newts (GCN) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as amended.
Measures the contribution to the economy of each individual Gross Value Added (GVA) producer, industry or sector.
March 2016 document prepared by St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council to assist the Council in delivering an effective Guidance Notes for the and efficient Development Control service. The document is Submission of Transport intended to formalise guidance provided in the National Assessments Planning Policy Framework. All Transport Assessments (TA) should address the objectives detailed within this guidance.
A Habitat Regulations Assessment is required where a plan or Habitat Regulations project is likely to have a significant effect upon a European Assessment (HRA) site, either individually or in combination with other projects.
A standard method of assessing the suitability of a waterbody to support breeding great crested newts (GCN). The index is based on Oldham et al. (2000) and incorporates ten suitability Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) indices which are all factors known to affect the likelihood of GCN being present. The index varies from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating unsuitable habitat and 1 optimal habitat.
Highways England Manages the strategic highway road network
An executive non-departmental public body of the British Government sponsored by the Department for Culture, Historic England (HE) Media and Sport and is responsible for the management of the historic environment.
Information services that seek to provide access to Historic Environment Record comprehensive and dynamic resources relating to the historic (HER) environment of a defined geographic area for public benefit and use.
Executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government to help Home and Communities create successful communities by making more homes and Agency (HCA) business premises available to the residents and businesses who need them. Engineering Consultants and Contractors who prepared the Hydrock Transport Assessment to support the Florida Farm North planning application.
Official measure of relative levels of deprivation in small areas Indices of Multiple of England, published by the Department for Communities Deprivation (IMD) and Local Government.
Institute of Air Quality Professional body for those working in air quality. Management (IAQM)
The potential effects of the Project arising when combined Inter-project cumulative with and interacting with the effects of other major effects developments.
Intra-project cumulative The potential effects between environmental topic areas of effects the Project.
Benefit paid to help people who are unemployed but looking Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) for a job.
The public body that advises the UK Government and Joint Nature Conservation devolved administrations on UK-wide and international Committee (JNCC) nature conservation.
Kilometres (km) Measure of distance.
A document which sets out how the landscape features and Landscape and Habitat habitats will be managed post development to benefit Management Plan (LHMP wildlife.
The Landscape Institute (LI) is the chartered body for the Landscape Institute landscape profession.
The Flood and Water Management Act (2010) assigns powers Lead Local Flood Authority and duties to LLFAs for managing local flood risk. Local flood (LLFA) risk includes flooding from minor watercourses ('Ordinary Watercourses'), surface water and groundwater.
A traffic modelling package used to assess traffic signal LinSig controlled junctions
Statutory process whereby local authorities are required to Local Air Quality identify locations where the air quality objectives are not Management (LAQM) being achieved, and work towards achieving them.
Local Highways Authority Manages the local highway road network.
Statutory site for nature conservation of higher value than Local Nature Reserves (LNR) LWSs but of lower value than NNRs or SSSIs. The third Local Transport Plan for Merseyside. Adopted in 2011, this document sets out the regions implementation Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) plans in the short term to 2015 and looks to the longer term strategy for 2024 on how to improve transport in Merseyside.
Defined areas identified and selected locally for their nature Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) conservation value.
Geography designed for the collection and publication of Lower Super Output Areas small area statistics, with a minimum size of 1,000 residents (LSOAs) and 400 households.
Lowest Observed Adverse This is the level above which adverse effects on health and Effect Level (LOAEL) quality of life can be detected.
An area of sea and seabed (which can include intertidal areas) designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) for Marine Nature Reserve the purpose of conserving marine flora and fauna or (MNR) geological or physiographic features of special interest and/or providing opportunities for study and research.
A specialist unit which provides advice on specific Merseyside Environmental environmental matters to the six District Councils making up Advisory Service (MEAS) the Liverpool City Region.
Minerals safeguarded by the Mineral Planning Authority to Mineral Safeguarded Area ensure that non-mineral development does not needlessly (MSA) prevent future extraction of mineral resources of local and national importance.
Infrastructure engineering consultancy and Highways Mouchel England’s retained custodians of the VISSIM model of Junction 23 of the M6.
Multi-Agency Geographic Searchable mapping website which, among other things, Information for the displays location of statutory sites of nature conservation Countryside (MAGIC) interest and important/notable habitats.
National Biodiversity A charity created to exchange biodiversity information. Network (NBN)
A National Character Area (NCAs) is a natural subdivision of England based on a combination of landscape, biodiversity, National Character Areas geodiversity and economic activity. NCAs follow natural (NCA) boundaries and are defined by Natural England, the UK government's advisors on the natural environment.
National Nature Reserve A statutory designation of national importance containing (NNR) examples of a particular habitat. National Planning Policy Sets out government's planning policies for England and how Framework (NPPF) these are expected to be applied
The government's adviser for the natural environment in Natural England (NE) England.
National legislation which imposes the Biodiversity Duty on Natural Environment and government bodies and under Section 41 requires the Rural Communities Act 2006 creation of lists of Habitats and Species of Principal (NERC) Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity.
This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In No Observed Effect Level simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect (NOEL) on human health and quality of life due to noise.
NVSRs include: residential properties, such as dwellings and Noise and Vibration Sensitive nursing homes; educational facilities; places of worship; Receptors (NVSRs) hotels; and sports and recreational areas for which the acoustic environment is important.
The NPSE, published in March 2010 by Defra, aims to provide clarity regarding current policies and practices to enable noise Noise Policy Statement for management decisions to be made within the wider context, England (NPSE) at the most appropriate level, in a cost-effective manner and in a timely fashion.
A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape Non-designated Heritage positively identified as having a degree of heritage Asset significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.
Non-native invasive species Species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside (NNIS) Act 1981 (As Amended).
Operational Phase Traffic Future Baseline traffic flows plus traffic generated by the Flows proposed developmen
Small airborne particles less than 10 micrometres in Particulate Matter (PM10) aerodynamic diameter.
Small airborne particles less than 2.5 micrometres in Particulate Matter (PM2.5) aerodynamic diameter.
A metric used in Transportation Engineering to assess traffic- Passenger Car Unit (PCU) flow rate on a highway.
Peel Holdings (Peel) The applicant
Programmes designed by Highways England to deliver smaller Pinch Point Scheme scale improvements to the strategic road network that will help to stimulate growth in the local economy and relieve congestion and/or improve safety. Such works were implemented at Junction 23 of the M6 in November 2015.
The Government has published Planning Practice Guidance on a range of subjects including noise. The guidance forms part of the NPPF and provides advice on how to deliver its policies. Planning Practice Guide – The PPGN reiterates general guidance on noise policy and Noise (PPGN) assessment methods provided in the NPPF, NPSE and BSs and contain examples of acoustic environments commensurate with various effect levels.
The Government has published Planning Practice Guidance on Planning Practice Guide a range of subjects. The guidance forms part of the NPPF and (PPG) provides advice on how to deliver its policies.
Potential Roost Features Features which could be used by roosting bats. (PRF)
A traffic modelling measure of a junction’s available spare capacity. A positive PRC indicates that a junction has spare Practical Reserve Capacity capacity and may be able to accept more traffic. A negative (PRC) PRC indicates that the junction is over capacity and is suffering from traffic congestion.
Preliminary Flood Risk A report produced by the LLFA assessing the potential flood Assessment (PFRA) risk in the local area.
Areas where the public have the right to access. They can be Public Rights of Way roads, paths or tracks.
Actions taken to reduce the likelihood of clearance and Reasonable Avoidance construction works causing harm to a protected or priority Measures (RAMs) species.
Regionally Important Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites Geological / (RIGS), designated (non-statutory) by locally developed Geomorphological Sites criteria for the conservation and protection of geological and (RIGS) geomorphological places of importance.
An evaluation of a highway improvement scheme during design, at the end of construction and post-construction, to Road Safety Audit identify road safety problems and to suggest measures to eliminate or mitigate any concerns
A buffer erected around a tree within which no works can Root Protection Area (RPA) take place, required to avoid harm to the tree.
Royal Society for the The largest national nature conservation charity, with a Preservation of Birds (RSPB) particular focus on birds.
Scheduled Monument (SM) 'Scheduling' is shorthand for the process through which nationally important sites and monuments are given legal protection by being placed on a list, or 'Schedule'.
A list of priority species and habitats in England in the NERC Section 41 (S41) Act 2006
Significant Observed Adverse This is the level above which significant adverse effects on Effect Level (SOAEL) health and quality of life occur.
The statutory nature conservation agencies have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, to notify Site of Special Scientific any area of land as SSSI, if in their opinion the land is 'of Interest (SSSI) special interest’ by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features'.
Non statutory local designation used by local authorities in Sites of Biological Greater Manchester. SBI’s are graded A (Greater Manchester Importance (SBI) value), B (Local authority administrative area value), or C (Local value).
Sites of Nature Conservation Areas designated locally for their ecological value. Importance (SNCI)
Special Area of Conservation Strictly protected sites designated under the EC Habitats (SAC) Directive.
A European protected site designated for rare or vulnerable Special Protection Area (SPA) birds.
System used by statistical agencies to classify workers into Standard Occupational consistent occupational categories for the purposes of Classifications (SOC) collecting and analysing data.
Strategic Flood Risk A district wide overview of flood risks including collation of all Assessment (SFRA) available data.
Documents which are prepared to expand on, or provide Supplementary Planning further details on, policy in the development plan document, Documents (SPDs) but do not have development plan status.
A sequence of water management practices and facilities designed to drain surface water in a manner that will provide Sustainable drainage a more sustainable approach than what has been the systems (SUDS) conventional practice of routing run-off through a pipe to a watercourse.
The Countryside and Rights Amends the WCA, expanding the terms of offences to include of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act) reckless activity.
The Institute of UK membership organisation for individuals involved in Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) environmental management and assessment.
The Project comprises the “Proposed Development” and The Project “Associated Development” which is to be environmentally assessed
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact The legislation under which EIAs are required to be Assessment) Regulations undertaken 2011 (as amended) (EIA Regulations 2011)
Town and Country Planning The legislation under which planning permission is sought Act 1990 (TCPA1990)
Supporting transport document which accompanies the Transport Assessment Planning Application.
Organisation responsible for implementing local transport Transport for Greater policy. Responsible for co-ordinating public transport Manchester (TfGM) throughout Greater Manchester and day to day management of traffic signals on Greater Manchester’s major highways.
A document adopted by an occupier on a development which is intended to promote and encourage staff and visitors to Travel Plan use sustainable modes of travel and reduce the level of single occupancy car trips.
An order made by a local planning authority in England to Tree Preservation Order protect specific trees, groups of trees or woodlands in the (TPO) interests of amenity.
A database of trip rates for developments used in the United Trip Rate Information Kingdom for transport planning purposes, specifically to Computer System (TRICS) quantify the trip generation of new developments.
UK Climate Change Official set of climate change projections and information Projections (UKCP09) provided by the UK Governments.
The PPGN indicates that an unacceptable adverse effect (level) occurs above SOAEL; the term UAEL has therefore Unacceptable Adverse Effect been used to describe effects at this level although it is not a Level (UAEL) term referred to in the NPSE nor elsewhere in the PPGN except in the table of effects.
Executive agency sponsored by HM Revenue and Customs to Valuation Office Agency give the government the valuations and property advice (VOA) needed to support taxation and benefits.
VISSIM Microsimulation traffic modelling package. The Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Water Framework Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of (WFD) water policy) is a European Union directive which commits European Union member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies
An assessment of a development and how it adheres to WFD WFD Compliance legislation in terms of biological, chemical and Assessment (WFDCA) hydromorphological quality elements.
The main national legislation relating to wildlife and nature Wildlife and Countryside Act conservation. Also provides for the designation and 1981 (as amended) (WCA) protection of SSSIs.
Wildlife Trust Reserves Sites owned and/or managed by the County Wildlife Trust for (WTR) nature conservation.
Zone of Theoretical Visibility A map, usually digitally produced, showing areas of land (ZTV) within which a development is theoretically visible.
Abbreviation List
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic Flows
AAWT Average Annual Weekday Traffic Flows
AEP AEP: Annual Exceedance Probability
AIA Arboricultural Impact Assessment
AOD Above Ordnance Datum
AST Above Ground Storage Tank
ATC Automatic Traffic Count
BAP Biodiversity Action Plan
BBS Breeding Bird Survey
BCT Bat Conservation Trust
BGS British Geological Survey
BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern
BSI British Standards Institute
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
BTO British Trust for Ornithology
CA Conservation Area
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CC Climate Change
CDA CDA: Critical Drainage Areas
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
CIEH Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
CIRIA Construction Industry Research Association
CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment
CS Core Strategy
CSM Conceptual Site Model
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government
DEFRA Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs
DMRB Design Manual for Roads & Bridges
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (chlorinated solvents, PCB) Dos Degree of Saturation
DWS Drinking Water Standard
EA Environment Agency
EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment eDNA Environmental DNA
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
EPS European Protected Species
EQS Environmental Quality Standard
ES Environmental Statement
ESSR Environmental Statement Scoping Report
FCS Favourable Conservation Status
FEI Further Environmental Information
FISC Field Identification Skills Certificate
FRA Flood Risk Assessment
FRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
GAC General Assessment Criteria
GCN Great Crested Newt
GEP: Good Ecological Potential
GES Good Ecological Status
GI Green Infrastructure
GIS Geographic Information System
GL Ground Level
GLVIA3 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition
GMEU Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
GPA Good Practice Advice
GPS Global Positioning System
GSV Gas Screening Value
HCV Health Criteria Value
HD45/09 Road Drainage & the Water Environment (Highways Agency 2009)
HER Historic Environment Record
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
HRA Habitat Regulations Assessment
HSI Habitat Suitability Index ICSM Initial Conceptual Site Model
IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment
IH124 Institute of Hydrology Report 124
JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee
LB Listed Building
LCA Landscape Character Area
LHMP Landscape Management Plan
LI Landscape Institute
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority
LMRL Lower Method Reporting Limit
LNAPL Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (petrol, diesel, kerosene)
LNR Local Nature Reserve
LTP3 Local Transport Plan 3
LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
LWS Local Wildlife Site
MEAS Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service
NBN National Biodiversity Network
NCA National Character Area
ND Not Detected
NDHA Non-designated heritage asset
NE Natural England
NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act
NMR National Monument Record
NNIS Non-native Invasive Species
NNR National Nature Reserve
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance
NR Not Recorded
NSSDS National Standards for Sustainable Systems
OGV Other Goods Vehicle
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyl PCU Passenger Car Unit
PDS Proposed Development Site
PID Photo Ionisation Detector
PRC Practical Reserve Capacity
PRFs Potential Roost (bat) Features
PRoW Public Right of Way
QA Quality Assurance
RAMs Reasonable Avoidance Measures
RPA Root Protection Area
S41 Section 41 (List of priority species and habitats in England in the NERC Act)
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SEO Statements of Environmental Opportunity
SGi Shepherd Gilmour Infrastructure Ltd.
SGV Soil Guideline Value
SHC St. Helens Council
SM Scheduled Monument
SPA Special Protection Area
SPDs Supplementary Planning Documents
SPH Separate Phase Hydrocarbon
SPT Standard Penetration Test
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
SuDS Sustainable Drainage System
SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Compound
TEP The Environment Partnership
TPH CWG Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (Criteria Working Group)
TRICS Trip Rate Information Computer System
UDP Unitary Development Plan
UST Underground Storage Tank
UU United Utilities
VCCs Vibro Concrete Columns
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WCA Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As Amended)
WFD Water Framework Directive WFE Wooded Former Estate
WSI Written Scheme of Investigation
WTE Water Table Elevation
ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility
Contents
Glossary of Terminology
Abbreviation List
1. Introduction 1
2. Site Location and Description 3
3. The Proposed Development / Project Description 5
4. Consideration of Alternatives 9
5. Approach to EIA 12
6. Socio Economics 21
7. Transport 61
8. Ecology 99
9. Archaeology 164
10. Landscape and Visual Effects 178
11. Air Quality 231
12. Noise and Vibration 271
13. Geology, Soils and Contamination 302
14. Water Environment 315
15. Environmental Management 343
Mark Worcester [email protected] Client Peel Holdings Our reference PEEM3055
March 2017
1. Introduction
1.1 This document comprises Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement [“ES”] which has been prepared by Peel Investments (North) Limited in respect of their proposals to develop a logistics-led employment development (“the Proposed Development”) on land to the west of Haydock.
1.2 A planning application for the Proposed Development has been submitted to St Helens Borough Council (“SHBC”) pursuant to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 [TCPA 1990].
1.3 The ES has been prepared in line with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) [“EIA Regulations 2011”] and considers the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development
About the Applicant
1.4 Peel Investments (North) Limited is the landowner of the site and part of the Peel Land and Property Group of Companies. Peel is one of the foremost real estate, infrastructure and transport investment enterprises in the UK. It has a long-established track record of delivering major developments across the north-west and the rest of the UK.
1.5 The Proposed Development will be delivered and managed by Peel Logistics Property, a new specialist logistics joint venture made up of Peel Land and Property, Macquarie Capital and Evander Properties.
The Legislative Requirement and Purpose of Environmental Impact Assessment
1.6 The Project is of a scale which falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 2011. Due the nature, size, location and the likely significant effects on the environment, an Environmental Impact Assessment [“EIA”] is required to be undertaken.
1.7 Peel has not requested a screening opinion. The completion of the EIA and production of the ES has been undertaken on a voluntary basis.
1.8 The purpose of the ES is to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development. In doing so it describes the baseline environmental conditions; the options for development which have been considered and discounted to date; the design of the Proposed Development and provides an assessment of likely significant environmental effects of the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development in each environmental topic area. Where it has not been possible to design the Proposed Development to avoid occurrence of likely significant adverse environmental effects, the ES describes the mitigation measures that have been identified and incorporated into the scheme.
1.9 The ES has been prepared having regard to the EIA Regulations 2011 and associated best practice guidance documents.
1
ES Structure and Content
1.10 The ES for the Proposed Development is presented in five volumes as follows:
• Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (NTS); • Volume 2: Main Text (this document); • Volume 3(a): Landscape Figures • Volume 3(b): Other Figures • Volume 4: Technical Appendices
1.11 The preparation of the ES has benefitted from the assistance of expert contributions from the following specialist organisations:
1. Introduction Turley
2. Site Location and Description Turley
3. Project Description Turley
4. Consideration of Alternatives Turley
5. Approach to EIA1 Turley
6. Socio-Economics Turley
7. Transport Vectos
8. Ecology TEP
9. Archaeology TEP
10.Landscape character and visual TEP amenity
11. Air Quality Miller Goodall Partnership
12. Noise and Vibration Resound Acoustics
13. Geology, Solis and Contamination Shepherd Gilmour Infrastructure
14. Flood Risk and Drainage Shepherd Gilmour Infrastructure
15. Environmental Management Turley
1 This includes details of how the ES responds to the Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion prepared by SHBC. 2
2. Site Location and Description
Site Location 2.1 The proposed development site (“PDS”) is located approximately 7.5km to the east of St Helens. It lies close to the settlements of Haydock (2.5km to the west), Ashton in Makerfield (1.5km to the north), and Golborne (1.5km to the east).
2.2 It is entirely within the administrative boundary of SHBC but is immediately adjacent to that of Wigan Council (WC).
2.3 The site occupies the north-eastern quadrant formed by the M6 motorway / A49 (Lodge Lane), both of which run north-south adjacent to the western site boundary, and the A580 (East Lancs Road) which runs east-west along its southern boundary. The remaining site boundaries are formed by agricultural land to the north-west, Haydock Racecourse to the north and established woodland to the east.
Site Description 2.4 The PDS is irregularly shaped and comprises 42.3ha of agricultural land. It is generally flat but rises towards the north-western corner. A drainage ditch and water main run east-west and approximately bisect the site.
2.5 The site contains some hedges following field boundaries, and a small number of trees, towards the site boundaries. The site is in private ownership and there are no public rights of way running through it.
2.6 Access to the site is possible via an unmade access track which runs east from Lodge Lane parallel to the drainage ditch.
2.7 An aerial photograph showing the extent of the site is shown at Figure 2.1 below.
Figure 2.1: Aerial Photograph showing approximate site extent
3
2.8 Further information on site features and its ecological value can be found in Chapter 8.
2.9 The PDS lies within the Green Belt as defined by the St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (Ref 3.1). SHC is currently preparing a replacement Local Plan with the recently published Preferred Options draft (Ref 3.2) proposing that the site is released from the Green Belt and allocated for employment (Use Classes B2 and B8).
Surroundings 2.10 The wider area includes some residential uses (to the west, beyond the M6, the north- west and north-east), industrial (Haydock Industrial Park and Old Boston Trading Estate) to the west beyond the M6, two hotels and agricultural land. A specialist care residential facility lies approximately 500m to the south of the A580.
2.11 The M6 motorway is elevated relative to the PDS, standing on an embankment. On-off motorway sliproads (Junction 23), the A49 and the A580 converge at a roundabout to south-west of the site. This junction provides access to the strategic highway network and local distributor roads.
2.12 The West Coast mainline, Liverpool – Manchester railway line, and the Liverpool – Wigan railway line lies within the wider surrounding area. There are a number railway stations in this area. A fuller description of the transport infrastructure is provided in Chapter 7.
4
3. The Proposed Development / Project Description
Introduction
3.1 This section describes the Proposed Development for which Peel is seeking outline planning permission.
3.2 Its design has been developed through an iterative process having regard to comments from SHBC and other key stakeholders including the local community prior to being finalised.
The Proposed Development
3.3 The Proposed Development comprises the following elements.
• Up to 1.8m sq ft (167,225 sq m) of employment floor-space comprising predominantly B8 (minimum 80% of the total floor-space) and B2 use (up to 20%) plus ancillary uses including office accommodation and welfare facilities. • HGV, car, cycle and motorcycle parking. • Access from the existing highway network with the principal vehicular access off the A580 to the south of the site and a secondary access for pedestrians, cycles, emergency vehicles, buses off the A49 to the west of the site, along with associated internal roads and circulation routes. • A cycleway / footway on / within the verge of the 580 (northern side). • Site re-profiling (i.e. changes to ground levels in some areas). • Creation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and habitat areas. • Hard and soft landscaping.
3.4 Outline planning permission is sought for the Proposed Development. All matters will be reserved for subsequent approval with the exception of the vehicular access from the A580 and Lodge Lane.
3.5 A parameter plan for redevelopment of the site forms part of the application (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1, Reference 30926-FE008H)) as does a Green Infrastructure Mitigation parameter plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1, reference 30926-FE-027E) both of which form the basis of all assessments contained within this ES.
3.6 Plan 30926-FE-008H additionally provides details of the proposed vehicular access points from the A49 and A580.
3.7 Illustrative Masterplans are presented at ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.2 as follows:
• 30926-FE-042a – presents an illustrative layout comprising ‘cross-dock’ buildings; • 30926-FE-043b – presents an illustrative layout which incorporates a single dock building (Unit 3) with a southern service yard. This layout would represent the ‘worst case’ scenario from a noise perspective;
5
• 30926-FE-044b – presents an illustrative layout which incorporate a single dock building (Unit 3) with a northern service yard. This layout would represent the ‘worst case’ scenario for a landscape and visual impact perspective.
3.8 The formal description of development is as follows:
‘Outline application (with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of vehicular access from A580 and A49) for the development of site for B8/B2 purposes and ancillary uses (including office floorspace, gatehouses, facilities for the storage and recycling of waste and on-site welfare facilities) plus associated car parking, landscaping, site profiling and transport, drainage and utilities infrastructure.’
Parameter Plans
3.9 A series of development parameters have been established in order to establish an assessment ‘envelope’ for the purposes of EIA. These parameters are shown on the Parameter Plans (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1) and include:
• Two development parcels within which the new buildings will be sited. • A ‘No Vertical Build’ zone which is to be kept free from development.2 • A maximum quantum of development of 167,225 sqm / 1,800,000 sq ft of which at least 80% shall be for Class B8 purposes and up to 20% Class B2. • A maximum height of buildings of 60.65 AOD. • An ecology corridor running east-west between the two development-parcels. • A minimum of 370 liner metres of normally-wet vegetated ditch provided east of the existing ditch corridor. • Landscape boundary of woodland planting, around perimeter of site provided on the eastern perimeter which will be formed of naturalistic planting. • A maximum of two vehicular crossing points (across ecology corridor).
3.10 Plans 30926-FE-008H (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1) provide details of the proposed vehicular access from the A580 and Lodge Lane (A49).
3.11 Other aspects of the Proposed Development are shown indicatively on the Parameters Plans including the main estate road and the internal vehicle access points.
Employment Accommodation
3.12 The floor-space will be provided in large logistics / industrial buildings. The illustrative Masterplan and associated parameter plans provide the flexibility for the site layout to respond to market requirements.
3.13 Up to 20% of the accommodation will be provided for occupation within Class B2 with the majority for occupation within Class B8.
3.14 Ancillary accommodation will be provided within these buildings and is expected to include office, welfare, administration and other facilities required for a logistics /
2 With the exception of ancillary facilities such as cycle shelters and, if necessary an acoustic fence 6
industrial use. This ancillary accommodation is expected to form less than 5% of the overall total floor-space.
3.15 The individual buildings will have a maximum height of 60.65 AOD.
Site Re-profiling 3.16 Site re-profiling works will be undertaken on a balanced cut and fill basis to form the site levels necessary for development of the employment buildings and to enable the access, circulation, servicing and parking areas to be formed.
3.17 In total, C.250,000 m3 of material shall be re-profiled.
HGV, car, cycle and motorcycle parking 3.18 Each unit will be served by HGV parking, car parking for staff and visitors and cycle and motorcycle parking for staff. The precise quantum of each is to be determined and controlled through the imposition of planning conditions.
Vehicular Access 3.19 The site would be accessed by a new vehicular access from the A580 to the south alongside a secondary access restricted to use by cyclists, pedestrians, emergency vehicles and buses off the A49 to the west.
3.20 The proposed access arrangements are presented in plan 30926-FE-008H (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1).
Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy 3.21 The development will incorporate a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (“SUDS”) as part of the surface water drainage strategy for the site.
3.22 This would include a vegetated surface water attenuation system to the west of the northern development parcel, to include use of native grassland and reed bed mixes. A minimum of 300 linear metres of normally-wet ditch that is separate to the main attenuation surface water system would be provided.
3.23 Further details of the drainage strategy are presented in ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1.
Ecology Corridor 3.24 The existing drainage ditch running east-west through the application site will be designated as an Ecology Corridor. This would have no more than two road crossings, and an 8m buffer zone measured outwards from top of bank-top on each side of the ditch would be established and kept as a permanent landscape zone.
3.25 Within the 8m buffer zone, the central strip, measured 5m from banktop, would not be subject to ground level changes, except at the two road crossing points.
Landscape Boundary 3.26 A 15m zone within the perimeter of the PDS would be used for landscape planting, using woodland species, with the exception of the new road access from the A580. The northern and eastern boundaries would be designated as dark corridors (3Lux or below, maximum).
7
3.27 In addition to the 15m woodland planting buffer around the margins of the site, there will be an additional 10 metre minimum buffer zone along the aster perimeter which will be formed by naturalistic planting including inundation grassland.
3.28 This buffer zone would be maintained as a “dark corridor” where there would be no lighting orientated to the local wildlife site nearby. The A580 frontage will have a landscape corridor of at least 25 m width of which 15m width would be woodland with the balance grassland and swales.
Hard and Soft Landscaping 3.29 Areas of amenity landscaping would be established within the site within the vertical no build areas.
Phasing and Delivery 3.30 A phasing and delivery plan would be prepared as part of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). In broad terms the likely phasing will be:
• Construction of the southern plot, including site profiling, new employment building(s) and associated works, including infrastructure including site access and circulation; • Construction of the northern plot, including site profiling, new employment building(s) and associated works.
3.31 It is anticipated, at this stage, that construction work would be commenced in 2017 and concluded by 2022.
Operation 3.32 Peel shall retain the development in its ownership with the buildings leased to individual occupiers. The facility will operate on a 24- hour basis, reflecting the operational requirements of logistics and related employment occupier requirements.
3.33 External areas around the building would be illuminated.
8
4. Consideration of Alternatives
Legislative / Policy Context
4.1 There is no requirement, under the law relating to EIA, for an applicant to consider alternatives.
4.2 Notwithstanding this Schedule 4, Part 1(2) and Part 2(4) of the EIA Regulations 2011, which specifies the information to be included in an ES explains that an ES should contain an outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects.
4.3 The EIA Regulations 2011 are supplemented by National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). This guidance acknowledges that it is not always necessary to consider alternatives; however, where alternatives have been considered, paragraph 4 of part II of Schedule 4 requires the applicant to include an outline of the main alternatives considered and the main reasons for their choice in their ES.
Main Alternatives Considered
Alternative Sites 4.4 An assessment of alternative sites has been undertaken, the results of which are presented within an Alternative Site Assessment Report which forms part of the planning application submission.
Alternative Configuration of Development 4.5 The proposed development parameters have been defined through a series of design team workshops, each informed by an understanding of the principal site constraints. The design team has sought to avoid the potential for likely significant environmental effects occurring through adopting a sensitive approach to design which has included embedding mitigation measures into the development parameters.
4.6 The initial Parameter Plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 4.1) (Iteration 1) identified two development parcels to the north and south of the ditch which bisects the site on an east west alignment. This option provided for up to 163, 324 sq.m of accommodation. A single vehicular access point connected the site with the A49.
4.7 Parameters relating to the footprint of buildings and limits of deviation to those footprints were defined as was a landscape corridor (minimum 15 metre depth) around the perimeter of the site.
4.8 A further iteration of the Parameter Plan was prepared toward the end of November 2016 (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 4.2) (Iteration 2). The principal changes from Iteration 1 related to the removal of the parameters relating to individual building footprints (so as to retain greater flexibility to respond to market requirements at reserved matters stage), the identification of a vertical no build zone adjacent to the landscape corridor (so as to achieve a more open aspect to the south and A580 frontage) and the incorporation of a principal access from the A580 with the access from the A49 being for emergency vehicles, public transport and pedestrians / cyclists only following requests from SHBC. 9
An ecology corridor following the alignment of the central ditch was also defined as were a maximum of two vehicular crossing points over the ditch.
4.9 A maximum floor-space of 167,225 sq metres / 1,800,000 sq ft. was defined along with a maximum building height of 25 metres above finished ground levels.
4.10 Further adjustments to the proposed Parameter Plan were made in mid-January 2017 Iteration 3). An additional parameter plan relating to landscape and ecology was also prepared to better define the mitigation measures which are embedded into the scheme design (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 4.3).
4.11 Iteration 3 continued to identify two development parcels to the north and south of the aforementioned ditch which bisects the site on an east west alignment. The size of these parcels was materially reduced from those proposed in November 2016 with a corresponding increase in the size of the vertical no build zone. As a consequence, a greater offset was created along the eastern and western site boundaries (in order to better respond to the Local Wildlife Site to the north east, the visual approach to St Helens for those approaching along the A580 from the east, and visual approach to St Helens those approaching along the A580 and M6 from the west).
4.12 The no build zone along the A580 frontage was increased to 15m in depth which, together with the 15metre landscape corridor provides a 30m offset between future buildings and the edge of the site.
4.13 The principal access point to the A580 at the south-east corner was retained as was the secondary access to the A49. Maximum building heights were reduced at eaves level and a revised maximum height parameter of 60.65AOD established.
4.14 The Landscape / Ecology Parameter Plan specified a range of embedded mitigation measures. Such mitigation measures included the specification of woodland planting to the landscape boundary around the edge of the site, maintaining the landscape corridor on the northern and eastern boundaries as dark corridors and a commitment to providing a vegetated surface water attenuation system in the north west corner of the site to include use of native grassland and reed bed mixes, and a commitment to providing at least 300 linear metres of normally-wet ditch.
4.15 In early February 2017 and following further feedback from SHBC the proposed parameter plans were further refined. These adjustments primarily concerned increasing the amount of green infrastructure within the site. In particular:
• On the southern boundary (adjacent to the A580) the landscape buffer was increased by a further 10 metres (to 25 metres in total). The additional 10 metres will be inundation grassland, meadow, scrub and reed bed; • The quantum of green infrastructure to the eastern boundary was also increased; • Land to the west of the northern and southern development parcels has been identified as green infrastructure (as opposed to vertical no build zone). This is to provide further certainty over its use for GI as opposed to hard surfacing.
4.16 These plans comprised iteration 4 and are presented as ES Volume 3b: Appendix 4.4
10
4.17 Later in February 2017 and again following discussion with SHBC the proposed parameter plans were refined further still and finalised. The proposed changes focussed on how the southern development parcel addressed the A580 and comprised a further increased in the depth of the landscape buffer and vertical no build zone on the southern boundary and the identification of a the location for an acoustic fence (5 metres high) (if shown to be needed at reserved matters stage).
4.16 The assessment of effects which follows in Chapters 7-15 is based upon the finalised parameter plans (Plan 30926-FE-008H and 30926-FE-027E) which are presented in Appendix 3.1.
11
5. Approach to EIA
Introduction
5.1 This chapter of the ES outlines the methodology that has been used in the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) / preparation of this ES for the Proposed Development. It provides an overview of the key design stages that have been followed, in line with published guidance.
5.2 The aim of EIA is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project (which is likely to have significant effects on the environment), does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process.
5.3 The process of preparing the ES involves the compilation, evaluation and presentation of all the likely significant environmental effects associated with the design of a project. It is an iterative process and through the ‘testing’ of the design of a proposed development it is possible to shape proposals so as to avoid the occurrence of likely significant environmental effects in so far as is possible having regard to the nature of the proposed development and, where this is not possible, to identify and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures into the scheme design.
5.4 The ES assists statutory and non-statutory consultees to understand the nature of the proposed development and its potential effects on the receiving environment and, in turn, to formulate views on its acceptability.
The EIA Process
EIA Regulations and Guidance 5.5 The legislative framework for EIA is provided by European Directive (“the EIA Directive”) 2014/52/EU (April 2014) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, which codified the earlier European Directives 85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC, 2009/31/EC and 2011/92/EU (“the Directive”)
5.6 For relevant projects in England falling under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the requirements of the EIA Directive have been transposed into UK legislation by The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (“the Regulations”).
5.7 The 2011 Regulations require that projects which are above a certain size, or meet prescribed criteria, must be screened to determine whether they are likely to have significant environmental effects and, consequently, are subject to the requirement for an EIA.
5.8 The 2015 Regulations raise and amend the thresholds at which certain types of development project will need to be screened in order to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is required under the Directive.
12
5.9 The primary objective of the EIA process is to ensure that Member States adopt all measures necessary to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location, are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.
5.10 This ES has been prepared in accordance with the aforementioned legislative framework and relevant good practice guidance including:
• National Planning Policy Guidance: Environmental Impact Assessment; • Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment: The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment; • IEMA: The State of Environmental Impact Assessments in the UK: IEMA 2011 (Ref 5.3)
5.11 Schedule 4 (Part 1) of the EIA Regulations 2011 sets out the information that may be reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile for inclusion with Environmental Statements:
• A description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; • A description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and the quantity of materials used; • An estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation etc) resulting from the operation of the Proposed Development • An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects. • A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.
5.12 A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development resulting from:
(a) existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,
and the description by the applicant or appellant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment .
• A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible off-set any significant adverse effect on the environment. • A non-technical summary of the information provided above. 13
• An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in compiling the information.
5.12 Schedule 4 (Part 2) sets out the information which must be included within an ES:
• A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of development. • A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects. • The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment. • An outline of the main alternatives considered by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made taking into account the environmental effects. • A non-technical summary of the information required above.
EIA and the Design Process 5.13 Good practice guidance advises that Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] is an iterative process, rather than a one off, post design environmental appraisal. In this way the findings of preliminary environmental assessment work can inform the detailed design process so as to avoid the occurrence of likely significant environmental effects in so far as is possible having regard to the particular nature of the proposed development and, where this is not possible, identifying appropriate mitigation measures to reduce and where possible minimise the level of environmental effect.
Scoping Opinion 5.14 In November 2016 Peel supplied to SHBC an Environmental Statement Scoping Report [ESSR] for the Proposed Development with the request that they formally adopt an Environmental Statement Scoping Opinion (“ESSO”) pursuant to the provisions of the EIA Regulations 2011.
5.15 In January 2017 SHBC issued to Peel its ESSO.
5.16 A summary of the Scoping Opinion together with an explanation of how ES responds to the comments and observations of SHBC and other key stakeholders is presented in ES Volume 4: Appendix 5.1
Framework of Assessment 5.17 The assessment which has been undertaken and which is presented in this document is based upon the following assessment framework:
• The assessment is based upon the description of the Proposed Development presented in Chapter 3. • As the planning application is presented in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent determination (with the exception of access), the ES is based upon the “worst case scenario” assumptions which are outlined within each of the technical chapters. These assumptions are informed by the development parameters defined in Appendix 3.1
14
• The assessment of construction phase effects is against baseline conditions which are predicted to obtain at the time of commencement of development (2017). • The assessment of operational phase effects is against baseline conditions which are predicted to obtain at the time that the development is expected to be completed and fully occupied (2022).
ES Chapter Structure 5.18 Each topic area included in the ES is subject to its own specialist requirements, guidance and standards but is structured around a standard format which is set out below:
Introduction 5.19 Confirmation of the author of the chapter and its purpose.
Legislative Framework 5.20 A summary of the legislation, policy and guidance documents relevant to the technical area which the chapter is to address is presented. All permits / licences required to construct, operate and maintain the Proposed Development are also identified.
Assessment Methodology 5.21 This section of each chapter provides a description of how the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development have been assessed with reference to the following matters:
• The study area to which the assessment relates is defined both in narrative and through cross references to figures in Volume 3b. • The method by which baseline environmental information has been gathered (both desk and field based) is confirmed. For field surveys details of the duration and frequency of survey activity, location(s) from which information has been gathered and the particular techniques used in gathering the information are all presented. Where survey activity has been consistent with published legislation / policy / guidance this is confirmed and where variation from said legislation / policy / guidance has occurred this is also noted with reasoning. • The method by which the significance of environmental effects has been assessed is confirmed. Given the wide ranging types of impact being considered within each chapter, and the chapter specific policy and standards, it has not been possible or desirable to apply a consistent terminology across the chapters. Instead, each chapter sets out the terminology used , together with an explanation of each term used to describe the key attributes listed below: ‒ Magnitude of impact on identified environmental receptor; ‒ Sensitivity of the identified environmental receptor; ‒ Significance of effect on identified environmental receptor; and ‒ Methodology used for the identification of mitigation measures and residual effects.
5.22 The magnitude of an impact provides a measure of the environmental effect arising. Magnitude includes consideration of:
• Extent – the area over which an impact occurs;
15
• Duration – the time for which the impact occurs; • Frequency – how often the impact occurs; and • Severity – the degree of change relative to the baseline level
5.23 The sensitivity of the receptor is a function of its capacity to accommodate change and reflects its ability to recover if it is affected. The sensitivity of the receptor includes consideration of:
• Adaptability – the degree to which a receptor can avoid or adapt to an impact; • Tolerance – the ability of a receptor to accommodate temporary or permanent change without a significant adverse impact; • Recoverability – the temporal scale over and extent to which a receptor will recover following an impact; and • Value – a measure of the receptor’s importance, rarity and worth.
5.24 The assessment of the significance of an effect is therefore determined with reference to the overall magnitude of impact and sensitivity of the resource / receptor. Effects may be:
• Beneficial or adverse; • negligible, minor, moderate, or major; • short, medium or long-term; • temporary or permanent; and • local, district, regional, national or international level
5.25 The probability that an impact-receptor interaction will occur therefore takes account of the spatial extent and temporal duration of the interaction. A precautionary approach is taken.
5.26 Assessments of the significance of environmental effects carry a degree of subjectivity, but are based on experienced professional judgement of the impact-receptor interaction that occurs and the data available. An example matrix for assessing the significance of potential effects is provided below (Table 5.1 )
Table 5.1: Example Matrix for Assessing the Significance of Potential Effects
Magnitude of Impact
Very High High Medium Low Very Low
Very High Major Major Moderate Minor Minor
High Major Moderate Minor Minor Negligible
Medium Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible
Low Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Receptorsensitivity
Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
16
5.27 The exact definition of these terms is made clear for each environmental aspect within the respective technical chapters of this ES. In general, the categories in Table 5.1 described as ‘Major’ or ‘Moderate’ (red shaded cells) would be considered ‘significant’ in EIA terms. Mitigation is prescribed only to reduce ‘significant’ effects.
5.28 Some technical topics, such as Landscape and Visual Impact (for example), deviate from the above standard methodology, as required by the specialist guidance applicable to that topic. The methodology used in the case of each environmental topic is set out within the respective technical chapters of this ES.
5.29 The assessment describes and takes into account any uncertainty inherent in, for instance, the data used in the assessment, the identification of activities and impacts, the confidence in determining impact magnitude and receptor sensitivity, and in assigning significance levels to predicted resulting effects.
Baseline Environmental Conditions 5.30 The baseline environmental conditions at the time of assessment (Autumn 2016) are presented.
5.31 A professional judgment is then applied in predicting likely baseline conditions at the commencement of development in 2017 and at the date of completion / full occupation (2022).
Matters which have been Scoped Out 5.32 The EIA Regulations 2011 prescribe a requirement to assess likely significant environmental effects. Where a potential environmental effect is considered likely to be less than significant then this is ‘scoped out’ of the assessment.
5.33 In circumstances where matters have been scoped out, a reasoned justification is presented along with a brief description of the (non-significant) type of effect that may be encountered.
Embedded Mitigation 5.34 This section of each chapter describes how the Proposed Development has been specifically designed to avoid or to minimise the occurrence of significantly adverse environmental effects. Such mitigation is ‘embedded’ within the scheme design rather than being an ‘add-on’.
Impacts / Effects during the Construction Phase 5.35 Each chapter describes the impacts that are likely to occur during the construction of the Proposed Development and draws a conclusion as to the significance of the effect on individual receptors having regard to their sensitivity using the significance criteria set out within the methodology.
5.36 In each case effects are identified as being: direct or indirect; adverse, neutral or beneficial and in terms of their temporal duration (i.e. whether they would be temporary or permanent and whether they would be short, medium or long term effects).
17
Impacts / Effects during the Operational Phase 5.37 Each chapter assess the impacts of the operation of the Proposed Development on individual receptors and again draws a conclusion as to the significance of the effect using the significance criteria set out within the methodology.
5.38 In each case effects are identified as being: direct or indirect; adverse, neutral or beneficial and in terms of their temporal duration (i.e. whether they would be temporary or permanent and whether they would be short, medium or long term effects).
Assessment of likely Significant Cumulative Effects 5.39 The EIA Regulations 2011 (Schedule 4, Part 1 (4)) requires a description of the likely significant effects resulting from cumulative impacts to be included in the ES where it is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development.
5.40 Accordingly, each chapter provides information on how the potential effects of the Proposed Development will combine and interact with the effects of other major developments (“inter-project cumulative effects”), and will also assess the potential effects between topic areas of the Proposed Development (“intra-project effects”).
5.41 With regard to the consideration of inter-project cumulative effects regard has been had to the potential for the Proposed Development to give rise to likely effects in combination with:
• Major developments which are currently under construction; • Major developments which benefit from the relevant regulatory consent but have not yet been implemented; • Major developments which are presently awaiting determination; • Major developments which have been refused planning permission in the last six months and which may still be consented following appeal; • Major developments identified in the relevant development plan and emerging development plan; and • Major developments identified in other plans and programmes which set the framework for future development consents / approvals where such development is reasonably likely to come forward.
5.42 The approach to identification of other major schemes which might give rise to likely significant cumulative effects, in combination with the Proposed Development, has been agreed in correspondence between Peel and SHBC (ES Volume 4: Appendix 5.2).
5.43 The schemes included within the cumulative assessment of likely significant effects are presented within Table 4.2 below. It should be noted however, that not each of these schemes are relevant to each environmental topic area. Each individual chapter identifies which schemes have been considered in the assessment of cumulative effects.
18
Table 5.2: Long List of Schemes for Consideration in Assessment of Cumulative Effects
Scheme / Status Comments Development
Land To North Of Application This development benefits from a hybrid Penny Lane And approved on planning permission4 including full West Of M6 23/9/163 permission for the erection of B8 warehouse Motorway, Haydock (c.100,000 sq ft) and outline planning permission for erection of B8 warehousing (c.300,000 sq ft).
Land at Florida Live application An application has been submitted to St Farm North, awaiting Helens Council6 for hybrid planning Haydock determination5 permission including outline planning permission for the erection of 2no. commercial/industrial buildings providing up to 135,000 square metres of employment floorspace (B2/B8 uses with up to 10,000 square metres of office accommodation). SHBC resolved that permission should be granted in January 2017 subject to referral to the Secretary of State.
Canmoor Site, Pre-application Pre-application publicity confirms that an adjacent to Haydock application for planning permission is Industrial Estate, expected shortly. It is expected to comprise Haydock c.300,000 sq ft of employment floorspace across four units, accessed via the existing Haydock Industrial Estate.
Parkside Allocated for This site is allocated for a Strategic Rail development employment in Freight Interchange in the adopted St Helens adopted St Core Strategy Local Plan, with an operational Helens Core area of approximately 85 hectares. It will be Strategy and considered on the basis of the latest proposed information submitted by the site promoter, employment the Parkside Joint Venture Company, to St allocation in St Helens Call for Sites 2016 Consultation which Helens Local proposes c. 4.5 m sq ft of logistics floorspace. Plan Preferred Options draft
5.44 Likely significant cumulative effects will be considered against the predicted baseline conditions in 2017.
3 LPA Ref 2015/0571 4 LPA ref. 2015/0571 5 LPA Ref 2016/0608 6 LPA ref. 2016/0608 19
5.45 In each case, cumulative effects are assessed in the same manner as for the construction phase / operational phase impacts (i.e. the magnitude of impact, sensitivity of receptor and significance of effect are all confirmed).
Mitigation of Effects 5.46 Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2011 (as amended) states that an ES should include ‘A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment’ [emphasis added] where it is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development.
5.47 The measures have been termed ‘mitigation measures’ for the purposes of the assessment.
5.48 Under the EIA Regulations 2011 (as amended), mitigation is to be considered in the context of likely significant effects and not simply for any adverse impacts. Within this ES particular attention / focus has therefore been placed on identifying mitigation measures for ‘significant effects’. However, where appropriate, mitigation measures have also been identified for addressing less than (or none) significant effects.
5.49 Each technical chapter provides an explanation of any mitigation measures or controls proposed by Peel which can be secured either through a planning condition or legal agreement. Mitigation measures are proposed to alleviate the significance of effect in the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development
5.50 Where relevant, environmental enhancement measures are also identified within this section.
Residual Effects 5.51 This section of each chapter shall confirm the residual environmental effects which are expected to occur following application of the mitigation measures outlined earlier.
Limitations and Assumptions 5.52 The EIA process is designed to enable informed design making based on the best possible information about the environmental implications of a Proposed Development. However the EIA Regulations 2011 (as amended) accept that difficulties may be encountered when compiling an ES and, where this is the case, states that such gaps will be clearly indicated in the ES.
5.53 In accordance with the EIA Regulations 2011 the final section of each chapter of the ES identifies any difficulties encountered in compiling the information and the extent to which the predictions of likely significant environmental effects may be affected. Where further baseline survey work and / or assessment work is required to be undertaken to further inform the assessment of likely significant effects, this is identified.
References
5.54 This final section of each chapter confirms the details of legislation, policy, guidance and other relevant literature which has been referred to and / or relied upon in undertaking the assessment work.
20
6. Socio Economics
Introduction
6.1 An assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development has been undertaken by Turley Economics.
6.2 The assessment includes consideration of effects during both the construction and operational (post completion) phases of the Proposed Development. A review of current baseline conditions is also presented, from which the significance of effects can be established. Where appropriate, mitigation measures proposed to reduce or remove any potential effects are described and the likely residual impact assessed.
6.3 The primary socio-economic effects that may arise from the scope and nature of the Proposed Development include the creation of the new employment floorspace for occupation by businesses and the creation of new employment opportunities. The potential effects, or consequences of these impacts, can be summarised as follows:
• Employment – change in employment opportunities in the area. • Productivity – change in productivity, as measured by GVA, as a result of employment opportunities during the construction and operational lifetime of the Proposed Development. • Indirect economic/expenditure – indirect employment creation and effects on local spending associated with new employment opportunities, supporting local businesses. • Population effects – employment opportunities may attract people to live and work in the local and wider impact area. • Economic activity – take-up of employment opportunities may enhance economic activity rates locally. • Unemployment rate – take-up of employment opportunities may change unemployment rates. • Skills – potential to change the skills profile through targeted skills and training provision. • Deprivation – employment, skills and training opportunities associated with the Proposed Development resulting in changes to patterns of multiple deprivation. • Business rate revenue – change in business rate revenues associated with creation of new rateable business floorspace.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
6.4 This section provides details of the policy and guidance relevant to the assessment of socio-economic effects.
Fixing the Foundations: creating a more prosperous nation 6.5 HM Treasury published ‘Fixing the Foundations’ (Ref 6.1) in July 2015, in order to set out the Government’s ambitions to increase the productivity of the UK and secure long- term economic stability and growth across the country. This responds to a recent
21
slowing in productivity growth, and the gap between productivity in the UK and other developed countries.
6.6 In order to grow productivity, the Government is seeking to encourage long-term investment in economic capital – including infrastructure, skills and knowledge – and promote a dynamic economy that encourages innovation and helps the flow of resources to their most productive use.
National Planning Policy Framework 6.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012 (Ref 6.2), sets out the Government’s statutory planning policies for England. The NPPF is built around a policy commitment to sustainable development, with the planning system expected to play both an economic and social role. Details of these roles are provided in paragraph 7 of the NPPF:
“an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure”
“a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being” (Para 7, Ref 6.2)
6.8 At the heart of the NPPF is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which requires local authorities in the development of their Local Plans to adopt a positive approach in order to seek opportunities to meet the development needs of an area. Further clarification is provided through the core planning principles set out at paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which – importantly – includes the following requirement for planning to:
“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth” (Ref 6.2)
6.9 The NPPF is supplemented by the web-based Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref 6.3), which provides further guidance on Environmental Impact Assessment – as governed by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 – in order to assess whether a development would have a significant effect on the environment. Statements should primarily focus on main or significant environmental effects, with impacts of little or no significance addressed only briefly to show that they have been considered (Ref 6.3).
Northern Powerhouse Strategy 6.10 The Northern Powerhouse is a proposal to boost economic growth across the North of England. Its objective is to achieve a sustained increase in productivity across the whole of the North (Ref 6.4). 22
6.11 The Northern Powerhouse Strategy (Ref 6.4) sets out the Government’s priorities for delivering this vision. Its sets out the Government’s commitment to continue investing in the North’s transport infrastructure, improving the skills system, building on the North’s existing science strengths, and continuing to promote the North of England to foreign markets and investors.
Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy 6.12 The Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) covers six local authority areas – St Helens, Liverpool, Knowsley, Halton, Sefton and Wirral – and functions as a partnership between local entrepreneurs and politicians in order to deliver economic growth and strategic development across the City Region.
6.13 The Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy (Ref 6.5), prepared by the LEP and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, represents a 25 year vision for realising economic growth, capitalising on the opportunities presented by Devolution.
6.14 The strategy sets an ambition to create over 100,000 additional jobs in the City Region by 2040, together with a net increase of 20,000 businesses over the next 25 years. This will be achieved by building on the City Region’s strengths in globally-competitive sectors such as Advanced Manufacturing, Digital and Creative, Financial and Professional Services, Health and Life Sciences, Low Carbon Energy, Maritime and Logistics, and the Visitor Economy.
6.15 With regard to Maritime and Logistics the strategic vision is for the City Region to be “the Global Logistics Hub for Northern UK and Ireland” (Ref 6.5, p40), with the Superport project in particular having the potential to support further transformation of the economy of the sub-region.
Superport 6.16 Superport is a cluster of assets, capabilities and investment across the Liverpool City Region, with the intention to develop a multimodal freight hub that integrates the strengths of the ports, airports and freight community (Ref 6.6). The project has the potential to transform the city region economy, potentially creating up to 30,000 jobs following £1.8billion of new infrastructure investment. Productivity is also forecast to increase, with an additional £18.3billion in GVA by 2030.
6.17 Given that there is significant investment planned in logistics infrastructure in the Liverpool City Region, the LEP and NAI Global published a market analysis report (Ref 6.6) in March 2014 which specifically focuses on logistics and Superport.
6.18 The report considered the impact for the logistics sector in the City Region. It specifically confirms that there is strong demand for logistics premises across the immediate Superport area, equating to a requirement for up to around 800 hectares of land for new logistics development over the next 20 years. If wholly port-based uses are excluded the report still concludes that Superport, will generate a net requirement for 634 hectares for logistics and manufacturing, of which around two thirds will be required for logistics.
6.19 The 2014 Report outlines that whilst short-term land supply is relatively good, the long- term supply of land is constrained by availability or physical factors, such that there is requirement to ensure supply is provided into the medium and longer term. 23
6.20 It is concluded that the City Region needs a good available supply of large, high quality sites, suitable for the growth of logistics clusters and estimates that a further 400 hectares for logistics use is required over the next 20 years. Without this supply of logistics sites, it is concluded that the demand will go elsewhere, preventing the City Region from maximising the opportunity and economic benefits presented by Superport.
St Helens Core Strategy Local Plan 6.21 The St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy was adopted by the Council in October 2012, and sets out the vision for the future development of the Borough to 2027 (Ref 6.7). The Core Strategy seeks to take advantage of the Borough’s location between Liverpool and Manchester in order to stimulate the economy and support inclusive, sustainable communities.
6.22 In order to realise this vision, a number of strategic objectives are identified, including the need to ensure a strong and sustainable economy, with sufficient land to meet local employment needs and support the implementation of the wider growth strategies for the City Region.
6.23 Policy CE1 seeks to develop a strong and sustainable economy in St Helens, by ensuring that the Borough’s economic base can be strengthened and diversified to support the City Growth Strategy. This is tied to the NPPF, with the Government committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity by building upon inherent strengths.
6.24 Policy CP2 is also of relevance, in ensuring that development which involves significant movement of freight is located on sites that are, as a minimum, located close to a Freight Priority Route.
St Helens Preferred Options Local Plan 6.25 A new Local Plan for St Helens is being prepared to replace the St Helens Core Strategy that was adopted in October 2012 and the Saved Policies of the 1998 St Helens Unitary Development Plan. The plan covers the period from 2018-2033 and will address the changing economic and growth aspirations of the Borough since that time.
6.26 The Preferred Options Local Plan (POLP) (Ref 6.8) was published for consultation in December 2016 and follows the earlier Scoping of the Local Plan in 2016 and publication of a series of evidence base documents on employment and housing issues in 2015/2016.
6.27 Strategic Aim 5 of the POLP seeks to ensure a Strong and Sustainable St. Helens Economy which includes, among others, a strategic objective to:
‘provide and protect sufficient land and premises to meet local employment needs and support the implementation of the City Growth Strategy and the Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy and Strategic Economic Plan’ (Ref 6.8, p9)
6.28 In terms of draft economic and employment policies, Policy LPA04 aims for the provision of new jobs by a flexible supply of high quality employment floorspace from existing employment areas and exploiting St Helens strategic location for logistics
24
development. A minimum of 306ha of land is proposed for allocation for the period to 2038.
6.29 Policy LPA04 also includes a list of12 sites for allocation for employment development over the plan period, including the application site. This is referenced as site EA4, Land North East of Junction 23 of M6, south of Haydock racecourse, a 42.31 ha area of land for B2, B8 use.
Other relevant guidance
Additionality Guide 6.30 The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Additionality Guide (Ref 6.9), published in January 2014, forms the relevant national framework for assessment of the likely socio- economic effects of the Proposed Development. The document provides guidance to practitioners on the standard methodology and issues associated with assessing the additional effects of an intervention or development, such as the Proposed Development.
6.31 Utilising the approach set out within the document ensures conformity to nationally accepted standards for assessing potential socio-economic effects, and is entirely appropriate for the purposes of assessing planning applications for Proposed Development schemes.
Employment Densities Guide 6.32 The Employment Density Guide (3rd edition) was published in 2015 by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) (Ref 6.10), and is designed to assist in the estimation of employment generated by development.
6.33 The document provides guidance to practitioners on the standard methodology and issues associated with assessing the level of direct employment per square metre of an intervention or development. Utilising the approach set out within the document ensures conformity to nationally accepted standards for assessing potential socio-economic effects, and is entirely appropriate for the purposes of assessing planning applications for Proposed Development schemes.
Assessment Methodology
6.34 The methodology consists of an assessment of socio-economic impacts and effects during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
6.35 There is no overarching guidance that sets out the preferred methodology for the preparation of assessments of the likely socio-economic impacts and effects of development proposals of this nature. However, as identified above, several established methodological guides have been published to cover key elements of the assessment. These have been drawn upon as appropriate within the assessment, with the HCA Additionality Guide (Ref 6.9) and HCA Employment Densities Guide (Ref 6.10) being of particular relevance.
25
The Study Area 6.36 The assessment is being structured around a defined study area. The effects of the Proposed Development are assessed at various spatial scales, which in combination, reflect the study area in its entirety.
6.37 The proposed study area has been defined based on an understanding of the level of containment of jobs and local commuting trends derived from the 2011 Census (Ref 6.11). Using this data, three spatial scales – the Local Planning Authority area (LPA), the local impact area and the wider impact area - have been established for use within the assessment:
• The relevant LPA comprises the borough of St Helens. The middle super output area (MSOA) within which the application site lies (St Helens 005) also covers the neighbouring Haydock Industrial Estate, which provides accommodation for industrial and warehouse uses reflective of those proposed for the application site. Evidence of commuting patterns for the MSOA indicates that 37% of jobs are taken by residents of the LPA. This is lower than the average for the LPA with evidence suggesting that overall 60% of people who work in St. Helens also live within the LPA. This is due to the location of the application site (and MSOA) bordering the Wigan local authority boundary. This suggests that around 2 out of 5 of jobs in the MSOA are taken by residents of the LPA.
• The local impact area covers the two authority areas of St Helens and Wigan. Further evidence of commuting patterns for the MSOA within which the application site lies indicate that 28% of jobs are taken by residents of Wigan. Therefore, it is expected that circa 65% of people working on the application site will reside within the local impact area. The remainder of jobs are taken by people living in neighbouring authorities, with the most significant inflows of labour being from Warrington (6%), followed by Liverpool (3%) and West Lancashire (3%).
• The wider impact area covers the North West region. The 2011 Census shows that 96% of people working in the MSOA within which the site lies, and 98% of people working in the LPA, live across this wider impact area, suggesting that there is a very high level of containment at this level. It is considered, therefore, that the vast majority of socio-economic effects would be contained within the wider impact area.
6.38 The extent of the proposed study area is presented spatially in Figure 6.1.
26
Figure 6.1: Study Area
Baseline Surveys 6.39 This section describes the research and surveys undertaken to inform an understanding of the current baseline conditions.
Desk Based Research 6.40 The baseline socio-economic conditions of the study area have been established through collation and analysis of the most up-to-date available secondary data that is published, including:
• ONS UK Business Counts – Enterprises, via Nomis (Ref 6.12); • ONS Business Register and Employment Survey, via Nomis (Ref 6.13); • Experian (2016) Local Market Forecasts Quarterly (Ref 6.14). • ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, via Nomis (Ref 6.15); • ONS Mid-year Population Estimates, via Nomis (Ref 6.16); • ONS Annual Population Survey, via Nomis (Ref 6.17); • ONS Jobseekers Allowance by Occupation, via Nomis (Ref 6.18); and • DCLG Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (Ref 6.19).
Consultations 6.41 As highlighted above, the assessment involves consideration of published data. No consultation with statutory or non-statutory bodies has therefore been undertaken to inform the assessment of socio-economic effects.
6.42 The scope of methodology for the assessment was presented to St Helens Borough Council (SHBC) in the Environmental Statement Scoping Report (ESSR) submitted on the 25 November 2016. A summary of SHBC’s Scoping Opinion (issued on the 10 January 2017) as relevant to socio-economic considerations is presented in Chapter 4
27
Field Survey Work 6.43 The assessment involves consideration of published secondary data, and therefore no field surveys have been undertaken.
Construction Phase 6.44 The process for the modelling of effects derived from the Proposed Development during the construction phase is set out below.
• In order to calculate the number of jobs (net FTE employment) generated through construction of the Proposed Development, total construction costs are identified and divided by the average turnover per employee in the construction sector in the North West, drawn from the Business Population Estimates (BPE) 2014 (Ref 6.21), which calculates the number of employees generated directly by the implementation of the construction programme if it were to be completed in a single year. This is then divided by the length of the construction period to identify gross FTE jobs. Considerations of allowances for leakage and displacement are made in line with recognised guidance (Ref 6.9) in order to calculate net FTE jobs generated by the development. A multiplier is also applied to allow for employment indirectly generated from the development during the construction phase, such as supply chain linkages or the value of contracts to local firms.
• In order to calculate the uplift in GVA productivity generated through construction of the Proposed Development the average GVA per FTE worker is calculated using Experian local market forecasts (Ref 6.14). This is applied to the net FTE construction jobs estimated to be generated by the Proposed Development.
Operational Phase 6.45 The process for the modelling of socio-economic effects over the long-term operational phase – upon completion and occupation of the Proposed Development – is set out below.
• Employment - In order to calculate the number of jobs generated through the operational phase, the maximum floorspace parameters for each use are identified to confirm the net additional floorspace, to which employment densities are applied following national guidance (Ref 6.9) to calculate the number of direct gross FTE jobs generated by the Proposed Development. Considerations of appropriate allowances for leakage and displacement are made in line with national guidance (Ref 6.9) in order to calculate a net figure of FTE job creation. A multiplier is also applied to allow for employment generated through indirect and induced effects to be factored in to the assessment.
• Productivity - In order to calculate the uplift in GVA productivity generated through the operational phase, the average GVA per employee is drawn from Experian local market forecasts (Ref 6.14), with this average applied to the operational phase jobs generated by the development.
• Unemployment and deprivation - In order to assess the effect of employment creation in reducing unemployment rates and deprivation, the number of
28
additional employment opportunities generated for the LPA, local, wider and national labour force is considered in the context of the number of existing unemployed residents in the LPA, local and wider impact areas, enabling an understanding of the effect of operation on existing unemployment and claimant levels;
• Skills – Although the profile of the workforce at the Proposed Development is sensitive to the final employment occupier, the skills profile of people employed in different industries and occupations in St. Helen’s can be estimated, based on the 2011 Census (Ref 6.11). This is a workplace-based measure to reflect the skills of employees and enabling an understanding of the highest level of qualification for people likely to occupy jobs created by the Proposed Development.
• Business rate revenue - In order to calculate the uplift in non-domestic rates (known as business rates) through the operational phase of the Proposed Development, the net additional floorspace is disaggregated by use. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) business rates valuation tool (Ref 6.22) is utilised to run comparable analysis of similar units and uses locally. The derived indicative rates are subsequently applied to estimated rateable floorspace elements within the Proposed Development, with a national multiplier applied to derive an estimated total business rate payable per annum.
6.46 Economic impact estimates are presented as net figures with any existing uses on the existing application site being considered and assessed utilising the same approach as set out above.
Assessing Significance of Effect 6.47 This section describes the framework for assessing socio-economic effects, particularly in identifying the magnitude of effect, the sensitivity of receptor and the significance of effect.
Magnitude of Effect 6.48 The following table defines the different magnitudes of effect that may arise during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development.
29
Table 6.1: Defining Magnitude of Effect
Level of Definition of Magnitude Magnitude
Effect will dominate over baseline conditions, or will be highly likely to affect large numbers of people and/or businesses over the long High term. Considered to be a very important consideration, and likely to be material in the decision-making process.
Effect can be demonstrated to change baseline conditions, and is likely to affect a moderate number of people and/or businesses over a medium duration. Effect may be important, but is not likely Moderate to be a key decision-making factor unless the cumulative effects of such factors lead to an increase in the overall effect on a particular socio-economic resource or receptor.
Effect will result in a perceptible difference from baseline conditions, and is likely to affect to a small number of people and/or Low businesses over a short duration. Effect may be raised as a local factor, but is unlikely to be critical in decision-making process.
Effect does not result in variation beyond baseline conditions, and Negligible is unlikely to measurably affect people and/or businesses.
6.49 In the absence of published policy or guidance, the definitions have drawn upon previous experience and professional judgement.
Sensitivity of Receptor 6.50 The following table provides a framework for the definition of different levels of sensitivity.
Table 6.2: Defining Sensitivity of Receptor
Sensitivity Definition
Receptor of international importance, with little or no ability to absorb, Very high adapt to or recover from change.
Receptor of national importance, with little ability to absorb, adapt to or High recover from change.
Receptor of regional or local importance, with medium ability to absorb, Moderate adapt to or recover from change.
Receptor of local importance, with some ability to absorb, adapt to or Low recover from change.
Receptor of local importance, with ability to absorb, adapt to or recover Negligible from change.
6.51 In the absence of published policy or guidance, the definitions drawn upon previous experience and professional judgement.
30
Duration of Effect 6.52 The duration of effects are taken into consideration when determining the overall significance of the effects. The following timescales are used:
• Short term: 0 to 5 years including the construction period and on completion; • Medium term: 5 to 15 years including establishment of replacement and proposed mitigation planting; and • Long term: 15 years onwards for the life of the Proposed Development.
Significance of Effect 6.53 The following table provides the framework by which the overall significance of socio- economic effects are assessed. In the absence of published policy or guidance, the definitions have drawn upon experience and professional judgement.
Table 6.3: Matrix for Assessing Significance of Effect
Assessing Significance of Effects
Magnitude of Sensitivity of Receptors Effect Very high High Moderate Low Negligible
High Major Major Moderate Moderate Minor
Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Minor None
Low Moderate Moderate Minor None None
Negligible Minor Minor None None None
6.54 The level of significance determined through this process is then sense checked using professional judgement and modified where necessary.
For the purposes of this assessment, any effect that is above minor is considered to be significant in EIA terms with regard to its socio-economic effects.
Potential Mitigation and Residual Effects 6.55 Where significant socio-economic effects are identified, mitigation measures are identified to avoid or minimise harm in so far as is practicable. The residual effects of the development following mitigation measures is also confirmed.
Limitations and Assumptions 6.56 The Proposed Development comprises the development of up to 1.8 million sq ft (167,225 sq m) of floorspace comprising predominately B8 (minimum 80%) with an element of B2 uses (maximum 20%) plus ancillary uses including office accommodation and welfare facilities.
6.57 As the application is being made in outline, with all matters reserved (except access), the assessment of socio-economic effects has been based a ‘reasonable worst case’ scenario in relation to employment generation which assumes that the 1.8 million sq ft (167,225 sq m) of floorspace is developed for B8 use only. A ‘Regional Distribution Centre’ employment density of 77 sq m (GEA) per FTE is then used to estimate likely
31
levels of employment generated from the proposed B8 uses. This assumption is in line with recognised national guidance (Ref: 6.10).
6.58 This assessment has been based on a desk study and is therefore reliant on published data and information. Despite the limitations there has been an appropriate level of information to underpin a robust assessment.
Construction Phase 6.59 The assessment of construction phase employment and GVA impacts draws on cost estimates from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) and indicative development programme information. Although BCIS is a leading provider of cost and price information for the UK construction industry, the costs estimated using this data have the potential to be higher or lower than the eventual costs associated with the scheme when it is developed. This would respectively result in a higher or lower number of construction jobs. Furthermore, the assessment recognises that both the scheme details, costs and development programme could be subject to revision as the project progresses.
6.60 The net additionality assessment, which draws upon the assessment of construction phase employment and GVA impacts, makes assumptions on appropriate levels of leakage, displacement and multipliers. Although these assumptions are made in line with robust and accepted guidance (Ref 6.9), there is potential for the assessment to over account or under account for the net additional effects associated with the Proposed Development.
Operational Phase 6.61 Assumptions regarding operational phase impacts are based on the most up-to-date scheme details. In common with construction phase information, the scheme details could be subject to further revisions as the project progresses, which may influence the level of operational phase impact. Again the professional assumptions made to assess the net additional impacts may have a margin of error relative to the eventual operational impacts once these are realised.
Cumulative Assessment 6.62 Assumptions relating to the cumulative developments are based on the most up-to-date details available. However, as these cumulative schemes are being delivered by external organisations, a degree of professional judgement is required for some assumptions, such as the development timeframes and operational activity where such details are not known.
Baseline Conditions
6.63 Desk-based research has been undertaken to establish the baseline socio-economic conditions across the LPA and local7 and wider impact areas, as defined above, with data presented at the England level for comparison. The assessment of baseline conditions examines the current position and extent to which key indicators have changed over time, with the analysis focussing on the following:
7 Due to the location of the Proposed Development within the St Helens administrative boundary, the baseline conditions of the business base and business rate revenues have been assessed at the St Helens level only. 32
• Business Base; • Employment; • Earnings; • Population; • Labour force; • Industry of employment and occupations; • Qualifications and Skills; • Latent labour force; • Deprivation; • Productivity; and • Business rate revenue.
6.64 Baseline conditions are described as of the time of assessment (2016) and are predicted to identify conditions:
• at commencement of development (2017); and • at the stage of completion of the Proposed Development (2022).
6.65 The 2017 predicted baseline will be used for assessment of construction phase effects and the 2022 predicted baseline will be used as a benchmark for the assessment of operational phase effects.
6.66 The current baseline conditions and predicted future baseline conditions are described in more detail below.
Business Base and Employment 6.67 St Helens contains 4,445 business enterprises (Ref 6.12). This is equivalent to around 1.8% of the 245,170 business enterprises recorded across the North West region (wider impact area) in 2016.
6.68 In 2015, the business base of St Helens provided employment for around 59,000 people (Ref 6.13). The distribution of employee jobs by industry is summarised in Table 6.4. This shows that the largest share of employee jobs are in retail, health and business administration and support services, each providing 7,000 employee jobs. This is followed by manufacturing (6,000 jobs), transport and storage (5,000 jobs) and education (5,000 jobs).
6.69 The local impact area also has an above average representation of employee jobs (when compared to the national average) in a number of sectors, including:
• business administration and support services – 11.9% compared to 9.1% nationally across England; • transport and storage - 8.5% compared to 4.7% nationally; • manufacturing - 10.2% compared to 8.1% nationally; • construction - 5.1% compared to 4.5% nationally; and • wholesale - 5.1% compared to 4.2% nationally.
6.70 Whilst the local impact area provides 2,500 jobs in professional, scientific and technical activities, the overall share, at 4.2%, is less than half of the national average at 8.7% (Ref 6.13). 33
Table 6.4: Employee Jobs by Industry
Industry St Helens North West England
Number % Number % Number %
Agriculture, forestry & 20* 0.0 15,000 0.5 161,000 0.6 fishing
Mining, quarrying & utilities 600 1.0 36,000 1.1 274,000 1.1
Manufacturing 6,000 10.2 304,000 9.7 2,023,000 8.1
Construction 3,000 5.1 139,000 4.4 1,115,000 4.5
Motor trades 1,250 2.1 44,000 1.4 442,000 1.8
Wholesale 3,000 5.1 137,000 4.4 1,035,000 4.2
Retail 7,000 11.9 334,000 10.6 2,446,000 9.8
Transport & storage (inc 5,000 8.5 146,000 4.6 1,178,000 4.7 postal)
Accommodation & food 3,500 5.9 230,000 7.3 1,749,000 7.0 services
Information & 1,250 2.1 104,000 3.3 1,104,000 4.4 communication
Financial & insurance 500 0.8 83,000 2.6 896,000 3.6
Property 1,000 1.7 49,000 1.6 430,000 1.7
Professional, scientific & 2,500 4.2 224,000 7.1 2,160,000 8.7 technical
Business administration & 7,000 11.9 278,000 8.9 2,258,000 9.1 support services
Public administration & 2,500 4.2 146,000 4.6 1,021,000 4.1 defence
Education 5,000 8.5 278,000 8.9 2,298,000 9.2
Health 7,000 11.9 456,000 14.5 3,172,000 12.8
Arts, entertainment, 2,500 4.2 139,000 4.4 1,106,000 4.4 recreation & other services
Total 59,000 100 3,140,000 100 24,867,000 100 Source: Ref 6.13
6.71 Based on the national, sub-regional and local policy drive to deliver more employment opportunities, it is expected that the employment baseline position within the LPA will strengthen going forward. Nevertheless, this is likely to vary between industries, with the manufacturing industry expected to decline by 2.8% to 2017 and 9.7% to 2022 whilst the employment in the transport and storage sector is forecast to increase by 4.6% to 2022, based on evidence from Experian (Ref 6.14). 34
6.72 These forecasts are summarised in the following table:
Table 6.5: Current and Predicted Employment Baseline
Current Baseline Predicted Baseline
2016 2017 2022
Total employees 71,100 71,200 72,000
% increase from current baseline - 0.1% 1.3%
Construction employees 5,400 5,400 5,400
% increase from current baseline - 0.0% 0.0%
Manufacturing employees 7,200 7,000 6,500
% increase from current baseline - -2.8% -9.7%
Transport and storage employees 6,500 6,500 6,800
% increase from current baseline - 0.0% 4.6%
Source: Turley 2017; Ref 6.14
Productivity 6.73 Productivity, measured by GVA is a key indicator of the economic performance of an area. In St Helens, FTE employment generates productivity of £53,7228 (Ref 6.14), whilst at the Wigan and North West scales, this is recorded at £49,595 and £51,220, respectively, suggesting greater productivity per worker at the LPA level.
6.74 Productivity increased by 9.1% in the LPA, by 11.2% in Wigan and by 4.7% across the North West between 2004 and 2014.
6.75 Forecasts provided by Experian (Ref 6.14) anticipate that the productivity baseline position within St Helens and Wigan will strengthen going forward. These forecasts are summarised in the following table.
8 Based in a five year average (2012-2016) of GVA per FTE employee 35
Table 6.6: Current and Predicted Economic Productivity Baseline
Current Baseline Predicted Baseline
2016 2017 2022
St Helens GVA per FTE £53,722 £54,492 £57,899
% increase from current baseline - 1.4% 7.8%
Wigan GVA per FTE £49,595 £50,508 £53,669
% increase from current baseline - 1.8% 8.2%
Source: Turley, 2017, Ref 6.14
Earnings 6.76 Earnings can provide an indication of the strength of the local economy, given their relationship with wider economic factors such as gross value added (GVA) and productivity. Earnings levels also have a relationship with prosperity and as such the economic well-being of residents.
6.77 The following table summarises average (median) earnings for full-time workers in the local and wider impact areas as sourced from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) (Ref 6.14). Weekly and annual pay for residents in each location and workplace based pay is provided.
Table 6.7: Average (Median) Earnings 2016
Resident Analysis Workplace Analysis
Weekly Pay Annual Pay Weekly Pay Annual Pay
(gross) (gross) (gross) (gross)
St Helens £499 £25,933 £462 £23,991
Wigan £501 £27,092 £457 £24,153
North West £502 £26,178 £503 £26,173
England £545 £28,503 £544 £28,500 Source: Ref 6.15
6.78 The table shows that average workplace based wages in St Helens and Wigan area are lower than the average wages across the North West and England. Whilst this trend is reflected for resident wages in St Helen’s, Wigan maintains average resident wages higher than the region, albeit lower than the national average.
6.79 The average resident based annual wage in the local impact area - at £25,933 (gross) per annum – is 9% lower than the average annual wage across England, which is higher than the difference between Wigan and England (5%). A similar, albeit more pronounced trend is evident in respect of workplace earnings which are, on average, 16% lower than the national average in St Helens and 15% in Wigan.
36
6.80 The average pay for residents in St Helens and Wigan is also higher than the average workplace pay, indicating that a proportion of the higher paid residents in the two authorities currently commute outside of St Helens and Wigan for work.
6.81 The average resident pay in St Helens and Wigan increased notably over the period from 2006 – 2016, with residents earning an additional £4,912 (23.4%) per annum in St Helens and Wigan residents earning an additional £6,051 (28.8%) per annum. This is greater than the average resident wage increase across the North West (20.0%) and nationally (18.7%). However, growth in workplace based wages in the LPA and Wigan over the same period, at 14.9% and 16.5% respectively, was both lower than the resident based wage increase and the workplace based wage increase seen across the wider impact area and England.
6.82 On this basis, the baseline position is anticipated to continue to strengthen to 2017 and 2022.
Population 6.83 An assessment of population can provide a valuable indicator of the socio-economic vitality of an area, highlighting growth or decline over a time period. The ONS Mid-Year Population Estimates (MYPE) (Ref 6.16), for example, allows comparison over the 10 years period from 2005 to 2015 thereby enabling the level of population change to be assessed.
6.84 Analysis of this data reveals that the population of the LPA, in 2015, stood at 177,612, with this figure increasing by around 1.3% - or approximately 2,251 residents – over the previous 10 year period since 2005. The rate of growth is lower than that witnessed across Wigan and the wider impact area, where the population grew by 5.2% and 4.4%, respectively, between 2005 and 2015 (Ref 6.14). This compares to the average growth of 8.3% across England over the same period.
Table 6.8: Population Change 2005 – 2015
Area Population
2005 2015 Total Change % Change 2005 - 2015
St Helens 175,361 177,612 2,251 1.3%
Wigan 306,143 322,022 15,879 5.2%
North West 6,870,021 7,173,835 303,814 4.4%
England 50,606,034 54,786,327 4,180,293 8.3% Source: Ref 6.16
Age Structure 6.85 Age is an important indicator of the structure of the population, and particularly the number of residents of working age who can make a valuable contribution to the health of the local economy as part of the labour force. 37
6.86 In the LPA, 62.0% of the population were working age (16 to 64 years) in 2015. This figure is marginally lower than 62.9% in Wigan, 63.0% across the wider impact area and 63.3% nationally (Ref 6.16).
Table 6.9: Age Profile 2015
Age St Helens Wigan North West England
Aged 0 to 15 18.1% 18.7% 18.9% 19.0%
Aged 16 to 24 10.3% 10.3% 11.6% 11.3%
Aged 25 to 49 31.9% 33.4% 32.6% 33.7%
Aged 50 to 64 19.8% 19.2% 18.8% 18.2%
Aged 65+ 19.9% 18.4% 18.1% 17.7%
Aged 16 to 64 62.0% 62.9% 63.0% 63.3% Source: 6.16
6.87 The working age population in the LPA has declined by 2% since 2005 – representing a decrease of circa 2,100 residents. This trend is in contrast to increases in the working age population evident across Wigan (+1%), the wider impact area (+2%) and England (6%) over the same period.
Economic Activity and Unemployment 6.88 As shown in the following table, the latest Annual Population Survey (APS) (Ref 6.17), the proportion of working age residents (aged 16 – 64) that are economically active in the LPA, at 74.3%, is lower than the wider impact area of the North West and England, at 75.8% and 78.1% respectively. The economic activity rate in Wigan is higher than the comparator areas at 80.5%.
6.89 The employment rate in the LPA (68.9%) is also lower, with around a 5% difference evident across St Helens compared to England. The employment rate is also 2.7% lower than the 71.6% average across the wider impact area, whilst Wigan maintains a high employment rate at 76.5%. The unemployment rate in St Helens is evidently higher as a result, standing at 7.3%, compared to 4.9% in Wigan, 5.5% across the wider impact area and 5.2% across England.
6.90 Lower proportions of economically inactive residents in the local impact area are recorded as wanting a job, at 19.1%, compared to 28.0% of economically inactive residents in Wigan, 24.2% across the North West and 24.3% in England.
38
Table 6.10: Economic Activity (Jul 2015 - June 2016)
St Helens Wigan North West England
Economically active residents 82,900 161,700 3,399,600 26,905,200
Economic activity rate 74.3% 80.5% 75.8% 78.1%
Employed residents 76,800 153,800 3,213,900 25,509,100
Employment rate 68.9% 76.5% 71.6% 74.0%
Unemployment rate 7.3% 4.9% 5.5% 5.2%
% of economically inactive who 19.1% 28.0% 24.2% 24.3% want a job Source: Ref 6.17
6.91 The APS (Ref 6.16) provides time series data to show how economic activity rates have changed over the past decade.
6.92 In 2005/06, the economic activity rate in the LPA – at 73.4% – was approximately 1% lower than the 74.3% recorded in 2015/16, demonstrating an increase of 600 economically active residents in St Helens. The wider impact area has seen a higher proportional increase in the economic activity rate, at 1.4%, reflecting the trend across England (1.4%). Wigan has seen very high levels of growth in the economically active population over recent years, increasing by 14,900 residents and 7.7% since 2005/06.
6.93 The employment rate in the LPA has, however, decreased slightly over this period – from 69.6% to 68.9% – which represents a reduction of around 1,200 employed residents in St Helens. The unemployment rate has also increased by 2.1% in the LPA – from 5.2% to 7.3%. Both of these indicators suggest that there is latent capacity and potentially a need for additional jobs within the LPA’s labour market.
6.94 Understanding how economic activity rates have changed provides important context on the changing composition of the labour force. Based on this evidence, and reflecting on the forecast growth in the total number of employees and Government ambitions to increase the productivity and employment, economic activity rates are expected to continue to increase to 2017 and 2022 in the LPA and Wigan, with employment levels potentially increasing albeit to a lesser extent.
Industry of Employment 6.95 The APS (Ref 6.17) provides a breakdown of the industry of employment for residents in employment. This is summarised in Table 8.7, with data gaps representing where the sample size was zero or disclosive.
6.96 Table 6.11 shows that the LPA has a higher than average proportion of residents working in manufacturing (12.6%), construction (7.8%), energy and water (3.2%) and public administration, education and health (32.8%), when compared to the national average. Wigan also has a high representation of residents working in manufacturing (12.2%) and construction (10.5%).
39
6.97 The banking, finance and insurance industries and transport and communications industries are proportionately under-represented in the LPA and Wigan, relative to both the North West and England averages. Employment in the service industries in general is also under-represented in the LPA and Wigan, with 75.5% and 73.3% of residents employed in total services, respectively, compared to 79.6% across the wider impact area and 80.5% across England.
Table 6.11: Industry of Employment (July 2015 - June 2016)
St Wigan North England Helens West
Agriculture and fishing 0.4% - 0.8% 0.9%
Energy and water 3.2% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5%
Manufacturing 12.6% 12.2% 10.6% 9.4%
Construction 7.8% 10.5% 6.5% 7.1%
Distribution, hotels and restaurants 18.6% 19.0% 19.7% 18.3%
Transport and communications 6.5% 8.6% 7.9% 9.3%
Banking, finance and insurance 11.7% 11.8% 15.8% 17.6%
Public administration, education and 32.8% 29.9% 31.2% 29.4% health
Other services 5.9% 3.9% 5.0% 5.9%
Total services 75.5% 73.3% 79.6% 80.5% Source: Ref 6.17
Qualifications and Skills 6.98 Skills level requirements differ by business sector and occupational groups and it is, therefore, important to understand the skills profile of the local labour force. The qualification levels identified in the 2011 Census (Ref 6.11) are set out below:
• No qualifications; • Level 1 qualification – 1+’O’ level passes, 1+ CSE/GCSE any grades, NVQ level 1, or Foundation level GNVQ; • Level 2 qualification – 5+’O’ level passes, 5+ CSE (grade 1), 5+ GCSEs (grade A – C), School Certificate, 1+’A’ levels/’AS’ levels, NVQ level 2, or Intermediate GNVQ; • Level 3 qualification – 2+ ‘A’ levels, 4+ ‘AS’ levels, Higher School Certificate, NVQ level 3, or Advanced GNVQ; • Level 4/5 qualification – first degree, higher degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5, HNC, HND, qualified teacher, medical doctor, dentist, nurse, midwife or health visitor; and • Apprenticeships and other qualification – Vocational/Work-related Qualifications, Qualifications gained outside the UK (Not stated/ level unknown).
6.99 The following table provides an indication of the qualifications and skills profile of residents aged 16 and over in the LPA, Wigan, the wider impact area and England. 40
Table 6.12: Qualifications and Skills of Resident Population 2011
St Helens Wigan North West England
No qualifications 27.9% 27.3% 24.8% 22.5%
Level 1 14.3% 15.3% 13.6% 13.3%
Level 2 16.7% 17.1% 15.8% 15.2%
Level 3 12.1% 12.2% 12.9% 12.4%
Level 4/5 20.9% 19.5% 24.4% 27.4%
Apprenticeships and 8.1% 8.5% 8.5% 9.3% other qualifications
Source: Ref 6.11
6.100 The following table provides an indication of the highest level of qualification and skills of the workplace population9 in the local and wider impact areas and England in 2011.
Table 6.13: Qualifications and Skills of Workplace Population 2011
St Helens Wigan North West England
No qualifications 13.0% 13.1% 10.9% 10.1%
Level 1 16.7% 17.2% 14.8% 14.2%
Level 2 19.7% 20.1% 18.0% 16.7%
Level 3 16.3% 16.0% 16.1% 14.7%
Level 4/5 25.8% 24.8% 32.2% 35.1%
Apprenticeships and other qualifications 8.5% 8.8% 8.1% 9.1%
Source: Ref 6.11
6.101 In St Helens and Wigan, the proportion of both residents and the workforce with Level 4+ qualifications is lower than the average proportion across the wider comparator areas, whilst people with qualifications of Level 1 and Level 2 are more strongly represented. The proportion of residents in St Helens and Wigan with no qualifications is also higher than the wider impact area and national averages with 13.0% and 13.1% of the workforce having no qualifications, respectively.
6.102 Given the type of employment likely to be generated by the Proposed Development, the following table summarises the qualifications of those people working in the LPA who are employed in the construction, manufacturing and transport and storage industries.
9 All usual residents aged 16 to 74 in employment in the area. 41
Table 6.14: Qualifications and Skills of Workplace Population by Industry 2011
Construction Manufacturing Transport All and Storage Industries
No qualifications 13.3% 16.7% 22.6% 13.0%
Level 1 15.3% 18.1% 22.7% 16.7%
Level 2 18.3% 17.4% 21.0% 19.7%
Level 3 20.5% 14.6% 10.5% 16.3%
Level 4/5 15.0% 19.9% 10.5% 25.8%
Apprenticeships and other 17.6% 13.4% 12.7% 8.5% qualifications
Source: Ref 6.11
6.103 This shows that a high proportion of people working in the manufacturing and transport and storage industries have no qualifications, but a comparatively high proportion of those employed in the industries are working in an apprenticeship. Lower proportions have higher level qualifications, particularly in the transport and storage sector.
6.104 A similar level of detail is unavailable in the 2001 Census (Ref 6.19). However, the following graph shows the changing skills profile of the total workforce in the LPA, Wigan, the North West and England, illustrating the extent to which the economies of St Helens and Wigan have seen growth in the qualification of the workforce, with increased levels of qualifications over level 3 and fewer unqualified workers, relative to the national average.
Figure 6.2: Change in Qualifications of Workplace Population 2001 – 2011
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50% No Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5 Other qualifications qualifications
St Helens Wigan North West England
Source: Ref 6.11, Ref 6.19 42
6.105 Reflecting on historic change in the skills profile of residents, the baseline position is anticipated to continue to strengthen to 2017 and 2022 with an increased proportion of residents with higher qualifications and fewer unqualified residents.
Industrial and Logistics Sector Skills 6.106 Evidence published by British Property Federation (BPF) and researched by Turley in 2015 (Ref 6.26) demonstrates that while elementary occupations are common in the warehouse and logistics sector, positions in managerial, administrative and high tech occupations, including electrical and mechanical engineering and IT roles, are also available.
6.107 Research by Prologis also found that office-based jobs in the logistics industry have continued to rise in recent years (Ref 6.27). The sector has an above national average representation of managers, directors, senior officials and administrative and secretarial occupations, particularly in businesses operating freight terminals and cargo handling (Ref 6.11).
6.108 Furthermore, companies in the logistics sector are recognised to invest substantially in their workforce, often training individuals for engineering roles and offering apprenticeships. For example:
• DP World London Gateway Port offers apprenticeships in mechanical and electrical engineering as well as business functions including finance, HR and PR. • DPD Group UK offers a four year apprenticeship programme, with electrical engineering NVQ and foundation degree. There is also notable career progression: the CEO, Director of Technical Services, Director of Central Operations and Director of IT all started in lower grade roles and worked their way up. • DHL provides a learning centre on site at the Sainsbury’s national distribution centre to assist individuals in training and learning.
6.109 This is supported by research by Skills for Logistics (Ref 6.28) who found that of 300 logistics firms surveyed, 75% had funded off-the-job training or development and 78% offered information training over the previous 12 months. Training included job specific training, new technology and management, supervisory, and health and safety.
Latent Labour Force 6.110 The number of residents claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance (JSA) also provides useful indicator of unemployed residents in the LPA and local impact area. This measure does not align with the analysis presented above as not all unemployed people claim JSA, and therefore are not recorded by this dataset.
6.111 The claimant count (Ref 6.18) suggests that, as of October 2016, there were a total of 1,190 residents in the LPA, and a total of 3,790 in the local impact area, claiming JSA. Across the wider impact area of the North West, the number of residents claiming JSA totals 51,200.
6.112 In the LPA a large proportion of claimants (60%) are in search of sales and customer service occupations, followed by claimants seeking employment in elementary occupations (17%). These trends are also reflected across Wigan and the wider 43
comparator areas with high proportions of claimants seeking these occupation types, and lower proportions seeking employment in higher paid managerial, professional and technical occupations.
Table 6.15: Sought Occupation of JSA Claimants - September 2016
Occupation St Helens Wigan North England West
Occupation unknown 50 4% 140 5% 5% 5%
Managers and Senior Officials 5 0% 30 1% 3% 7%
Professional Occupations 10 1% 15 1% 1% 1%
Associate Professional and 20 2% 20 1% 1% 2% Technical Occupations
Administrative and Secretarial 90 8% 135 5% 9% 6% Occupations
Skilled Trades Occupations 30 3% 55 2% 2% 3%
Personal Service Occupations 40 3% 90 3% 3% 2%
Sales and Customer Service 715 60% 1,535 59% 58% 57% occupations
Process, Plant and Machine 30 3% 80 3% 3% 3% Operatives
Elementary Occupations 200 17% 500 19% 17% 15%
Total 1,190 100% 2,600 100% 100% 100% Source: Ref 6.18
6.113 Over the past 10 years the number of residents in the LPA and Wigan claiming job seekers allowance has decreased by a notable 2,105 (64%) and 2,475 (49%) people, respectively.
Deprivation 6.114 An analysis of patterns of deprivation has been undertaken using the 2015 published English Indices of Deprivation (Ref 6.20). The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is calculated based on the analysis of nine domains including; income, employment, health, education, crime, barriers to housing services, living environment and income deprivation affecting children and older people. IMD is a national index, which enables direct and consistent comparisons to be made between all areas of England through consideration of relative levels of multiple deprivation.
6.115 Overall, St Helens borough ranks 36th out of 326 local authority areas, placing it just outside of the top 10% most deprived areas in England. A total of 47 LSOAs within the Borough fall within the 20% most deprived nationally, with 4 LSOAs being within the top 1% most deprived LSOAs. (Ref 6.209).
44
6.116 When broken down by domain, evidence suggests that LPA’s deprivation level is driven by severe deprivation within two domains - employment and health deprivation and disability.
6.117 It is notable that overall in 2010 St Helens was ranked 51st out of 326 local authorities (Ref 6.23). Its relative position has therefore worsened over the 5 year period from 2010 and the publication of the latest index in 2015.
6.118 By comparison, Wigan is less deprived than St Helens, albeit still relatively deprived ranking 85th out of 326 local authorities in 2015, placing Wigan just outside of the top 25% most deprived areas in England. Contrary to the trend in St Helens, deprivation in Wigan has improved over the period from 2010, when the authority ranked 65th out of 326 local authorities.
6.119 The following plan shows the location of the Proposed Development relative to areas of deprivation across both St Helens and Wigan.
Figure 6.3: Rank of IMD across St Helens and Wigan
Source: Ref: 6.20
6.120 Reflecting on the LPA and Wigan’s improving levels of JSA claimants and the improving deprivation rate in Wigan, it is expected that the baseline position in relation to worklessness and deprivation will improve from the current position to 2017 and 2022. St Helen’s current high rate of employment deprivation is expected to improve by 2022 reflecting on the forecast levels of employment growth and government commitment to generating employment opportunities for all.
45
Business Rate Revenue 6.121 The Council’s latest Annual Financial Report (Ref 6.23) indicates that, in 2015/16, £52.9 million income was generated through business rates. Over the period from 2009/10 to 2015/16, the income collected from business ratepayers has increased by 14.9%, equivalent to an average annual increase of 2.4% (Ref 6.24).
6.122 The baseline position is therefore anticipated to continue to strengthen to 2017 and 2022.
Assessment of Potential Effects
6.123 The assessment of socio-economic effects is presented below. This has been based a ‘reasonable worst case’ scenario that assumes 1.8 million sq ft (167,225 sq m) of floorspace is developed for B8 use.
6.124 This scenario represents the reasonable worst case for the purposes of assessing the significance of effect on the basis that a B8 use scheme would yield lower levels of employment and productivity effects, than a scheme comprising a mix of B2 and B8 uses.
6.125 The assessment is based on a professional understanding, and assumption, of the sensitivity and magnitude of the receptors.
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects – Short to Medium Term 6.126 The Proposed Development is estimated to generate construction expenditure of approximately £127.5 million. The employment and GVA effects estimated to be generated by this investment on the local and wider impact areas during the construction phase are summarised below.
Employment - Direct and Indirect 6.127 The construction phase investment in the Proposed Development has been calculated in line with the methodology set out within Paragraph 6.44. This calculation suggests that the Proposed Development has the capacity to directly support 1,147 person years of employment within the construction sector. During the construction phase, on-site employment can be expected to fluctuate and ‘peak’ during intense periods of activity. Assuming a construction period of approximately 5 years, it is estimated that the Proposed Development could directly support circa 229 FTE gross direct construction jobs per annum.
6.128 Positive economic impacts of the construction phase of the Proposed Development will extend beyond direct construction employment to include the generation of indirect and induced benefits. For instance, investment will result in considerable expenditure on construction materials, goods and other services that will be purchased from a wide range of suppliers. The result is that the initial investment in the Proposed Development would be amplified by economic ‘multiplier’ effects linked to expenditure on goods and services locally. This will bring indirect employment and financial benefits for local individuals and firms involved in construction trades and associated professions.
6.129 Consequently, based on the methodology set out within Paragraph 6.44 above, the construction of the Proposed Development would be expected to support a further 115 46
indirect and induced FTE jobs (per annum over the 5 year build period) within the wider impact area. Approximately 17 indirect and induced FTE jobs are expected to be supported within the LPA, increasing to 28 FTE jobs within the local impact area. These impacts would encompass contracts within the supply chain, salaries and onward expenditure.
6.130 Taking account of additionality factors, the construction phase of the Proposed Development could support a total of 344 net additional FTE jobs per annum across the wider impact area over a 5 year build period. A total of 86 FTE jobs are expected to be taken by residents of St Helens, increasing to 140 FTE jobs at the local impact area level.
6.131 This is considered to be a worst-case scenario, with take up of construction phase employment at the LPA and local impact area level having the potential to be increased through the use of local labour and supply chains. This will be facilitated through the preparation and implementation of a Local Employment Strategy (LES) (for the Proposed Development which is provided as part of the planning application submission and will be implemented to maximise the proportion of the jobs proposed that are taken up by the local workforce. A framework for preparing the LES has been prepared by the applicant and submitted with the outline planning application. This will be taken forward by Peel in partnership with the lead contractor(s) for the scheme and other local partner agencies following approval of the outline planning application. A separate operational phase LES will also be devised in connection with the first occupiers of new buildings in the proposed development.
Table 6.16: Construction Phase Employment Generation
Construction Phase LPA Local Impact Wider Impact Area Area
Person-years of Employment 1,147 1,147 1,147
Direct Gross Employment 229 229 229
Direct Net Additional Employment 69 112 229
Indirect / Induced Employment 17 28 115
Net Additional Employment (Total) 86 140 344
Source: Turley, 2016
6.132 The latest ONS claimant count statistics demonstrate that there is latent demand for construction employment within the local and wider labour force. In total, there are circa 1,320 economically active unemployed working age residents within the wider impact area seeking employment within the construction sector, inclusive of 25 claimants in St Helens and 60 claimants in Wigan (Ref 6.18). These residents could form a potential source of construction phase labour for the Proposed Development.
6.133 The impact on the population of increases in construction related employment at the scale of the LPA and the local and wider impact areas is beneficial, due to the potential for employment generation and wealth creation. The magnitude of the impact is high at 47
the scale of the LPA and the local and wider impact areas when benchmarked against the baseline assessment of employment in the construction industry. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct and indirect, temporary, medium-term effect of major beneficial significance arising from the construction phase of the Proposed Development within the LPA and the local and wider impact areas. This is a significant beneficial effect in EIA terms.
Productivity - Direct and Indirect 6.134 The contribution to annual productivity in the LPA economy as a result of construction of the Proposed Development – measured in GVA – is estimated to be circa £5.3 million per annum during the construction phase, which is expected to last for 5 years. The impact rises to circa £8.6 million GVA per annum when assessed at the local impact area level and £20.7 million when the effect of the Proposed Development on the wider impact area is assessed. This is summarised in the following table.
Table 6.17: Construction Phase Productivity Effects
GVA Contribution LPA Local Impact Wider Impact Area Area
Direct GVA Impact £4,400,000 £7,200,000 £14,800,000
Indirect / Induced GVA Impact £900,000 £1,400,000 £5,900,000
Net Additional GVA Impact (Total) £5,300,000 £8,600,000 £20,700,000
Source: Turley, 2016
6.135 It is realistic to expect construction phase productivity effects to be increased through the successful implementation of the LES. The estimates at the scale of the LPA and Local Impact area scale can therefore be considered to represent a worst-case scenario.
6.136 The impact on the population of increases in construction related GVA uplift is beneficial, with wealth creation in the LPA and local and wider impact areas. The magnitude of the impact is high at the scale of the LPA and the local and wider impact areas when benchmarked against the baseline assessment of construction productivity, which has declined over the 10 year period from 2006 to 2016.
6.137 Therefore, there is likely to be a direct and indirect, temporary, medium-term effect of major beneficial significance within the LPA and local and wider impact areas. This is a significant beneficial effect in EIA terms.
Population 6.138 The magnitude of potential change in population arising within the LPA and local and wider impact areas during the construction phase of the Proposed Development is anticipated to be negligible, based on the estimated scale of employment generated and its temporary nature. Therefore, it is likely that there will be no significant effect on population arising from the construction phase at all scales.
48
Alternative Scenario – Construction Phase Impacts 6.139 There is potential for the construction phase impacts to be greater than those identified above in the event that the Proposed Development is developed for a mix of B8 and B2 uses. Whilst it is not necessary to assess the significance of effect associated with this alternative development scenario, for completeness, the potential impacts of a scheme comprising 133,780 sq m B8 use (equivalent to 80% of the total floorspace) and 33,445 sq m B2 use (equivalent to 20%) have been assessed in line with the methodology set out at Paragraph 6.44, and are summarised below:
• £140.6 million investment in construction; • 253 direct gross FTE jobs supported annually over the 5 year build period; • 76 direct net additional FTE jobs created in the LPA, increasing to 123 FTE jobs in the local impact area and 253 FTE jobs across the wider impact area; • A further 19 FTE indirect and/or induced jobs generated within the supply chain and from onward employee expenditure within the LPA economy, increasing to 31 FTE jobs within the local impact area and 126 FTE jobs across the wider impact area; and • Additional £5.9 million uplift annually in productivity – measured in GVA – within the LPA economy throughout the construction phase, with £9.6 million generated within the local impact area and £22.8 million within the wider impact area.
Assessment of Operational Phase Effects – Long Term 6.140 This section assesses the significant socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development during the operational phase.
Employment - Direct and Indirect 6.141 In order to calculate the employment effects generated through the operational phase relevant employment densities (Ref 6.10) are applied to the floorspace parameters to calculate the number of direct gross FTE jobs generated by the Proposed Development. Based on this assessment it is estimated that the Proposed Development would generate 2,286 direct gross FTE jobs on site.
6.142 In order to calculate net FTE jobs generated by the development, considerations of appropriate allowances for leakage and displacement are made in line with recognised guidance. For the purposes of this assessment a medium – high rate of leakage has been applied to reflect labour market containment within the LPA and local impact area scales, with nil leakage being applied at the wider level. A low rate of displacement has been allowed for at the local and wider levels, with a very low rate applied at the LPA level, as it anticipated that the other firms or demand may be affected by the Proposed Development, but only to a limited extent. A medium level multiplier has been applied for at the local and wider levels to reflect indirect and induced local employment effects (Ref 6.9).
6.143 Taking into consideration leakage and displacement, it is estimated that 1,715 of the direct FTE jobs could be net additional to the wider impact area, including 823 direct net additional FTE jobs in the LPA and 1,114 direct FTE jobs in the local impact area.
6.144 A further 857 net FTE jobs could be generated via indirect and induced effects, including supply chain contracts, salaries and onward expenditure across the wider impact area.
49
This includes 206 FTE jobs within the LPA economy and 279 in the local impact area, as set out in the following table.
Table 6.18: Operational Phase FTE Employment Generation
Operational FTE Employment LPA Local Impact Wider Impact Area Area
Gross Employment (FTE) 2,286 2,286 2,286
Direct Net Additional Employment 823 1,114 1,715 (FTE)
Indirect / Induced Employment (FTE) 206 279 857
Net Additional Employment (Total) 1,029 1,393 2,572 Source: Turley, 2016
6.145 In addition to the above estimates being based on Scenario 2, they are also considered to be a worst-case scenario for the following reasons:
• Firstly, given that St Helens is a net exporter of labour, the Proposed Development presents an opportunity for St Helens to retain a greater proportion of its economic active workforce and in turn broaden the number of employment opportunities on offer for local residents.
• Secondly, take up of operational phase employment at the LPA and local impact area level has the potential to be increased through the use of local labour and supply chain companies. This will be facilitated through the preparation and implementation of a LES (for the Proposed Development which will be taken forward by Peel in partnership with the first occupiers of the scheme, the Northern Logistics Academy and other local partner agencies following approval of the outline planning application. A framework for preparing the LES has been prepared and submitted with the outline planning application.
6.146 The impact on the population of increases in operational phase employment across the LPA and local and wider impact areas is beneficial, due to the potential for employment generation and wealth creation. The creation of additional FTE jobs during the operational phase of the Proposed Development will also assist St Helens and the Liverpool City Region LEP to achieve their strategic objective of supporting economic growth, and employment opportunities and investment in logistics and distribution sector activities.
6.147 The magnitude of the impact is high at the scale of the LPA and the local impact area and low across the wider impact area when benchmarked against the baseline position for employment rates across the various scales.
6.148 Therefore, there is likely to be a direct and indirect, permanent, long term effect of major beneficial significance at the scale of the LPA and local impact area. An effect of moderate beneficial significance is expected at the scale of the wider impact area. These represent significant beneficial effects in EIA terms.
50
Productivity - Direct and Indirect 6.149 The uplift in annual productivity in the LPA economy as an impact of the operation of the Proposed Development – measured in GVA – is estimated to be circa £44.7 million per annum. The effect rises to circa £60.5 million per annum GVA uplift when the impact of operation on the local impact area is assessed, and £115.0 million per annum at the scale of the wider impact area. This is summarised below.
Table 6.19: Operational Phase Productivity Effects10
GVA Contribution LPA Local Impact Wider Impact Area Area
Direct GVA Impact £34,100,000 £46,200,000 £71,100,000
Indirect / Induced GVA Impact £10,500,000 £14,300,000 £43,900,000
Net Additional GVA Impact (Total) £44,700,000 £60,500,000 £115,000,000
Source: Turley, 2016
6.150 The impact on the population of increases in operational phase related GVA across the LPA and local and wider impact areas is beneficial, due to the potential for employment generation and wealth creation. The magnitude of the impact is high at the scale of the LPA and the local impact area and low across the wider impact area. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct and indirect, permanent, long term effect of major beneficial significance at the scale of the LPA and local impact areas, with a moderate beneficial effect at the wider level. These represent significant beneficial effects in EIA terms.
Population 6.151 The magnitude of the potential change in population arising within the LPA and local and wider impact areas during the operational phase of the Proposed Development is anticipated to be negligible based on the estimated scale of employment generated. Therefore, it is likely that there will be no significant effect on population arising from the operational phase of the Proposed Development at all scales.
Unemployment and Deprivation 6.152 Reducing unemployment and retaining wealth in the LPA is a key factor in lowering levels of deprivation locally that are recognised to have worsened over the period from 2010 - 2015. The Proposed Development will provide capacity for the accommodation of 2,286 direct gross FTE jobs on site once fully operational. Additional employment opportunities will also be generated via indirect and induced effects as a result of the proposed development.
6.153 The Proposed Development therefore has the potential to improve economic activity and employment rates across the LPA and local and wider impact area - which in St Helens and the North West are currently below the national average - through the generation of new employment opportunities within a range of occupation types and skill levels.
10 Figures may not sum due to rounding. 51
6.154 In addition, the Proposed Development is proximate to some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in St Helens and Wigan. The Proposed Development will provide a mix of full and part time employment opportunities across a wide range of skills levels and occupations. The LES will detail the type of opportunities expected to be supported by the Proposed Development, and provisions will be made to maximise take up of employment opportunities by residents living in these deprived areas.
6.155 The impact on unemployment and deprivation is, therefore, beneficial, due to the provision of additional employment opportunities that will help to increase employment levels, in turn reducing unemployment levels and reducing the number of people seeking employment claiming JSA.
6.156 At the scale of the LPA, the magnitude of the impact of the Proposed Development on the claimant count and unemployment levels is moderate, with a low magnitude at the local impact area level when reflecting on the current (2016) and predicted future (2022) baseline position in terms of overall scale of and change in unemployment and deprivation. At the scale of the wider impact area, the magnitude on the claimant count and unemployment levels is negligible. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, permanent, long term effect of moderate beneficial significance at the LPA level with minor beneficial significance at the local impact area scale and no significant effect at the wider level. The LPA level effect can be considered a significant beneficial effect in EIA terms.
Skills 6.157 The Proposed Development is expected to accommodate 2,286 gross FTE jobs. The type of jobs likely to be created on site can be estimated based on the occupational profile of the St Helens workforce employed in the transport and storage and manufacturing sectors at the time of the 2011 Census (Ref 6.11). This is presented in the following table, although it should be recognised that this provides only an indication of the occupational profile of these broad sectors and may fail to capture the potential for specialist jobs associated with potential end occupiers of the Proposed Development.
52
Table 6.20: Jobs Potentially Supported by the Proposed Development by Occupation
Occupation % of transport and FTE Jobs (Gross Direct) storage (B8) supported by Proposed
employees at 2011 Development Census
Managers, directors and senior 8.2% 188 officials
Professional occupations 9.6% 219
Associate professional and 6.2% 141 technical occupations
Administrative and secretarial 9.8% 224 occupations
Skilled trades occupations 4.9% 113
Caring, leisure and other service 2.0% 45 occupations
Sales and customer service 3.2% 72 occupations
Process, plant and machine 35.9% 820 operatives
Elementary occupations 20.3% 463
Total Direct Jobs 100.0% 2,286
Source: Turley, 2016
6.158 Based on the occupational profile set out above, the Proposed Development can be expected to support jobs across a wide range of occupations, although particularly within process, plant and machine operative and elementary occupations.
6.159 The following table sets out the number of jobs expected to be supported by qualification. The anticipated skills profile of the jobs expected to be generated by the Proposed Development aligns with these trends. In addition to the provision of jobs that suit the requirements of the local labour force, the Proposed Development may also generate roles for higher qualified employees, with circa 240 FTE jobs requiring qualifications of Level 4 and higher.
53
Table 6.21: Operational Phase Skills of New Employees
Qualification % of transport and FTE Jobs storage (B8) (Gross Direct) employees at 2011 supported by Census Proposed Development
No qualifications 22.6% 517
Level 1 qualifications 22.7% 520
Level 2 qualifications 21.0% 480
Level 3 qualifications 10.5% 239
Level 4 qualifications and above 10.5% 240
Apprenticeships and other qualifications 12.7% 291
Total Direct Jobs 100.0% 2,286
Source: Turley, 2016
6.160 Evidence presented in the Baseline demonstrates that the warehouse and logistics sector often offers training to employees, providing opportunities to upskill the workforce. The Proposed Development therefore has the potential to increase the number of qualified people in the LPA and local and wider impact areas, which is beneficial in developing the skills of the workforce.
6.161 Relative to the number of qualified residents in the LPA and local impact area, the magnitude of the impact is low, with a negligible impact at the wider level. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, permanent, long term effect of moderate beneficial significance on the skills profile of residents in the LPA and local impact area scales with an effect of minor beneficial significance at the wider level. The LPA and local impact area effects can be considered to be significant beneficial effects in EIA terms. .
6.162 The planning application is accompanied by a LES which has the aim of maximising the number of local people employed directly or indirectly by the Proposed Development during its occupation. The successful implementation of this strategy will result in a greater beneficial effect on the skills profile of residents in the LPA and local impact area.
Business rates 6.163 The Proposed Development would generate approximately £3.4 million business rate revenue per annum, of which under current arrangements 50% or £1.7 million could be retained by the St Helens Council until 2020 when circa £3.4 million could be retained. This has been estimated based on the average value per sqm for similar units and uses, drawing on data published by the VOA (Ref 6.22).
6.164 The impact of business rates revenue arising directly from the Proposed Development is assessed as beneficial when considering the sensitivity on local public budget and expenditure for St Helens Council. The magnitude of the impact of the Proposed
54
Development is high when benchmarked against the business rate income collected in 2015/16. Therefore, there is likely to be an indirect, permanent, long term effect of moderate beneficial significance on public revenues at the LPA scale. This can be considered a significant beneficial effect in EIA terms.
Alternative Scenario – Operational Phase Impacts 6.165 There is potential for the operational phase impacts to be greater than those identified above in the event that the Proposed Development is developed for a mix of B8 and B2 uses. Whilst it is not necessary to assess the significant of effect associated with this alternative development scenario, for completeness the potential impacts of a scheme, comprising 133,780 sq m B8 use (equivalent to 80% of the total floorspace) and 33,445 sq m B2 use (equivalent to 20%), are summarised below:
• Provision of 2,758 direct gross FTE jobs upon completion and operation of the Proposed Development; • 993 direct net additional FTE jobs created in the LPA, increasing to 1,344 FTE jobs in the local impact area and 2,068 FTE jobs across the wider impact area; • A further 248 indirect and induced net additional FTE jobs could be created within the LPA economy, increasing to 336 FTE jobs in the local impact area and 1,034 FTE jobs across the wider impact area; • £58.7 million annual contribution to economic productivity (GVA) within the LPA economy once fully operational, with £79.5 million generated within the local impact area and £148.7 million within the wider impact area; • 685 FTE employees working in higher paid managerial, professional and technical occupations and 341 FTE jobs requiring qualifications of Level 4 and higher; and • £3.5 million uplift in business rate revenue per annum, of which under current arrangements 50% or £1.7 million could be retained by the St Helens Council until 2020 when circa £3.5 million could be retained.
Scope of Mitigation 6.166 There are no significant adverse effects arising from the Proposed Development in socio-economic terms, and hence no mitigation is required during the construction or operational phase.
Residual Effect Assessment 6.167 The residual effects of the Proposed Development are presented in Table 6.22 in summary format. On the basis that no mitigation is required these effects reflect those set out within the construction phase and operational phase assessment presented in full above.
6.168 The residual effects which are shaded in the following table represent significant effects in EIA terms.
55
Table 6.22: Residual Effects
Environmental Impact Area Description of Impact Duration Mitigation Residual Impact and Duration of Residual Receptor and Significance Significance Impact
Construction phase
Employment LPA/Local/Wider Major beneficial Medium term N/A Major beneficial Medium term
Productivity LPA/Local/Wider Major beneficial Medium term N/A Major beneficial Medium term
Operational phase
LPA/Local Major beneficial Long term N/A Major beneficial Long term Employment Wider Moderate beneficial Long term N/A Moderate beneficial Long term
LPA/Local Major beneficial Long term N/A Major beneficial Long term Productivity Wider Moderate beneficial Long term N/A Moderate beneficial Long term
Unemployment LPA Moderate beneficial Long term N/A Moderate beneficial Long term and Deprivation Local Minor beneficial Long term N/A Minor beneficial Long term
LPA/Local Moderate beneficial Long term N/A Moderate beneficial Long term Skills Wider Minor beneficial Long term N/A Minor beneficial Long term
Business rates LPA Moderate beneficial Long term N/A Moderate beneficial Long term
Source: Turley, 2017
56
6.169 There are no requirements identified for mitigation of socio-economic effects, and hence there are not expected to be any negative residual effects to occur as a result of the Proposed Development. Instead, the assessment has identified the generation of beneficial residual effects – notably an increase in direct employment, indirect employment within the supply chain and wider induced employment arising from income and onward expenditure within the economy. These effects will concurrently generate increased economic activity, productivity, business profitability and hence GVA growth within the economy. These impacts are quantified at the LPA, local impact area and wider impact area study area scales.
6.170 The remaining residual effects are expected to result in a negligible impact.
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
Proposed Cumulative Assessment: Intra-relationship of Effects 6.171 The socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development will have an interrelationship with transport effects. The increase in movement of people will be associated with increase in employees. This could result in intra-project effects associated with an increase in traffic, although these effects are considered as a direct impact in the transport and accessibility chapter.
Proposed Cumulative Assessment: Inter-relationship of Effects 6.172 Cumulative effects are those that may result from the combination of past, present or future actions of existing or planned activities in a project’s zone of influence. While a single activity may itself result in an insignificant impact, when combined with the impacts (significant or insignificant) of other activities, it may result in a cumulative effect that is significant.
6.173 The following schemes identified below have been assessed in conjunction with the Proposed Development in order to understand the cumulative impact:
• The Proposed Development for two commercial / industrial buildings comprising up to 135,000 sq m of employment floorspace and associated development8 on land to the west of Haydock Industrial Park. The application was submitted as a hybrid, with outline planning permission sought for the employment elements (with all matters reserved except for access) and full permission sought for the other elements. . SHC resolved to grant11 planning permission on the 17 January 2017.
• The approved development on land to the north of Penny Lane / West of the M6, for which St Helens Council has granted a hybrid planning permission9. It includes full planning permission for a B8 warehouse (11,689 sqm) and ancillary elements and outline permission for a B8 warehouse (34,653 sqm) with ancillary office space, parking and landscaping. All matters are reserved expect for main access.
• Pre-application publicity confirms that an application for planning permission is expected shortly on the Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate in
11 Subject to securing a Unilateral Undertaking and the Secretary of State not ‘Calling In’ the application for his determination. 57
Haydock. It is expected to comprise circa 300,000 sq ft of employment floorspace across four units, accessed via the existing Haydock Industrial Estate.
• The Parkside development site is allocated for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in the adopted St Helens Core Strategy Local Plan, with an operational area of approximately 85 hectares. It will be considered on the basis of the latest information submitted by the site promoter, the Parkside Joint Venture Company, to St Helens Call for Sites 2016 Consultation which proposes circa 4.5 m sq ft of logistics floorspace.
6.174 The cumulative schemes will generate impacts during both the construction and operational phases. The indicators that are expected to be impacted as a result of the cumulative schemes include:
• Employment - additional jobs will be created through direct employment during the construction and operation of the schemes and indirect/induced employment will also be generated.
• Productivity - the construction and operation of the schemes will generate an increase in Gross Value Added (GVA). GVA measures the value of output created (i.e. turnover) net of inputs purchased, and is used to produce a good or service (i.e. production of the output).
• Economic Activity, Unemployment and Deprivation – the take-up of new employment skills and training opportunities on the other identified developments will grow the workforce of the local impact area and may enhance economic activity rates, unemployment rates and associated levels of deprivation locally.
• Skills – through the development employment floorspace, including warehouse and logistics uses, there is potential for occupiers to change and enhance the skills profile of the local residents and workforce through targeted skills and training provision.
• Business rate revenue – businesses pay non-domestic rates (known as business rates) to contribute to the cost of the local authority providing public services within the area that the business property is situated. Businesses occupying new rateable floorspace will generate an uplift in business rate revenue.
6.175 As with the Proposed Development, the socio-economic effects of the cumulative developments will be beneficial at the LPA, local and wider levels. Based on the scale and scope of the committed development proposals set out above, the delivery of employment floorspace will have major beneficial cumulative effect upon employment, productivity and business rate revenue at the local and wider scales during both the construction and operational phases. This is significant in EIA terms. Furthermore, the cumulative effect on unemployment and deprivation and skills profile locally will be of major beneficial significance. This is also significant in EIA terms.
58
Monitoring
6.176 It is not anticipated any socio-economic monitoring procedures are necessary, as no mitigation measures are deemed required to resolve any adverse socio-economic effects arising from the Proposed Development.
References
6.1 HM Treasury (2015) ‘Fixing the Foundations: creating a more prosperous nation’
6.2 DCLG (2012) ‘National Planning Policy Framework’
6.3 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk
6.4 HM Government (2016) ‘Northern Powerhouse Strategy
6.5 Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership and Combined Authority (2016) ‘Building our Future: Liverpool City Region Growth Strategy’
6.6 Liverpool City Region LEP/NAI Global (2014) ‘Superport – Market Analysis – Land and Property’
6.7 St Helens Borough Council (2012) ‘St Helens Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted October 2012)’
6.8 St Helens Borough Council (2016) ‘ St Helens Local Plan 2018-2033 Preferred Options’
6.9 HCA (2014) ‘Additionality Guide (4th edition)’
6.10 HCA (2015) ‘Employment Densities Guide (3rd edition)’
6.11 ONS (2011) ‘Census’
6.12 ONS (2015) ‘UK Business Counts - Enterprises’
6.13 ONS via Nomis (2016) ‘Business Register and Employment Survey’
6.14 Experian (2014) ‘Local Market Forecasts Quarterly’
6.15 ONS via Nomis (2015) ‘Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings’
6.16 ONS via Nomis (2015) ‘Mid-year Population Estimates’
6.17 ONS via Nomis (2016) ‘Annual Population Survey’
6.18 ONS via Nomis (2015) ‘Jobseekers Allowance by Occupation’
6.19 DCLG (2015) ‘Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)’
59
6.20 ONS (2001) ‘Census’
6.21 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015) ‘Business Population Estimates’
6.22 http://voa.gov.uk
6.23 St Helens Council (2015) Indices of Deprivation 2015 – St.Helens Summary
6.24 St Helens Borough Council (2016) St Helens Borough Council Statement of Accounts 2015-2016
6.25 St Helens Borough Council (2011) St Helens Borough Council Statement of Accounts 2009-2010
6.26 British Property Federation (2015) ‘Delivering the Goods: The economic impact of the UK logistics sector’
6.27 Prologis (2015) Distribution Warehouses Deliver More Jobs
6.28 Skills for Logistics (2014) Logistics Employer Skills Survey – Evidence Report
60
7. Transport
Introduction
7.1 An assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development on local transportation and highway conditions has been completed by Vectos Ltd.
7.2 This chapter of the ES describes the baseline environment of the Proposed Development Site (PDS) and adjacent areas that may be effected by the Proposed Development. It goes on to describe the proposed method of assessment for identifying likely significant environmental effects. Effects are then assessed for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
7.3 Where appropriate, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or remove any likely significant effects and the likely residual impact has been assessed.
7.4 A full Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared for the Proposed Development, this is provided as ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1 of this Environmental Statement. Where necessary, key elements of the TA are summarised within this chapter, and hereafter all reference to figures and appendices refer to those provided in the Transport Assessment itself.
Legislation, Policy and Good Practice
7.5 This section outlines the relevant national and local transport policies on the integration of land use planning and transport, to which regard has been had in the completion of the assessment.
National Planning Policy Framework 7.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 7.1) was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2012 and provides guidance for English Council’s in producing local plans and making decisions on planning applications.
7.7 The key message of the NPPF, as outlined in the Ministerial Forward, is that sustainable development should go ahead without delay and the planning system should facilitate such development.
7.8 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF confirms that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.9 Paragraph 7 of theNPPF sets out three dimensions to achieving sustainable development:
• An economic role – ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and co-ordinating development requirements, including infrastructure. 61
• A social role – provision of accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. • An environmental role – using natural reserves prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt the climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
7.10 The NPPF advocates that to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought in a co-ordinated manner and the planning systems should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable locations, with plans and decisions taking local circumstances into account.
7.11 As outlined in Paragraph 14, at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is to be seen as a golden thread for plan making and decision taking. This presumption in favour of sustainable development relates to both plan making and decision taking. It requires that planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs unless the adverse impacts of doing so would ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF, or where the Framework indicates development should be restricted.
7.12 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF outlines that within the overarching roles that the planning system ought to play, a set of 12 core land-use planning principles should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. In transport terms the most directly relevant core principle is that planning should:
“Actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”.
7.13 Other transport related principles include:
• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local plans that the country needs; • Support the transition to a low carbon future; • Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution; • Promote mixed use developments; • Deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.
7.14 Annex 2 of the NPPF defines sustainable transport modes as “any efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, including walking and cycling, low and ultra-low emission vehicles, car sharing and public transport”.
7.15 To promote these forms of transport the document stresses that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. The policy document continues to advise, “in preparing 62
Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport” (Paragraph 30).
7.16 The Framework indicates that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:
• The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and • Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. (Paragraph 32).
7.17 The NPPF goes on to state: “plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need for travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised” (Paragraph 34).
Planning Practice Guidance: Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-Taking (Ref 7.2) 7.18 In March 2014, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), in conjunction with the Department for Transport (DfT), released advice on when transport assessments and transport statements are required, what they should contain (which is intended to assist stakeholders in determining whether an assessment may be required) and, if so, what the level and scope of that assessment should be.
7.19 The advice reflects current Government policy promoting a shift from the ‘predict and provide’ approach to transport planning to one more focused on sustainability. The document focuses on encouraging environmental sustainability, managing the existing network and mitigating the residual impacts of traffic from the development proposals.
Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) for Merseyside (2011 - 2026) 7.20 The third local transport plan for Merseyside (2011 – 2026) (Ref 7.3) was adopted in April 2011 and sets out the implementation plans in the short term to 2015 and looks to the longer term strategy for 2024 on how to improve transport in Merseyside.
7.21 The plan has 6 equal status goals which seek to:
• Help create the right conditions for sustainable economic growth by supporting the priorities of the Liverpool City Region, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Local Strategic Partnerships; • Provide and promote a clean, low emission transport system which is resilient to changes to climate and oil availability; • Ensure the transport system promotes and enables improved health and wellbeing and road safety;
63
• Ensure equality of travel opportunity for all, through a transport system that allows people to connect easily with employment, education, healthcare, other essential services and leisure and recreational opportunities; • Ensure the transport network supports the economic success of the city region by the efficient movement of people and goods; and, • Maintain our assets to a high standard.
St Helens Core Strategy (October 2012) 7.22 The Development Plan for St Helens comprises the St Helens Core Strategy (adopted 2012) (Ref 7.4), the St Helens Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (adopted 1998 and saved policies post 2012) and the Merseyside Joint Waste Local Plan (2013). Alongside those core documents are a number of supporting Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) which expand on, or provide further details on policy in the development plan document, including the “Ensuring a Choice of Travel SPD” (2010).
7.23 Within the policy context, the land is within the Green Belt and lies adjacent to the Strategic Highway Network.
7.24 Policies of the development plan relevant to Transport seek to promote development in locations that are accessible by a choice of means and take advantage of the strategic and freight road network and existing infrastructure (policies CP1/ CP2/ CIN1/CAS4).
7.25 St Helens are in early stage of preparation of the St Helens Local Plan which is proposing the allocation of the majority of the land for employment development and supporting major employment developments in sites accessible to the strategic highway network.
7.26 The relevant policies from the Core Strategy are set out below.
7.27 Policy CAS 4 ‐ Haydock and Blackbrook Strategy, states at bullet point five that:
“Support will be maintained for the following accessibility objectives and development will be prevented from prejudicing the outcome wherever possible: • Maintaining the effectiveness of the Freight Route Network including Junction 23 of the M6 motorway; and, • Initiatives to improve access to employment opportunities, such as those at the Haydock Industrial Estate.”
7.28 Policy CP 2 ‐ Creating an Accessible St Helens, seeks to improve access for all through:
• “Ensuring a choice in mode of travel; • Ensuring access to local facilities by protecting and enhancing routes and links and public transport facilities; • Safe and adequate access to and from the public highway through the provision of safe and adequate vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access to and from, and circulation within, a site; • The sustainable location of significant generators of journeys by, amongst others, locating development where it is a convenient and safe walking distance from public transport amenities. • Reduce the adverse impacts of traffic on the community; and, 64
• Support Local Transport Plan Priorities by ensuring development will not prejudice.”
7.29 Paragraph 13.17 and 13.18 of the Core Strategy state that development proposals that are likely to generate a significant number of trips should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.
St. Helens Supplementary Planning Documents [SPDs] 7.30 In transport planning terms the relevant SPD is the Council’s ‘Ensuring a Choice of Travel’ (June 2010) document (Ref 7.5).
7.31 This document has been developed to provide developers with transport related advice in respect to new development. It is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The SPD seeks to achieve a number of key transport related objectives and the accompanying TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1) has been prepared in accordance with the guidance set out in Chapter 5 of the SPD, which covers the preparation of Transport Assessments.
7.32 The SPD includes an Accessibility Standard Assessment which developers are required to complete to demonstrate that sites are suitably accessible. This completed assessment is provided in Appendix C of the TA
Assessment Methodology
7.33 This chapter is based upon a TA that has been prepared in accordance with the NPPF (Ref 7.1), the DfT document Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking (Ref 7.2) issued in March 2014, DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development (Ref 7.6) published in September 2013, and St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council’s (SHMBC) Guidance Notes for the Submission of Transport Assessments (Ref 7.7) published in September 2013.
7.34 The assessment methodology underpinning the TA comprises four main components:
• Assessing the existing transportation situation and forthcoming proposals for the area; • Identifying areas of concern in terms of highways and public transport provision; • Addressing any problems with a package of transport measures to encourage travel by means other than the private car; and • Assessing the impact that the Proposed Development will have on the surrounding highway network by looking at junction capacity.
Study Area 7.35 Based upon a combination of desktop studies, site visits and consultation with SHMBC, the following study area has been identified:
• A580/ Proposed Site Access; • M6 Junction 23; • A49 Lodge Lane/ A599 Penny Lane; • A49 Ashton Road/ A49 High Street/ A572 Crow Lane East; and 65
• A580 / Haydock Lane (including proposed Florida Farm North site access junction).
7.36 The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 1 of the accompanying TA (ES Volume 4: Appendix 7.1).
Baseline Surveys
Field Surveys 7.37 Traffic surveys were conducted in the study area on Wednesday 22 June 2016. The surveys were undertaken in accordance with the guidance in the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) on Data Sources and Surveys (Ref 7.8) and St Helen MBC’s ‘Guidance Notes for the Submission of Transport Assessments’ (Ref 7.7).
7.38 Traffic turning count surveys were undertaken at the following locations, with the full traffic survey data provided in Appendix E of the TA:
• A49 Lodge Lane/ A599 Penny Lane; and • A49 Ashton Road/ A49 High Street/ A572 Crow Lane East.
7.39 The surveys undertaken at the above junctions were undertaken for AM (07:00 – 10:00) and PM (16:00 – 19:00) time periods. Traffic flows were recorded as either light vehicles (LV) or heavy vehicles (HV).
7.40 Based upon the field surveys the highway network peak hours have been identified as 0800 – 0900 and 1700 – 1800.
7.41 In addition observations of queue lengths were undertaken at the following junctions:
• A49 Lodge Lane/ A599 Penny Lane; • A49 Ashton Road/ A49 High Street/ A572 Crow Lane East.
7.42 The surveys were recorded by video with onsite observations to supplement these. Queues were recorded for each lane (where relevant) on the approach to a junction. The survey periods were as for the turning movement surveys.
7.43 Queues lengths were recorded at 15 minute intervals, with queue lengths recorded as vehicles.
7.44 The traffic impact assessment also utilised the VISSIM microsimulation model of M6 Junction 23 and the surrounding highway which has been prepared by Mouchel on behalf of Highways England. This traffic model has been calibrated using 2016 traffic surveys.
Desk Based Surveys 7.45 The traffic surveys commissioned by Vectos were supported through an analysis of Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data which was commissioned by Hydrock on behalf of Bericote and included in the ‘Appendix to Supplementary Information Note 7’ (November 2016) (Ref 7.9) prepared by Hydrock.
66
7.46 This traffic survey information was obtained by an ATC collector positioned on the A580 for a 7 day period commencing on 20th September 2016. The traffic data demonstrates that background traffic flows on the A580 are materially higher during the AM and PM peak hours considered in the traffic impact assessment than they are during the 1200 – 1400 inter-peak period.
7.47 In addition, reference was made to the Department for Transport’s DfT Matrix website (Ref 7.10) which provides ATC traffic count data for the A580 to the east and west of Junction 23, as well as for the northern and southern A49 arms of the junction.
7.48 This information has been interrogated, with Graph 7.1 below illustrating the fluctuations in total traffic flow on these four links over a 10 year period between 2005 and 2015. The source data is included in Appendix F of the TA.
Total Count Points - AADT Flow 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 AADT Flow 50000 Linear 40000 (AADT Flow) 30000 20000 10000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Graph 7.1: Changes in Background Traffic Flow
7.49 The information presented in Graph 7.1 clearly demonstrates that there has been no trend for traffic growth on the local road network between 2005 and 2015, with a slight downward linear trend such that flows in 2015 are lower than those recorded in 2005.
7.50 However, at the request of SHMBC background traffic growth factors derived from the TemPRO database have been applied to the baseline traffic flows to generate 2022 (local highway network) and 2027 (strategic highway network including A580) growth factors.
Consultations 7.51 Pre-application discussions were held with SHMBC the Local Transport Authority, and Highways England and their retained consultants Mouchel, to define the requirements for the TA.
7.52 In addition, the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (EIASR), which was submitted to SHMBC at pre-application stage, detailed the methodology which would be adopted in the Transport Chapter of the ES. SHMBC provided a Scoping Opinion in 67
January 2016 and details of how this chapter has addressed observations within the Scoping Opinion are set out in ES Volume 4: Appendix 5.1 of this ES.
Committed Development 7.53 Consideration has also been made with regards to the likelihood of increased background traffic growth. SHMBC requested that the following consented development schemes be assessed:
• Haydock Green Employment Site (LPA Ref 2015/0571); • Canmoor Site -This scheme is currently at pre-application stage, however, based on consultation material distributed to neighbouring residents the proposals are for 295,000 sqft of floorspace across 4 Units, accessed via the existing Haydock Industrial Estate; • Parkside development - This is an employment allocated site. The traffic impact assessment has considered the development of 1,250,000sqft of B8 development on this site, with vehicular access taken from the A49. This is consistent with consultation material which has recently been released for Phase 1 of the Parkside development; and • Florida Farm North (LPA Ref 2016/0608).
Significance Criteria 7.54 An environmental impact can arise through the extra vehicle trips that might be generated by at a site and from new transport infrastructure. The potential implications that may arise from additional traffic have been described in the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993) (Ref 7.11) and include:
• Driver Delay; • Public Transport Users Delay; • Pedestrian Delay; • Pedestrian Amenity; • Fear and Intimidation; • Severance; and • Accidents and Road Safety.
7.55 The analysis presented in this Chapter considers the above factors during the construction and operational phases of development.
7.56 The IEMA’s Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic set out the broad principles of how to assess the magnitude of the effect for each category. This is summarised below:
7.57 Severance – The guidance states that “severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery”. Further “Changes in traffic flow of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as producing ‘slight’, ‘moderate’ and ‘substantial’ changes in severance respectively”. However, the guidance acknowledges that the measurement and prediction of severance is extremely difficult. The assessment of severance pays full regards to specific locations, in particular the
68
location of pedestrian routes to key local facilities and whether or not crossing facilities are provided.
7.58 Driver Delay – such delays “… are only likely to be significant when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or close to, the capacity of the system”.
7.59 Pedestrian delay – “Changes in the volume, composition or speed of the traffic may affect the ability of people to cross the roads”. The guidance suggests that assessors “… use their judgement to determine whether pedestrian delay is a significant impact”.
7.60 Pedestrian amenity – broadly defined as the relative pleasantness of a journey, it is affected by traffic flow, traffic composition and pavement width/separation from traffic. The guidance suggests a tentative threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian amenity of where traffic flow (or its lorry component) is halved or doubled.
7.61 Fear and intimidation – the impact of this is dependent upon the volume of traffic, its HGV composition, its proximity to people or the lack of protection caused by such factors a narrow pavement width. The guidance states that there are no commonly agreed thresholds for estimating this from known traffic and physical conditions, but it does nevertheless suggest some threshold which could be used, based on previous research, and are shown in Table 7.1.
Degree of Hazard Average traffic flow Total 18 hour HGV Average Vehicle over 18 hr day – flow Speed over 18 hour (Vehs/hour 2-Way day (mph)
Extreme +1,800 +3,000 +20
Great 1,200-1,800 2,000-3,000 15-20
Moderate 600-1,200 1,000-2,000 10-15
Small <600 <1,000 <10 Please note: although no category is given in the guidance for flows less than the “Moderate” category, for the purposes of this assessment any flows below this threshold have been categorised as ‘small’
Table 7.1: Fear and Intimidation Thresholds
7.62 Accidents and safety – the guidance suggests that “Professional judgement will be needed to assess the implications of local circumstances, or factors, which may elevate or lessen risks of accidents, e.g. junction conflicts”.
7.63 The guidance makes it clear that “a critical feature of environmental assessment in determining whether a given impact is significant”. Further, “for many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation and judgement on the part of the assessor backed up by data or quantified information whenever possible. Such judgements will include the assessment of the number of people experiencing a change in environmental impact…”.
69
Magnitude of Impact 7.64 The magnitude of potential impact (both beneficial and adverse) on environmental baseline conditions has been identified through the detailed consideration of the Proposed Development taking into account the following:
• Relevant legislation, policy or guidelines; • The degree to which the environment is potentially affected for example, whether the quality is enhanced or impaired; • The scale or degree of change from baseline conditions as a result of the Proposed Development; • The duration of the effect for example, whether it is temporary or permanent; and • The reversibility of the effect.
7.65 The magnitude of impacts has been assessed and reported for the construction and operational phases using the following criteria. These have been established with reference to the various guidance quoted in this chapter, and/ or through professional experience and judgement.
Level of Effect on Definition of Magnitude Magnitude
Over 4 minute increase, averaged over all arms at a Driver delay junction.
Public transport Over 4 minute increase in delay along bus routes in vicinity users of site.
Over 4 minute increase in delay for pedestrians at crossing Pedestrian delay point. Major Doubling of traffic flow where the footway width is sub- Pedestrian amenity standard (versus current design standards).
Fear and intimidation Change in degree of hazard from moderate to extreme.
Severance Over 90% increase in traffic flows on relevant links
Accidents and road Over 50% increase in traffic flows at location with existing safety adverse accident record (blackspot).
Between 3 – 4 minute increase in delay, averaged over all Driver delay arms at a junction.
Public transport Between 3 – 4 minute increase in delay along bus route in users vicinity of site.
Moderate Between 3 - 4 minute increase in delay for pedestrians at Pedestrian delay crossing point.
Between 50%-100% increase in traffic flow where the Pedestrian amenity footway width is sub-standard.
Fear and intimidation Change in degree of hazard from great to extreme.
70
Level of Effect on Definition of Magnitude Magnitude
Between 60%-90% increase in traffic flows on relevant Severance links.
Accidents and road 30%-50% increase in traffic flows at location with accident safety rate above DMRB default for junction type.
Between 2 - 3 minute increase in delay, averaged over all Driver delay arms at junction.
Public transport Between 2 - 3 minute increase in delay along bus route in users vicinity of site.
Between 2 - 3 minute increase in delay for pedestrians at Pedestrian delay crossing point.
Doubling of traffic flow where the footway width is Minor Pedestrian amenity satisfactory or up to 50% increase where the footway width is sub-standard.
Fear and intimidation Change in degree of hazard from moderate to great.
Between 30%-60% increase in traffic flows on relevant Severance links.
Accidents and road 10%-30% increase in traffic flows at location with accident safety rate above DMRB default for junction type.
Less than 2 minute increase in delay, averaged over all Driver delay arms at a junction.
Public transport Less than 2 minute increase in delay along bus route in users vicinity of site.
Less than 2 minute increase in delay for pedestrians at Pedestrian delay crossing point. Negligible Less than doubling of traffic flow where the footway width is Pedestrian amenity satisfactory.
Fear and intimidation No change in degree of hazard.
Severance Less than 30% increase in traffic flows on relevant links.
Accidents and road Less than 10% increase in traffic flows at location with safety accident rate above DMRB default for junction type.
Table 7.2: Magnitudes of Impact
Sensitivity of Identified Receptor 7.66 The following categories of sensitivity have been adopted in this assessment. The sensitivity of the development has been identified at the following receptors, with the importance of the receptors based on professional judgment and experience.
71
Sensitivity of Development Receptors Receptor
Very High Drivers on mainline of M6
High Drivers at M6 J23
Moderate Drivers at A49/ A599 Penny Lane junction Drivers at A49/ A572 Crow Lane East roundabout Drivers at A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North Access Drivers at Proposed A580/ Site Access Junction
Low Bus Users along the A49 corridor Pedestrians/cyclists along the A580 East Lancashire Road (including M6 J23), A49 Lodge Lane and A599 Penny Lane
Negligible None/ Beyond Study Area
Table 7.3: Sensitivity Receptors
Significance of Effect 7.67 The magnitude of impact and the sensitivity of the affected receptor are combined to reach an assessment of the overall significance of effect utilising the matrix presented below.
Magnitude of Sensitivity Of Receptor Effect Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
Major Major Major Moderate Moderate Minor
Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible
Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
Negligible Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible
Table 7.4: Matrix for Assessing the Significance of Effects
7.68 Major effects on driver and bus user delay will be considered to be significant in EIA terms based on paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
7.69 A minor effect or above on road safety will be considered significant.
7.70 Effects on pedestrian/cycle delay and amenity, fear and intimidation and severance that are moderate or above will be considered to be significant in EIA terms.
7.71 The primary component in ascertaining the requirement for mitigation is the VISSIM modelling work undertaken by Mouchel at Junction 23 of the M6, together with the modelling work of the local highway network which has been undertaken by Vectos. The modelling results will then provide the basis for the determination of any mitigation required.
72
Limitations and Assumptions 7.72 The planning application has been submitted in outline form, with all matters apart from access to be reserved.
7.73 A parameters plan has been prepared to support the planning application which identifies the envelope within which vertical development can be constructed. This is supported by an indicative masterplan which illustrates how the site could potentially be developed within these parameters. This is provided as Plan 4 of the TA, with Plan 5 providing an illustrative masterplan for this site.
7.74 In accordance with this parameters plan it has been assumed that the proposed development will comprise up to a maximum of 1.8 million sqft (167,225 sqm) of employment floorspace, which will predominantly be occupied by B8 use (minimum 80%) but with some B2 use (maximum 20%).
7.75 Therefore, development traffic generations have been calculated based upon the following:
• B8 Floorspace – 133,780 sqm • B2 Floorspace – 33,445 sqm.
7.76 This is considered to represent a reasonable worst case assessment scenario.
Baseline Conditions
The Proposed Development Site and Its Location 7.77 The PDS is located approximately 7.5km to the east of St Helens, and lies close to the settlements of Haydock (2.5km to the west), Ashton and Makerfield (1.5km to the north) and Golborne.
7.78 The site covers an area of 42.3ha and is bound by tree belts and Haydock Park horse racing circuit to the north, while located to the east is open farmland, with strong tree belts providing separation to the urban area of Golborne.
7.79 To the south the PDS is bound by the A580, while to the west it is bound by the A49 Lodge Lane. There are currently no formal vehicle access points to the PDS provided from either of these roads. An untarmacked access onto the land is provided from Lodge Lane which connects to a dirt track running along the site’s northern boundary.
Existing Highway Network 7.80 The PDS has excellent connections to the strategic road network in the borough of St Helens, with direct frontage to the A580 East Lancashire Road and A49 and immediate access to the M6 in both directions via Junction 23.
7.81 The site is located to the northeast of M6 Junction 23. This is a six arm grade separated signal controlled junction, which includes the A580 East Lancashire Road to the east and west, and the A49 to the northeast and southwest.
7.82 The junction has been subject to a package of highway works which were completed in 2015 and were delivered under the Government’s Pinch Point Programme. These works 73
were intended to address safety concerns at the junction as well as stimulate economic growth.
7.83 The M6 motorway connects to the North West regional motorway network, including the M58 to the north which provides links to north Merseyside, and the M62 to the south which provides links between Liverpool and Manchester. Towards Manchester the M62 links to the M60 Manchester orbital motorway, facilitating distribution around this conurbation. Further south, the M6 connects to the M56 which provides links between Manchester, the Wirral, and North Wales.
7.84 Given its strategic location, Junction 23 of the M6 accommodates a significant volume of traffic during peak times. As such, queuing is known to occur during peak times on all arms of the junction, and its operation is also susceptible to incidents or delays which occur on the M6 motorway itself.
7.85 In the vicinity of the PDS the A580 East Lancashire Road forms a dual-carriageway in both an east and west direction, with a barriered central reservation. To the east the A580 provides links towards Golborne, Leigh, Swinton and ultimately Manchester City Centre, while to the west the A580 provides links to Haydock, St Helens, Knowsley, and thereafter into Liverpool City Centre.
7.86 The A49 runs between Warrington in the south and Wigan in the north, and in the vicinity of the site provides a single lane in each direction. To the north of Junction 23 the A49 provides links to Haydock Race Course, and thereafter Ashton Heath and Ashton-in-Makerfield.
7.87 Approximately 500m to the north of Junction 23 the A49 forms the northern and southern arms of a three arm priority controlled junction with the A599 Penny Lane. This junction is to be upgraded to signal control in conjunction with the recently approved Haydock Green development (LPA Reference 2015/0571). Penny Lane then travels in a southwest direction, passing beneath the A580 towards New Boston and then Haydock.
7.88 Queue surveys undertaken at this junction in 2016 reveal that the junction experiences some queuing during peak times, likely to relate in part of the operation of Junction 23. However, the surveys suggest that this queuing is able to quickly disperse. The queue survey data is included in Appendix E of the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
7.89 The junction is to be upgraded to signal control in conjunction with the recently approved Haydock Green employment development (LPA Ref: 2015/0571). The Bryan G Hall Transport Assessment accompanying the Haydock Green planning application forecasts that the proposed highway works will improve the operation of the junction when compared with the baseline situation.
7.90 1.6km to the south of Junction 23 the A49 forms a three arm mini roundabout junction with the A572 Crow Lane East. From this location the southern arm of the roundabout provides links towards Newton-le-Willows, while the western arm providing links towards St Helens.
74
7.91 Queue surveys undertaken at the junction in 2016 demonstrate that the junction operates without material levels in queuing during both the AM and PM peak hours. This data is provided in Appendix E of the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
Pedestrian and Cycle Accessibility 7.92 The site is located within an area that is well served to encourage walking and cycling modes of travel. This provision connects the site with the surrounding residential areas as well as a range of other amenities. This is illustrated in Plan 7 provided with the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
7.93 The A580 provides a shared footway/cycleway along its southern side, this includes street lighting in the vicinity of Junction 23. This shared footway/ cycleway connects with existing provision at M6 Junction 23, which includes controlled crossing facilities on all signalised arms of the junction, complemented by tactile paving and dropped kerb provision.
7.94 This pedestrian/ cycle route passes through Junction 23, continuing on the A580 towards Haydock and St Helens. This provision has recently been upgraded.
7.95 To the west of the site a footpath with street lighting is provided along the eastern side of the A49 Lodge Lane. This footway connects the site to the A49/ Penny Lane junction which is to be upgraded to signal control as part of the aforementioned Haydock Green employment development. This junction upgrade includes pedestrian crossing provision which will safely serve east/ west movements across the A49. From this location pedestrians then have the option to travel along Penny Lane towards Haydock via a bridge which allows them to avoid crossing the A580.
7.96 Continuing north along the A49 the existing pedestrian footway provides connections to bus stops served by the No. 320 service, and thereafter provides connections into Ashton-in-Makerfield. This route also connects with a footpath to the north of Haydock Race Course which runs along a discontinued railway line and offers an alternative route towards Golborne.
7.97 To the south of Junction 23 the A49 provides a street lit footway along the western side which serves pedestrian connections towards Newton-le-Willows.
7.98 The cycle catchment of the site connects with a number of on and off-road cycle routes, including the previously mentioned provision along the southern side of the A580.
7.99 In addition, Newton-le-Willows station is located within the 5km cycle catchment of the site, as identified in The Department for Transport’s 2008 Local Transport Note 2/08 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design’ (Ref 7.12), thereby providing the opportunity for journeys to be carried out by combining modes of travel such as cycle and rail. Cycle parking for 24 bicycles is provided at Newton-le-Willows station and many train operators allow bikes on their services.
7.100 The site is therefore considered to be accessible for both pedestrians and cyclists.
75
Public Transport Accessibility 7.101 North and southbound bus stops are located on the A49 Lodge Lane to the north of the site. These stops are served by the No.320 bus service which is operated by Arriva North West.
7.102 The stops are located within 400 metres of a proposed access point to the site and are therefore considered to be accessible based upon the guidance provided in SHMBC 2016 ‘Guidance Notes for the Submission of Transport Assessments’ document (Ref 7.7).
7.103 The north and southbound bus stops provide a flagpost with timetable information, together with on-carriageway bus box markings. The stops are safe and conveniently accessible from the site via the existing footway which runs along the eastern side of Lodge Lane. Access to the northbound bus stop will be enhanced by the signalisation of the Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction which is associated with the committed Haydock Green development and which will include pedestrian crossing provision.
7.104 The table below provides a summary of the No. 320 bus service.
Mon – Fri - Frequency per hour Service Route Sat Sun No PM AM Peak Midday Evening Peak
Wigan – Ashton-In- 320 Makerfield - Haydock 6 6 6 2 5 2 – St Helens
Table 7.5: Existing Bus Services
7.105 During the week the No 320 service operates a total of 82 daily services in a northbound direction, of which half terminate in Ashton-in-Makerfield and half continue to Wigan. The highly frequent service operates from the A49 bus stops between 05:55 and 23:19.
7.106 On Saturday a total of 66 services are operated in a northbound direction between 05:55 and 23:18, with a total of 31 services operated on Sunday between 07:56 and 23:19.
7.107 In a southbound direction a total of 79 services are operated from the A49 bus stops, with the service operating between 06:03 and 23:17. Of these services half commence in Wigan and half in Ashton-in-Makerfield, with all services terminating in St Helens.
7.108 On Saturday a total of 69 services are operated in a southbound direction between 06:03 and 23:17, with a total of 35 services operated on Sunday between 07:03 and 23:17.
7.109 Given the number of local towns accessible from the site via this service it is considered that the bus will represent a very attractive travel option for prospective staff. This is particularly the case because the high service frequency means that passengers would
76
only be required to wait for a short time for the next bus should they have just missed the preceding service. This is an important factor when considering travel choice.
7.110 In addition, the lengthened operating hours mean that it is also ideal to meet the travel needs of those employed on the site who are working shift patterns.
7.111 The nearest railway stations to the site and Bryn station to the north of the site and Newton-le-Willows station to the south. Both these stations are located within the 20 minute/ 5 kilometre cycle catchment of the site. As such rail services are considered to represent a feasible option for prospective employees, although it is acknowledged that the distance from the site may deter some from using this mode of transport.
7.112 Northern Rail operate services from both Bryn and Newton-le-Willows stations. Bryn station is on the Liverpool Lime Street to Wigan North Western line, while Newton-le- Willows station is on the Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria and Llandudno Junction to Manchester Airport lines. A summary of the services operated from these stations, together with the peak period frequencies, is provided in the table below.
Max Frequency (peak periods) - Monday-Friday Route Frequency Time
Services from Bryn Station
Liverpool Lime Street 2 per hour 30 mins
Wigan North Western 2 per hour 11 mins
Services from Newton-le-Willows Station
Liverpool Lime Street 3 per hour 24-42 mins
Llandudno Junction 1 per hour 1hr 45 mins
Manchester Piccadilly 2 per hour 27 mins
Manchester Victoria 2 per hour 26 mins
Manchester Airport 1 per hour 43 mins
Chester 3 per hour 24-42 mins
Table 7.6: Rail Services and Frequencies
7.113 The above table illustrates that two services per hour are operated from Bryn station to Liverpool Lime Street and Wigan North Western station.
7.114 More frequent services are operated from Newton-le-Willows station, which serves a range of destinations, including three services per hour to Liverpool Lime Street and Chester, two services per hour to Manchester’s Piccadilly and Victoria Stations, and hourly peak hour services to Manchester Airport and Llandudno.
7.115 In addition, the services operated from Bryn station offer links to more local destinations including Garswood, St Helens Central and Prescot. Similarly, Newton-le-Willows
77
station offer links to local destinations including St Helens, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Patricroft and Eccles. Eccles Station also provides an interchange for the Manchester Metrolink network.
7.116 Northern Rail state that they are strongly committed to promoting cycling as a sustainable and healthy means of transport that complements train services. As such bicycles are carried free of charge at any time with no reservations required, with the cycle space on trains clearly marked, both internally and externally.
Personal Injury Accident Data 7.117 Traffic collision data has been obtained from St Helens MBC for a five year period up to 28th November 2016. The data has been examined for the extent of highway network agreed with St Helens MBC highways officers at pre-application stage, namely M6 Junction 23, and the A49 Lodge Lane junctions with Penny Lane to the north of the site, and Crow Lane East to the south. The accident data is provided in Appendix B of the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
7.118 Table 7.7 below provides a summary of the accidents which occurred at Junction 23 of the M6 and the A49/ Penny Lane junction. Incidents have been recorded collectively as a reflection of the format in which they were provided by the Council.
Severity 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Fatal 1 1
Serious 4 3 2 4 13
light 8 16 10 13 10 57
Total 12 20 12 13 14 71
Table 7.7: Personal Injury Accidents at M6 J23 and A49/ Penny Lane Junction
7.119 As shown in the above table a total of 71 incidents were recorded at Junction 23 of the M6 and at the A49/ Penny Lane junction during the five year period considered. Of these, 57 (80%) of the incidents were categorised as slight in severity, with 13 incidents classified as serious and one incident resulting in a fatality in 2013. No fatal accidents have occurred since.
7.120 The accident data indicates a rate of incidents of around 12 -14 per year (ignoring the spike in 2013). This equates to around one incident per month.
7.121 While all accidents are regrettable, given the volume of traffic which currently passes through Junction 23 of the M6 it is not considered that the numbers of accidents which have occurred suggest that there are any accident blackspots on this extent of highway network considered.
7.122 Furthermore, given one of the purposes of the Pinch Point scheme highway works was to improve highway safety it would be expected that once the initial bedding in period has been passed, when inevitably changes in highway layout lead to driver uncertainty
78
and possibly a temporary increase in incidents, the number of incidents occurring at Junction 23 will start to decline.
7.123 It is therefore concluded that there are no existing highway safety issues at either M6 Junction 23 or the A49/ Penny Lane junction, and it would be expected that highway safety would improve at M6 Junction 23 once the Pinch Point highway works have bedded in.
7.124 Table 7.8 below provides a summary of the incidents which have occurred at the A49/ Crow Lane East junction.
Severity 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Fatal 0
Serious 1 1
Slight 1 2 2 1 6
Total 1 3 2 1 0 7
Table 7.8: Personal Injury Accidents at A49/ Crow Lane East Junction
7.125 The results presented in Table 7.8 reveal that a total of 7 incidents have occurred at the A49/ Crow Lane East junction in the last five years, or which six were classified as slight and one as serious. It is noted that no incidents occurred in 2016.
7.126 This equates to approximately one incident per year on which basis it is reasonably concluded that there are also no existing highway safety issues at this junction.
Baseline Traffic Flows & Existing Fear and Intimidation 7.127 With regards to the baseline traffic flows, the fear and intimidation thresholds given in Table 7.1 have been referenced and the existing levels of fear and intimidation are identified in Table 7.9.
Junction Name Hourly flows over Degree of 18 hour weekday Hazard
Proposed A580/ Site Access 1,974 Extreme
M6 Junction 23 3,731 Extreme
A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North Access 2,301 Extreme
A599 Penny Lane/ A49 Junction 999 Moderate
A49/ A572 Crow Lane East 1065 Moderate
Table 7.9: Existing Levels of Fear and Intimidation
Future Baseline Traffic Flows
7.128 It is not known of any planning consents or highway schemes which are likely to be implemented by the commencement of construction works in 2017 and which would 79
materially affect the above described baseline conditions at such time. Thus the baseline conditions likely to obtain at the date of commencement of development are as described above
7.129 The Future Baseline AADT flows for the extent of highway network as agreed with SHMBC are shown in Table 7.10.
7.130 The Future Baseline scenario assumes that the PDS is not occupied but includes traffic generated by all previously identified committed developments in the area.
7.131 In accordance with SHMBC ‘Guidance Notes for the Submission of Transport Assessments’ (Ref 7.7) the traffic flows for the local highway network (i.e. the Penny Lane/ A49 junction and the A49/ Crow Lane East junction) also allow for 5 years background traffic growth (i.e. 2022), while the flows presented for the junctions on the A580, including M6 Junction 23, include 10 years background traffic growth (i.e. 2027).
AADT AADT HGV
Junction Name (Daily, all vehicle (Daily, HGV type flows) flows)
Proposed A580/ Site Access 39,927 2,653
M6 Junction 23 74,373 5,623
A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North 44,325 3,989 Access
A599 Penny Lane/ A49 Junction 20,755 1,051
A49/A572 Crow Lane East Junction 20,705 585
Table 7.10: Future Baseline Traffic Flows
Assessment of Effects
Matters Which Have Been Scoped Out 7.132 Assessments of the road network beyond the study area are not included within this chapter or the TA as the traffic impact assessment does not forecast a material change in traffic flow at any location. This is on the basis that changes in traffic flows beyond the study area locations will not be significant compared to the background traffic flows, and will not materially alter the operation of the highway network.
7.133 It has been agreed with the highways authority that no assessment of committed developments from within Wigan Borough Council’s area of jurisdiction is required. This is on the basis that the application of TemPRO calculated background traffic growth is expected to provide an allowance for any increase in traffic flow which would be generated by any such development.
7.134 It has been agreed with the highways authority that no quantitative analysis of the impact of traffic generated by Haydock Race Course is required due to the infrequency
80
with which weekday events at the Race Course would coincide with peak hour traffic flows from the PDS.
7.135 It has been agreed with the highways authority that no assessment of a weekday interpeak period will be provided on the basis that the TA has demonstrated that overall traffic flows (that is background traffic flows in combination with those generated by the proposed development) will be lower during this time than during the network AM and PM peak hours.
Embedded Mitigation 7.136 As part of the proposed site access junction on the A580 a 3 metre wide combined footway/cycleway will be provided on the northern side of the A580. This will connect the existing provision which is provided at M6 Junction 23 to the proposed site access junction with the A580. This link will be provided as part of the Section 278 highway works.
7.137 The A580 access junction will then provide controlled crossing facilities which will connect with an existing footway/ cycleway which runs along the southern side of the A580. This will ensure safe and convenient access for pedestrians and cyclists, both those related to the PDS and wider users. This measure will therefore help to encourage trips to the site to be undertaken by non-car modes of travel.
7.138 The proposed A49 emergency access will also provide an additional point of access into the site for pedestrians and cyclists. This point of access will not only conveniently serve pedestrian and cycle links towards Ashton-in-Makerfield, but will also provide a convenient access for employees wishing to use the No. 320 bus service operating from the A49.
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects 7.139 The most intensive stage of the construction process, in terms of vehicle movements to and from the site, will be when any surplus topsoil is removed.
7.140 The site as a whole is forecast to generate 120,000m3 of topsoil, of which 75% will be removed from the site. If this material is removed from the site using 20 tonne lorries this will equate to a total of 9,000 vehicle trips over the construction period.
7.141 This work will clearly be done in a phased manner. The most intensive phase of this work is expected to relate to the clearance of the site identified for Unit 1 on the illustrative masterplan. This area equates to approximately 50% of the overall site area, and would therefore generate circa 4,500 vehicle trips over a 12 week period.
7.142 Assuming that work is undertaken Monday to Friday between 0800 and 1800, this will equate to approximately 75 heavy goods vehicle arrivals and 75 goods vehicles departures per day, or approximately 7.5 HGV movements in each direction per hour.
7.143 In view of this level of vehicular activity, the impacts during construction including assessment of significance in accordance with criteria stated, has been detailed in Table 7.11.
81
Effect On Magnitude of Sensitivity Significance of Duration Impact of Receptor Effects Impact
Driver Delay Negligible Very High Minor to Short Term to Moderate Negligible
Public Transport Users Negligible Low Negligible Short Term
Pedestrian Delay Negligible Low Negligible Short Term
Pedestrian Amenity Negligible Low Negligible Short Term
Fear and Intimidation Negligible Low Negligible Short Term
Severance Negligible Low Negligible Short Term
Accidents and Road Negligible Very High Minor to Short Term Safety to Low Negligible
Table 7.11: Construction Phase Effects
7.144 It is considered that the volume of construction traffic when compared to the baseline traffic flows on the highway network would not represent a long term significant increase and would be below the 10% to 30% increase in traffic set out in the IEA ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’, which would necessitate detailed assessment.
7.145 The above described topsoil works would be concluded prior to any building being occupied on the site, and therefore any overlap between construction and development traffic would be minimal and would have an immaterial impact upon the surrounding highway network.
7.146 Table 7.11 demonstrates that the anticipated significance of effects ranges from minor to negligible, with minor significance identified due to the high sensitivity of the M6 mainline and Junction 23 of the M6. However, these sections of highway form part of the strategic highway network and an identified primary freight route, and are therefore both suitable to accommodate construction vehicles. Irrespective of this, a Construction Environment Management Plan will be prepared to mitigate for the impact of the proposals at this short term stage of the development process.
7.147 The impact of the development proposals at construction phase are therefore concluded to be short term neutral.
Assessment of Operational Phase Effects 7.148 The Operational Phase scenario includes the Future Baseline traffic flows together with traffic flows generated by the PDS.
7.149 The planning application has been submitted in outline form, with a parameters plan prepared which identifies the envelope within which vertical development can be constructed. On this basis the traffic impact of the development has been assessed in accordance with the previously outlined assumptions.
82
7.150 It has been agreed with SHMBC and Highways England that average trip rates will be adopted in the traffic impact assessment. Details of the assumptions supporting the trip rate analysis are provided in Appendix H and I of the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
7.151 It has been agreed with SHMBC and Highways England that the B8 trip rates which have been agreed for the Florida Farm North development, and which are included in Hydrock’s August 2016 Transport Assessment (Ref 7.13) will also be utilised in this analysis.
7.152 Trip rates for the proposed B2 floorspace have been calculated using the TRICs database (Version 7.3.3), for the ‘Employment/ Industrial Estate’ land use category. Trip rates have been calculated for ‘All Vehicles’ and Other Goods Vehicles (OGV’s) separately, with the number of OGV’s then removed from the ‘All Vehicles’ total to derive light traffic vehicle movements.
7.153 The resultant total Operational Phase development traffic flows for the network AM (0800 – 0900) and PM (1700 – 1800) peak hours are presented in Table 7.12 below.
Heavy Vehicles Light Vehicles All Vehicles (OGV’s)
Two Two Two Arr Dep Arr Dep Arr Dep Way Way Way
0800 – 206 108 316 28 29 59 234 137 372 0900
1700 – 108 229 335 23 24 46 131 253 383 1800
Table 7.12: Operational Phase Peak Hour Development Trips
7.154 The proposed development light vehicle traffic flows have been distributed across the local highway network using ‘Journey to Work’ information collected in the 2011 Census. The MapInfo GIS package has then been used to assign traffic flows to the extent of highway network agreed with SHMBC. These calculations are summarised in Appendix J of the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
7.155 The distribution of heavy goods vehicles to the site has been derived using turning count data obtained from Highways England for the M6 Junction 23.
7.156 As a logistics led development it is reasonable to assume that all HGV traffic will use the strategic and primary freight network in accessing the site. Therefore, it has been assumed that all HGV traffic will use either the M6 or A580 and not travel on the A49. This assumption has been agreed with Highways England and can be detailed as part of a Delivery Management Plan which can be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition.
7.157 The Proposed Development flows have then been assigned to the local highway network and added to the Future Baseline traffic flows to derive the Operational Phase traffic flows. These are presented as AADT traffic flows in Table 7.13 below. 83
7.158 As previously outlined, accordance with SHMBC ‘Guidance Notes for the Submission of Transport Assessments’ (Ref 7.7) the Operational Phase traffic flows for the local highway network (i.e. the Penny Lane/ A49 junction and the A49/ Crow Lane East junction) allow for 5 years background traffic growth and therefore represent a 2022 scenario, while the traffic flows presented for the junctions on the A580, including M6 Junction 23, include 10 years background traffic growth, and therefore present a 2027 scenario.
7.159 Traffic flows are presented as total vehicles, with the isolated HGV traffic generation also provided. A full set of AM and PM peak hour traffic flows are provided with the TA (ES Volume 4: Appendix 7.1).
AADT AADT HGV
Junction Name (Daily, all vehicle (Daily, HGV flows) type flows)
Proposed A580/ Site Access 44,327 3,057
M6 Junction 23 78,135 6,369
A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North 45,507 4,095 Access
A599 Penny Lane/ A49 Junction 21,567 1,050
A49/A572 Crow Lane East Junction 20,783 588
Table 7.13: Operational Phase Traffic Flows
7.160 Once the development is completed and operational the local highway network will be required to accommodate the development related traffic. Table 7.14 provides a comparison of the peak hour traffic flows generated under the Future Baseline scenario, compared with the traffic flows generated by the development at full Operational Phase.
84
AM Peak PM Peak Operational Future Increase Increase in Future Operational Increase Increase in Phase Baseline in Vehs Vehs / min Baseline Phase in Vehs Vehs / min
M6 Junction 23 6764 7080 316 5.3 7286 7613 328 5.5 A49 N Arm 717 760 43 0.7 639 662 23 0.4 A580 E Arm 1723 1839 117 1.9 1728 1944 216 3.6 M6 N/B off Slip 1136 1182 46 0.8 1659 1686 27 0.4 A49 S Arm 569 573 4 0.1 520 522 2 0.0 A580 W Arm 1967 2032 65 1.1 1637 1673 36 0.6 M6 S/B off Slip 653 694 42 0.7 1102 1126 24 0.4 A49/A572 Mini Rbt 1817 1824 6 0.1 1818 1825 7 0.1 A49 N Arm 458 460 2 0.0 470 475 5 0.1 A572 Arm 730 730 0 0.0 607 607 0 0.0 A49 S Arm 629 633 4 0.1 741 743 2 0.0 Bericote Access Junction 3414 3518 103 1.7 3504 3607 103 1.7 A580 W/B 1540 1578 38 0.6 1980 2048 67 1.1 A580 E/B 1874 1939 65 1.1 1524 1560 36 0.6 A49/A599 Penny Ln 1866 1932 66 1.1 1948 2019 71 1.2
85
A49 N Arm 793 813 21 0.3 767 778 11 0.2 A599 Penny Ln 501 523 23 0.4 447 459 12 0.2 A49 S Arm 572 595 23 0.4 734 782 48 0.8
Table 7.14: Proposed Development Net Impact
86
7.161 Table 7.14 illustrates that during both the AM and PM peak hours the eastern arm of M6 Junction 23 is forecast to experience the greatest increase in traffic, with an increase of 1.9 vehicles per minute forecast during the AM peak hour and an increase of 3.6 vehicles forecast during the PM peak hour.
7.162 The traffic impact of the proposed development should be considered in the context of the level of traffic which already passes through the respective junctions. This is particularly pertinent in the case of M6 Junction 23, which Table 7.14 indicates already accommodates approximately 105 vehicle movements per minute during the AM peak hour and 113 vehicle movements per minute during the PM peak hour. In this context the predicted increase of around 5 vehicles per minute during both peak hours can be considered minimal.
Driver Delay 7.163 The relevant guidance suggests that Driver Delay is only likely to be significant where the traffic on the network is likely to be at or close to the capacity of the system.
7.164 To determine the impact of the Proposed Development on driver delay junction capacity assessments have been undertaken in the following locations:
• A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane Junction (including improvements required at part of Haydock Green development (LPA Ref: 2015/0571)) • A580/ Haydock Lane (including proposed Florida Farm North site access junction); • Proposed Site Access with A580; and • M6 Junction 23 Haydock Island.
7.165 The methodologies adopted in the assessment of each junction are fully detailed in Section 7 of the accompanying TA, with full modelling outputs provided in Appendix L to P of the same document (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1).
A49 Lodge Lane/ A599 Penny Lane Junction 7.166 The results of the Future Baseline and Operational Phase LinSig assessments of the A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction, including committed signalised improvement scheme, are provided in Table 7.15. Capacity results are presented as degrees of saturation (DoS), with queue results presented as passenger car unit (PCU) values.
87
Future Baseline Operational Phase
Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
DoS Queue DoS Queue DoS Queue Dos Queue (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu)
Penny Lane 67.6 10 73.9 10 72.9 11 77.1 11
A49 Lodge Lane N 64.2 8 74.0 8 66.4 9 78.5 9
A49 Lodge Lane S 63.0 9 73.4 12 60.6 8 77.3 14
PRC Over All Lanes (%) 33.1 21.6 23.4 14.6
Table 7.15: A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane 2022 LinSig Results
7.167 The results presented in Table 7.15 demonstrate that the addition of development traffic will have minimal impact on the overall operation of the junction, with a maximum DoS of 78.5% recorded on the northern A49 arm of the junction during the PM peak hour. This results in an increase in queue length of one vehicle compared with the ‘Without Development’ scenario.
7.168 Overall, the assessments indicate that in both peak hours the junction will continue to operate well within capacity, with Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC) values of 23.4% and 14.6% recorded for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.
7.169 The A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction has been identified as a moderate sensitivity receptor. Based upon the results of the capacity assessment the magnitude of impact has been identified as negligible, and on this basis the significance of effects on driver delay is concluded to be negligible.
A580/ Haydock Lane Junction 7.170 The results of the Future Baseline and Operational Phase LinSig assessments of the A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North site access junction are provided in Table 7.16.
Future Baseline Operational Phase
Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
DoS Queue DoS Queue DoS Queue Dos Queue (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu)
Haydock Lane South 94.5 17 86.4 9 94.5 17 84.7 9
Bericote Site Access (R) 58.8 3 59.6 3 63.0 3 63.8 3
Bericote Site Access (L&A) 37.6 2 39.8 2 36.8 2 39.2 2
Bericote Site Access (L) 31.8 1 33.5 1 35.2 2 36.9 2
A580 W/B (L&A) 80.3 23 84.7 28 82.3 25 87.3 31 88
Future Baseline Operational Phase
Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
DoS Queue DoS Queue DoS Queue Dos Queue (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu) (%) (pcu)
A580 W/B (R&A) 81.7 24 84.4 29 83.6 25 87.7 32
A580 E/B (R&A) 84.9 26 89.7 15 89.4 29 89.7 16
A580 E/B (L&A) 85.4 26 61.6 16 89.9 30 61.2 16
PRC Over All Lanes (%) - 5.0 0.4 -5.0 0.4
Table 7.16: A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North LinSig Results
7.171 The results presented in Table 7.16 demonstrate that the addition of development traffic to the junction will have no material impact upon its overall operation when compared to the Future Baseline scenario. It is therefore concluded that a position of nil detriment has been achieved between the Future Baseline and Operational Phase scenarios, which is highlighted by the similar PRC values between the two scenarios.
7.172 The A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North access junction has been identified as a moderate sensitivity receptor. Based upon the results of the capacity assessment the magnitude of impact has been identified as negligible, and on this basis the significance of effects on driver delay is concluded to be negligible.
A580/ Proposed Site Access Junction 7.173 The results of the Operational Phase LinSig assessment of the A580/ Proposed Site Access junction are provided in Table 7.17.
Weekday AM Peak Weekday PM Peak Movement DoS Q (pcu) DoS Q (pcu)
Site Access (Right) 58.1 3 68.9 6
Site Access (Left) 10.4 1 11.5 1
A580 W/B (Right) 17.5 0 9.50 0
A580 W/B (Ahead) 56.5 9 63.9 13
A580 E/B (Left) 12.5 1 7.50 1
A580 E/B (Ahead) 58.9 10 73.1 17
PRC Over All Lanes (%) 52.7 23.2
Table 7.17: A580/ Proposed Site Access LinSig Results
7.174 The results of the LINSIG assessment demonstrates that the proposed site access junction is forecast to operate well within capacity in both the AM and PM peak periods, with PRC values of 52.7% and 23.2%, respectively. The assessment also indicates that 89
queues predicted to occur on the eastbound approach arm to the junction would not extend as far as M6 Junction 23, and therefore it can be concluded that the operation of the junction in isolation would have no impact upon preceding junctions.
7.175 The Proposed Site Access/ A580 junction has been identified as a moderate sensitivity receptor. Based upon the results of the capacity assessment the magnitude of impact has been identified as negligible, and on this basis the significance of effects on driver delay is concluded to be negligible.
M6 Junction 23 7.176 The assessment of Junction 23 of the M6 has been undertaken by Mouchel on behalf of Highways England using a VISSIM microsimulation model.
7.177 The VISSIM model provides a variety of statistical output data, all of which is summarised in the Transport Assessment. This includes information on the average delay experienced across the network, which is summarised in Table 7.18 below.
Average Delay (0800 – 0900) Average Delay (1700 – 1800)
Future Baseline 62.27 68.80
Operational 71.97 94.88 Phase
Difference 9.7 26.08
Table 7.18: AM and PM Peak Average Delay Statistics
7.178 The VISSIM model forecasts that the highway network will experience an increase in delay of 9.7 seconds during the AM peak hour and 26.08 seconds during the PM peak hour as a result of the introduction of traffic generated by the development proposals. Both these fall well within the negligible level of magnitude.
7.179 It is noted that Junction 23 is identified as high sensitivity receptor and therefore even though a negligible magnitude of impact is identified this is considered to represent an effect of minor significance on driver delay. However, irrespective of this it is concluded that no mitigation, apart from the re-optimisation of signal timings at the junction, is required at Junction 23 as a result of the development proposals.
7.180 The VISSIM model also provides statistical information regarding the impact of the proposed development on the operation of the M6. This is summarised in Table 7.19.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Route 2017 RC 2017 DS Diff 2017 RC 2017 DS Diff
Between J23-J24 00:01:16 00:01:16 00:00:00 00:01:17 00:01:17 00:00:00 NB
Between J24-J23 00:01:15 00:01:16 00:00:00 00:01:15 00:01:15 -00:00:00 SB
90
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Route 2017 RC 2017 DS Diff 2017 RC 2017 DS Diff
J24 On-Ramp NB 00:00:15 00:00:15 -00:00:00 00:00:15 00:00:14 -00:00:00
J24 On-Ramp SB 00:00:27 00:00:25 -00:00:02 00:00:29 00:00:29 -00:00:00
J23 Off-Ramp NB 00:01:24 00:01:24 -00:00:00 00:00:47 00:00:44 -00:00:02
J23 Off-Ramp SB 00:01:14 00:01:25 00:00:10 00:00:53 00:00:56 00:00:04
J23 On-Ramp NB 00:00:14 00:00:14 -00:00:00 00:00:14 00:00:16 00:00:01
J23 Off-Ramp SB 00:00:12 00:00:13 00:00:00 00:00:10 00:00:11 00:00:01
Table 7.19: AM and PM Peak M6 Travel Times
7.181 Table 7.19 confirms that the Proposed Development will have no material impact upon travel times on the M6 motorway between Junctions 23 and 24, or the time it takes a vehicle to travel along the on or off slip ramps at each junction.
7.182 Therefore while the M6 mainline is identified as a very high sensitivity receptor, and therefore even a negligible level of magnitude in this location is classified as a minor impact on driver delay, it is not considered that any mitigation is required to address this.
7.183 In conclusion the traffic impact assessment has demonstrated that the significance of effects at the A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction, and the A580 junctions with the Florida Farm North and Proposed Site Access junctions will all be negligible. By virtue of the high sensitivity of the M6 mainline and M6 Junction 23 receptors a minor level of significance is identified in these locations, however, based upon the VISSIM assessment results it is concluded that no mitigating highway works are required.
7.184 Therefore taking these results collectively it is concluded that the impact of the proposed development on driver delay will be long term neutral.
Public Transport Users 7.185 There is no industry guidance on the assessment of public transport users. The assessments of driver delay will be used to establish any increased delays to bus users by considering the bus routes and services within the study area.
7.186 Reference to Table 7.5 illustrates that the only bus service which operates in the near vicinity of the site is the N0. 320 service which runs along Penny Lane and the A49 between St Helens and Ashton-in-Makerfield/ Wigan.
7.187 The junction capacity assessments of the A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction, as presented in Table 7.15, demonstrate that there will be no increase in queuing on either of the northern A49 arm or the Penny Lane arms of the junction. On this basis it is also reasonable to assume that there will be no material additional delay to public transport users.
91
7.188 Public transport users have been identified as a low sensitivity receptor. Based upon the results of the capacity assessment presented in Table 7.15 the magnitude of impact has been identified as negligible.
7.189 On this basis it is concluded that the significance of effects of the Proposed Development has been identified as negligible. It is therefore concluded that impact of the development on public transport users will be long term neutral.
Pedestrian Delay 7.190 At present the site is undeveloped and therefore does not benefit from any formalised pedestrian infrastructure on the northern side of the A580 leading into the site. Likewise there is currently no provision for pedestrians to cross the A580 between M6 Junction 23 and the A580/ Bridge Street roundabout.
7.191 The proposed development will provide a shared pedestrian/ cycleway along the northern side of the A580 for the majority of the site frontage, as well as providing controlled pedestrian crossing facilities at the proposed A580/ Site Access junction. These proposals will act to reduce delay for pedestrians, both those related to the development and wider users.
7.192 The proposed site access junction with the A49 Lodge Lane will only be for emergency vehicle use and therefore will be used very infrequently. A pedestrian refuge will be provided on the site access arm to assist pedestrian movements. The introduction of this new junction will therefore have no material impact upon pedestrian delay.
7.193 The proposed development has been concluded to have no material impact upon the operation of Junction 23 of the M6. The controlled pedestrian crossing provisions at this junction operate as ‘walk with traffic’ stages, i.e. pedestrians are allowed to walk under green man control while other traffic movements are operating .The development will have no impact upon how frequently these stages are called, or the duration that they run for.
7.194 Likewise the proposed development has been concluded to have no material impact upon the pedestrian crossing facilities which will be provided at the A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction as part of the Haydock Green development. The proposals will therefore have no impact upon the frequency or duration that pedestrian crossing facilities are called at this junction.
7.195 Pedestrians have been identified as a low sensitivity receptor. Based upon the previously described junction capacity assessment results the magnitude of impact has been identified as negligible, and therefore the significance of effects has been identified as negligible.
7.196 It is therefore concluded that the impact of the Proposed Development of pedestrian delay will be of long term minor beneficial.
Pedestrian Amenity 7.197 Negative changes in pedestrian amenity are assumed to be significant where traffic flows (or HGV component) double or more.
92
7.198 As previously outlined pedestrians have been identified as a low sensitivity receptor. Given none of the links considered have been shown to experience a doubling of flows, it is concluded that the magnitude of impact is negligible. On this basis the significance of effects is also identified as negligible.
7.199 However, while the development proposals will have a negligible impact in terms of the predicted increase in traffic flow, the development will provide enhanced pedestrian provision both on the northern side of the A580 along the site frontage, and across the A580 itself at the proposed site access junction. As a result it is concluded that the impact of the proposed development on pedestrian amenity would be long term minor beneficial.
Fear and Intimidation 7.200 The level of fear and intimidation experienced by vulnerable road users has been established with reference to the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993) (Ref 7.11), and the threshold values defined in Table 7.1.
7.201 Table 7.20 provides a comparison of the 18 hour AAWT flows for the Future Baseline and Operational Phase scenarios.
Hourly flows over 18 hour weekday
Link Name Operational Future Baseline Phase
A580/ Site Access 2,300 2,543
A580/A49/M6 Junction 4,333 4,541
A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm North 2,301 2,367 Access
A599 Penny Lane/A49 Junction 1,181 1,226
A49/A572 Crow Lane East 1,179 1,185
Table 7.20: AAWT Hourly Flow Comparison
7.202 With reference to Tables 7.1 and 7.2 the following degrees of hazard, and corresponding levels of magnitude, have therefore been identified.
Fear and Intimidation Level
Link Name Future Operational Significance Baseline Phase
A580/ Site Access Extreme Extreme Negligible
A580/A49/M6 Junction Extreme Extreme Negligible
A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida Farm Extreme Extreme Negligible North Access
93
Fear and Intimidation Level
Link Name Future Operational Significance Baseline Phase
A599 Penny Lane/ A49 Junction Moderate Great Minor
A49/A572 Crow Lane East Moderate Moderate Negligible
Table 7.21: Change in Fear and Intimidation
7.203 The results presented in Table 7.21 indicate that the only location where the Proposed Development will have a greater than negligible impact on fear and intimidation is at the A49 Lodge Lane/ Penny Lane junction. However, even in this location the change in AAWT flows is minimal, only just breaching the IEMA defined threshold by 26 vehicles.
7.204 The capacity assessments at this junction have demonstrated that the introduction of development traffic will have no material impact upon the overall operation of the junction, and accordingly in practice it is not considered that vulnerable road users would experience any increase in fear of intimidation in this location.
7.205 Importantly Table 7.21 confirms that the level of fear and intimidation at the junctions with the A580 would be extreme without the Proposed Development, and the addition of development related traffic would only have a negligible impact on this existing situation.
7.206 Fear and intimidation relates to pedestrians and cyclists which are identified as low sensitivity receptors. The majority of the junctions considered would experience no change in the level of fear and intimidation, and on this basis a negligible magnitude of impact is identified. This therefore indicates the significance of effect would also be negligible.
7.207 Therefore it is concluded that the Proposed Development would have long term neutral effect upon fear and intimidation.
Severance 7.208 The Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993) (Ref 7.11), advises that severance occurs when there is difficulty experienced in crossing a heavily trafficked road.
7.209 Table 7.22 below provides an indication of the level of change in severance between the Future Baseline scenario and the Operational Phase scenario.
94
Future Operational Magnitude Link Name Baseline Phase % Impact of Impact AADT AADT
Proposed A580/ Site Access 39,927 44,327 11.0% Negligible
M6 Junction 23 74,373 78,135 5.0% Negligible
A580/ Haydock Lane/ Florida 44,325 45,507 2.7% Negligible Farm North Access
Penny Lane/ A49 Junction 20,755 21,567 3.9% Negligible
A49/A572 Crown Lane East 20,705 20,783 0.4% Negligible
Table 7.22: Change in Severance as a Result of the Proposed Development
7.210 Severance particularly impact upon pedestrians and cyclists. These users have been identified as a low sensitivity receptor.
7.211 Table 7.22 indicates that none of the junctions within the study area are forecast to experience an increase in traffic flows of over 30%. On this basis a negligible magnitude of impact is identified which corresponds to a negligible significance of effect.
7.212 It is therefore is concluded that the Proposed Development will have a long term neutral impact upon severance.
Accident and Highway Safety 7.213 A review of accident data provided by SHMBC has revealed that there are no accident blackspots on the highway network in the vicinity of the site. The Pinch Point highway works recently implemented at M6 Junction 23 are also intended to improve the safe operation of M6 Junction 23.
7.214 The junction capacity assessments have revealed that the addition of development related traffic to the local highway network will not materially alter the operation of any junction when compared with the Future Baseline scenario. The TA therefore concludes that it would not be expected that there would be a material increase in accidents on the highway network in the vicinity of the site as a result of the Proposed Development.
7.215 The only junction where a greater than 10% increase in traffic is forecast to occur is the proposed A580/ Site Access junction. This junction is classified as a moderate sensitivity receptor, and based upon the 11% increase in traffic it is determined there will be an impact of minor magnitude in this location. This equates to an effect of minor significance.
7.216 It is noted that the increase in traffic flows predicted at the junction is only just above the threshold which moves the magnitude of impact from negligible to minor. The previously described junction capacity tests have indicated that the junction will operate well within capacity, and therefore it is not expected that there would be any safety issues with the junction due to it being capacity constrained. As part of the detailed design process the design of the junction will also be subject to Stage 1, 2 and 3 Road Safety Audits to confirm that the layout of the junction will not compromise safety for road users. 95
7.217 Finally, and significantly, the junction will include controlled crossing facilities in a location where none are currently provided. This will be of considerable benefit to the safety of vulnerable users wishing to cross the A580 in this location.
7.218 It is therefore concluded that the proposed development will have a long term neutral impact on highway safety.
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
Cumulative Assessment: Intra-Project Effects 7.219 While it has been demonstrated that the traffic generated by the Proposed Development will have no material impact upon the operation of the local highway network, the vehicular traffic generated will also have potential impacts with respect to noise and air quality.
7.220 In recognition of this Noise and Air Quality Assessments have been undertaken. The results of these assessments are presented in Chapters 11 and 12 of this ES.
Cumulative Assessment: Inter-Project Effects 7.221 Inter-project cumulative effects arise as a result of the Proposed Development interacting with other developments in the vicinity. An example of an inter-project cumulative effect may result from the proposed construction traffic for the project using the same access routes as other construction traffic for another un-related major project in the vicinity. The resulting effect may be an increase in vehicles on the local road network and an increase in dust from construction vehicles.
7.222 Following discussions with SHMBC the following committed developments were accounted for in the traffic impact assessment of the proposed development.
• Haydock Green Employment Site (LPA Ref 2015/0571);
• Canmoor Site -This scheme is currently at pre-application stage, however, based on consultation material distributed to neighbouring residents the proposals are for 295,000 sqft of floorspace across 4 Units, accessed via the existing Haydock Industrial Estate;
• Parkside development - This is an employment allocated site. The traffic impact assessment has considered the development of 1,250,000sqft of B8 development on this site, with vehicular access taken from the A49. This is consistent with consultation material which has recently been released for Phase 1 of the Parkside development; and
• Florida Farm North (LPA Ref 2016/0608).
7.223 Of these developments it is noted that only the Haydock Green development currently benefits from a planning consent. The Florida Farm North application has a resolution for approval subject to referral to the Secretary of State, while the Canmoor site and the Parkside development are both at pre-application stage.
96
7.224 The addition of inter-project development traffic to the baseline traffic flows has allowed the derivation of the Future Baseline traffic flows. The impact of the proposed development has then been tested against this Future Baseline scenario.
7.225 The traffic impact assessment has concluded that the introduction of development traffic to the local highway network would have no material impact upon the junctions considered, and can certainly not be considered to be severe in line with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Ref 7.1) and Paragraph 9 of the Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 (Ref 7.6).
7.226 The assessment of the impact of the development during the construction phase has concluded that the development will have a negligible short term impact during this phase.
7.227 While there is the potential for the construction phase of committed developments to overlap to a degree, any such impact would again only be experienced in the short term and again would be expected to be short term neutral to minor.
Mitigation of Effects
Construction Phase 7.228 The potential effects of the proposed development during the construction phase will be short term neutral and therefore no mitigation is necessary.
7.229 However, irrespective of this the applicant will commit to providing a Construction Environment Management Plan which will outline the measures to be introduced to minimise the environmental impact during this phase. This can be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition.
7.230 This document can secure the management of heavy goods vehicles with regards matters such as the routing of vehicles, for example ensuring no such vehicles will use either the northern or southern A49 arms of Junction 23.
Operational Phase 7.231 The assessment of the effect of the development proposals traffic impact has been demonstrated to have a long term neutral impact upon the highway network based upon the assessment criteria.
7.232 The proposed site access junctions have been designed in accordance with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges guidelines (Ref 7.14) and will be subject to Road Safety Audits at the appropriate time.
7.233 As outlined in the TA it is proposed that a Delivery Management Plan be prepared and implemented by each occupier. This will outline the route which heavy goods vehicles take when arriving and departing the site, in particular confirming that no such vehicles will use either the northern or southern A49 arms of Junction 23.
7.234 It is suggested that this Plan be secured by planning condition.
97
7.235 It is also proposed that each occupier on the site whose floor area exceeds the thresholds outlined in SHMBC ‘Guidance Notes for Travel Plans’ (Ref 7.15) prepare a Travel Plan. This document is intended to promote the use of modes of transport other than the private car.
7.236 A Framework Travel Plan has been included as Appendix E of the TA (ES Volume 4 Appendix 7.1) which provides an outline for the preparation of the Full Travel Plan.
7.237 The Travel Plan will be monitored for a period of five years from the first occupation of each relevant occupier on the site, with the Plan monitored on a regular basis to ensure that it is successfully implemented.
Residual Impact 7.238 Taking into account the successful implementation of the outlined mitigation measures, the residual impacts of the proposed development are concluded to be as follows:
• Construction Phase – Short term Neutral • Operational Phase – Long term Neutral
References
Ref 7.1 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (March 2012).
Ref 7.2 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking (March 2014).
Ref 7.3 Merseyside Local Transport Plan (LTP3) (2011)
Ref 7.4 St Helens MBC Core Strategy (2012)
Ref 7.5 St Helens MBC Ensuring a Choice of Travel Supplementary Planning Document (2010)
Ref 7.6 DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development (September 2013).
Ref 7.7 St Helens MBC Guidance Notes for the Submission of Transport Assessments (2016)
Ref 7.8 DfT TAG Data and Surveys (January 2014).
Ref 7.9 Appendix to Supplementary Information Note 7 (November 2016)
Ref 7.10 www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts
Ref 7.11 IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (1993)
Ref 7.12 Department for Transport’s Local Transport Note 2/08 ‘Cycle Infrastructure Design (2008)
Ref 7.13 Florida Farm North Transport Assessment (August 2016)
Ref 7.14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).
98
8. Ecology
Introduction
8.1 This chapter of the Environmental Statement has been produced by The Environment Partnership (TEP) Ltd to assess the likely significant effects on ecological features that may arise as a result of the Proposed Development.
8.2 TEP was commissioned in 2014 to undertake initial ecological surveys to inform constraints and opportunities mapping of the site. TEP was then commissioned to complete detailed ecological surveys in 2016. The survey results informed the development design and the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) presented herein.
8.3 The aims of this chapter are to describe:
• The baseline survey work which has been completed and the methodology which has been applied in the assessment of likely significant environmental effects. • Existing baseline conditions, including designated sites, and habitats and species on and around the Proposed Development Site (PDS); • Embedded mitigation, i.e. modifications to the scheme design which have been incorporated to avoid or minimise potential adverse ecological effects; • Potential construction, operational and cumulative effects prior to mitigation; • Mitigation in accordance with the ‘mitigation hierarchy’, including SMART monitoring requirements of the mitigation and enhancement proposed; • Residual effects; • Limitations and assumptions are also set out for transparency.
8.4 This assessment is of a development for which outline approval is sought, with all matters other than access reserved for future determination. In order to enable an accurate assessment of impacts, parameters plans have been developed by the applicant. These are 30926-FE-008H and 30926-FE-027E (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1). These allow a “reasonable worst-case” assessment of ecological effects.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
Legislation 8.5 The principal statutes relating to ecology and development, as relevant to the baseline conditions, are summarised below. The legal requirement for protection of sites, habitats and species and their consideration in the planning process has informed the scope of surveys.
• Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Ref 8.9) – transposes the European Habitats and Birds Directives (Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Ref 8.10) and 79/409/EEC (Ref 8.11) respectively) into UK law. This conveys protection to certain species and to the habitats on which they rely to complete their lifecycle.
99
• Wildlife & Countryside Act (W&CA) 1981 (as amended) (Ref 8.12) – provides a national level of protection to specific animals and plants native and controls the release of non-native species. • Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (Ref 8.13) – extends the protection of certain species from reckless as well as intentional acts. Part III requires that government departments have regard for the conservation of biodiversity, something that is extended by the NERC Act 2000 (Ref 8.14). • Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Ref 8.14) – requires planning authorities to consider impacts on “species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity” when determining planning applications. Section 41 (S41) (Ref 8.14) lists habitats and species of principal importance, which are to be considered, irrespective of whether they are covered by other legislation. The S41 list was originally taken forward under the UK BAP (first published 1994) but is now prioritised under the Biodiversity 2020 Strategy (Ref 8.15) (see National Policy below). • Hedgerows Regulations 1997 (Ref 8.16) – protects ‘important’ hedgerows from being uprooted or destroyed. Importance is determined based on adjacent land use, age, historic value and ecological value (specific criteria are set out in the Regulations).
National Policy
8.6 National policy considered within the preparation of this chapter relates to the protection and enhancement of ecological features, and gives consideration to the role of ecosystem services. The principal national policy documents which inform the EcIA process are as follows:
• The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (“NPPF”) Chapter 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment (Ref 8.17) requires that development delivers net gains in biodiversity in addition to minimising the impacts on biodiversity. It highlights the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils, as well as recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems. • National Planning Policy Guidance deals with “The Natural Environment” and paragraphs 8 to 23 deal with matters of biodiversity. The guidance details how the mitigation hierarchy (avoid-mitigate-compensate) should be applied and advises on how protected species and habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity (S41 features) should be considered in determining planning applications. • Making Space for Nature (Lawton, 2010) (Ref 8.18), an independent published review of England’s wildlife sites and the connections between them, widely recognised to have informed the subsequent White Paper (see below). This identified a number of recommendations to create a sustainable, resilient and more effective ecological network. • Natural Environment White Paper (The Stationery Office, 2011) (Ref 8.19) set out the vision of repairing ‘inherited’ damage in the natural environment, leaving the natural environment in fitter condition for future generations. Key aims of the White Paper can be summarised as a commitment to protect and improve the
100
natural environment, to grow a green economy, to reconnect people and nature, and to international monitoring and reporting. • Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services (DEFRA, 2011a) (Ref 8.13) provided a comprehensive picture of how international commitments are implemented. Four priority areas for action were identified including a more integrated large-scale approach to conservation on land and sea and reducing environmental pressures. • England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Principles: Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate (DEFRA, 2008) (Ref 8.20) reviews the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on the biodiversity of England, taking into account possible interactions with the main non-climate pressures on biodiversity. Principles for adapting biodiversity policy and management to climate change are identified.
Local Policy
8.7 Relevant policies from the St Helens Core Strategy (adopted 2012) (Ref 8.21) and saved policies from the St Helens Council Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2007) (Ref 8.22) are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1 Desk Based Research and are summarised as follows:
• Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy S1: Green Belt requires the maintenance of a green belt around settlements. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policies GB1 and GB2: General Criteria for Development Control in Green Belt. These set out special circumstances in which green belt land might be built upon and the criteria which new development in green belt must adhere to. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 1: Protection of Open Space. This sets out the circumstances in which development will not be permitted where it leads to the loss of open space. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 3: Greenways. This relates to the safeguarding of a network of green corridors for amenity, landscape character and protection of ecological, historic and archaeological resources. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 4: Statutory Site Protection. This states that development will not be permitted which would destroy or significantly harm a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 5: Sites of community wildlife interest and local nature reserves. Development affecting such sites will only be permitted where the nature conservation interest can be safeguarded. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 10: The Mersey Forest. The Council will encourage woodland planting especially where this would contribute to the creation of the Mersey Forest. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 12: Development Affecting Existing Trees. This states that development will not be normally permitted which results in the significant loss of trees and does not provide adequate protection and compensatory planting. It suggests planning conditions which may be imposed on new developments in relation to the protection of trees and compensatory planting. Replacement planting on a minimum on a 2:1 basis is recommended. 101
• Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 13: New Tree Planting on Development Sites. This policy states that the Council will normally require tree planting on development sites, and gives examples of types of development where this will be prioritized. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy ENV 21: Environmental Improvements within Transport Corridors. This policy relates to the measures which new developments within transport corridors must adhere to. It mainly relates to visual effect. • Unitary Development Plan (2012) Saved Policy REC 7: Water Features. This states that the Council will protect the Borough’s water features rivers, streams, ponds, canals, dams and reservoirs) and seek to promote their recreational use where this does not compromise their ecological value. Development proposals which prejudice existing or potential recreational use will be resisted. Core Strategy Local Development Plan (Adopted 2012) Policy CP1 (2) Protection of the Natural and Historic Environment: requires the protection and enhancement of green infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity and bringing these resources into positive management. This includes avoidance of unnecessary tree loss and provision for new and replacement planting. Watercourses are to be protected from encroachment, modification and degradation and modified or degraded water bodies are to be returned to sustainable, natural environments where appropriate and feasible. • Policy CP1 (3) Environmental Quality: requires that potential effects of air, light and water pollution (including contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater resources) and noise, vibration, smells, dust and electromagnetic fields are minimised and fully mitigated. • Policy CQL 1 Green Infrastructure: the Council commits to protect, manage, enhance and where appropriate expand the green infrastructure network e.g. through protection of greenways and linkages between sites. • Policy CQL 2 Trees and Woodlands: recognises the multi-purpose value of trees, woodlands and hedgerows and requires their protection and enhancement. • Policy CQL3 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: the Council commits to protect and manage species and habitats, as well as enhancing and creating habitats and linkages through measures such as: ‒ identification and positive management of designated sites and notable habitats, through; ‒ the creation, extension and better management of Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats (now taken to include S41 habitats); ‒ requiring developments, where appropriate, to incorporate habitat features, which will contribute to the Borough's ecological and geological resource; ‒ requiring that, unavoidable harm is fully mitigated to enhance or recreate the features; ‒ reducing habitat and species fragmentation by developing a functioning ecological framework for the Borough; ‒ requiring all development proposals to take account of ecological assessments, based on appropriate survey data; and ‒ ensuring any development affecting nationally and locally important sites and protected species will only be acceptable if there is clear evidence that the development outweighs the nature conservation interest.
102
• Policy CSS1: Overall Spatial Strategy: this summarises the priorities for new development in the Borough. • Policy CAS5: Rural St Helens. This policy states that new development will be restricted to within existing rural settlement boundaries, or will comply with Green Belt policy. • St Helen’s Council Supplementary Planning Document – Biodiversity. The SPD supports the adopted policy context. The aims of the Biodiversity SPD are as follows: ‒ To provide clear and consistent guidance on the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in new development ‒ To ensure that biodiversity is safeguarded and enhanced through the determination of planning applications for new development.
8.8 Section 9 of the Biodiversity SPD relates to Impacts of development, mitigation and compensation. It states that where impacts to habitats and species cannot be avoided, mitigation will be required. Where damage is still likely to occur, compensation in the form of on or off-site habitat creation will be required. Section 10 relates to responsibilities and states “developments must provide an overall net increase into the biodiversity resource of St.Helens… there will be an assumption of it being commensurate with the nature and scale of the development” i.e. large scale developments will be expected to deliver a large net gain for biodiversity.
• St Helen’s Council Supplementary Planning Document: Trees and Development. This document supplements policies ENV11, ENV12A, ENV12B, ENV13 and ENV24B in the St Helens Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted July 1998, and informs the emerging policies in the Council’s Local Development Framework. • St. Helens Emerging Local Plan 2018-2033 Preferred Options (December 2016). This has just finished public consultation (30 Jan 2017) and is at an early stage of preparation, with limited weight to be afforded to it. Policy LPA04.1 allocates the majority of the land at Haydock Point for employment purposes as a strategic employment site EA4, Policies which relate to ecology (which indicate the likely direction of travel of policies) would comprise: ‒ LPA01: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ‒ LPA03: Development Principles ‒ LPA09: Green Infrastructure ‒ LPC06: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation ‒ LPC08: Ecological Network ‒ LPC10: Trees and Woodland
Assessment Methodology
Study Area 8.9 The Study Area reflects the potential zone of ecological influence for the Proposed Development. The extent of each survey type takes into account potential impact pathways as well as the sensitivity, behaviour and physiological function of the habitats or species being addressed.
103
8.10 The extent of the desk study area extends 1km from the site boundary as illustrated in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.1 (TEP drawing G5843.005). The extent of the Phase 1 Habitat survey (application boundary and immediately adjacent land) is illustrated in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.2 (TEP drawing G5843.004). The location of waterbodies surveyed for great crested newt (250m where suitable interconnecting habitat exists) is illustrated in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.3 (TEP drawing G5343.001).
Baseline Surveys
Consultation 8.11 TEP met with Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) on 23 November 2016 as part of a wider consultation meeting between the client team and Council members. The scope and results of the baseline findings of the ecological surveys were presented by TEP, and MEAS requested that specific receptors were considered in the assessment, as reflected in this assessment. TEP outlined the approach to the protection of the principal ecological features in the Proposed Development, in particular the surrounding woodlands, the central east-west ditch and hedgerow corridor, and the associated fauna. TEP indicated that none of the international designated sites identified in the desk study were predicted to incur adverse effect as a result of the Proposed Development and as such, HRA Screening would not be required. It was agreed that this would be set out in the EcIA chapter for MEAS to review.
8.12 St Helens Council agreed a list of schemes to be included in the cumulative assessment, as follows:
• Land To North Of Penny Lane And West Of M6 Motorway, Haydock – Planning Application Ref: P/2015/0571. • Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock - Planning Application Ref: P/2016/0608/HYBR • Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock - Pre-application • Parkside development - Allocated for employment in adopted St Helens Core Strategy and proposed employment allocation in St Helens Local Plan Preferred Options draft (2016)
8.13 St Helens Council provided a Scoping Opinion in January 2017, drawing attention to the recommendations of Natural England and MEAS regarding the scope of the EIA. Natural England advised the following:
• The assessment should follow Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA); • Although the proposal is outside nationally or internationally-designated sites and their buffer areas, nevertheless, the EcIA should thoroughly assess the potential for indirect adverse effects; • The EcIA should assess the impact of all phases of development on protected species, in accordance with NE’s standing advice; • The EcIA should assess effects on Local Wildlife Sites, taking advice from MEAS; • The EcIA should assess effects on habitats and species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, also known as s41 features under the Natural Environments and Rural Communities Act, 2006
104
8.14 MEAS advised the following:
• The desk study should refer to the Liverpool City Region Ecological Framework evidence base; • The EcIA should justify the decision not to carry out breeding bird surveys and should also consider the effects on non-breeding and wintering birds. In the case of the latter, if it is determined that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on offsite Special Protection Areas covered by the Habitats Regulations, field survey would be required; • The EcIA should specifically consider impacts on common toad, a s41 species; • If any trees with bat roost potential require felling, full bat surveys are required; • The EcIA should include full details of a water vole mitigation scheme and assess the impacts of drainage proposals on water vole habitat; • Lady Hill Plantation adjacent to the site is a potential Local Wildlife Site (LWS) which should be considered; • A reasoned justification should be provided as to why the proposal would not adversely affect any internationally designated sites covered by the Habitats Regulations; • The ES should include long-term management and maintenance measures for newly-created and retained habitats; • It would be useful if a draft Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) was submitted with the planning application, and this should include ecological mitigation measures.
8.15 St Helens Council provided further pre-application advice in February 2017, and this advice was taken account of in the parameters plans and ecology mitigation plans submitted with the planning application:
• The development should ensure replacement habitat to be created on a 3:1 ratio in respect of loss of grassland, woodland, wetland and woodland habitats, in accordance with the Biodiversity SPD. • The proposed perimeter woodlands should also be buffered by additional meadow grassland and similar habitats to create graded woodland edges • The central ditch corridor should be enhanced for water voles, for example with the provision of mini-dams to increase water vole habitats, and the ditch should be protected from potential pollution associated with the proposed internal road system
8.16 Consultation has been carried out between TEP and the other technical disciplines appointed by the applicant as part of the iterative design process. In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy, the evolving scheme design seeks first to avoid potential adverse effects. Where this is not possible, appropriate mitigation will be provided or, as a final resort, compensation (offsetting) measures will be provided.
Desk Based Research 8.17 A desk study to collate pre-existing records of protected and notable sites, habitats and species within 1km of the site was carried out in 2014, and was updated in early 2017 to include information sources recommended by St Helens Council and MEAS. Species records can provide a useful indication of the species present within the search area,
105
although the absence of a given species from the dataset cannot be taken to represent actual absence. Data was collated from the following data sources:
• MAGIC Map (available at http://magic.defra.gov.uk/magicmap.aspx). • Mersey BioBank; • Liverpool City Region Ecological Framework (http://www.activenaturalist.org.uk/lcren/imap/mb8.html) • Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU)
Field Survey Work 8.18 The following research and surveys have been completed; each is described under the relevant subheadings below:
• Ecological walkover survey (part of the early opportunity and constraints mapping for development at the site), 2014; • Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, PDS - July 2016, racecourse – February 2017; • Bat surveys (assessment of trees and nocturnal activity surveys), May to August 2016; • Ornithological assessment, July 2016; • Wintering bird surveys, January and February 2017; • Water vole surveys, June & September 2016; • Great crested newt surveys (habitat suitability index assessment and eDNA survey), June 2016, February 2017.
Habitats and Flora 8.19 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was carried out on 28 July 2016 to update the ecological walkover survey of 2014. At the request of neighbouring Haydock Park Racecourse, land within their curtilage north of the PDS was subject to phase 1 habitat survey in February 2017 (the completed habitat survey is shown at ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.2 Phase 1 Habitat Map). The survey was completed by a TEP Field Identification Skills Certificate (“FISC”) Level 5 botanist, mapping the habitat types present and, recording species lists for each in accordance with the standard Phase 1 method (JNCC, 2010) (Ref 8.2). Target notes were used to record incidental presence of, and suitable habitats for, protected and notable species. In this way the survey was ‘extended’ and, used to scope the Phase 2 fauna surveys.
8.20 As the surveys were conducted outside the woodland ground flora season, it was not possible to confirm whether the bluebells (Hyacinthoides sp.) present within the ground flora of the woodland that surrounds the site are the native species H. non-scripta. This woodland, and associated bluebells, will be retained and protected as part of the design of the scheme. The seasonal timing of survey is not therefore a constraint to the assessment.
Bats: Daytime Inspection of Trees 8.21 All trees in and around the PDS were subject to daytime ground-based assessment for roosts on 13 July 2016 with due consideration for current best practice guidance (BCT, 2016) (Ref 8.3) to search for bats, signs of bat activity and features with potential for bats to roost. Trees were assessed from ground level by a licensed bat worker using
106
close-focussing binoculars and high powered torches (see ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.4 for tree locations).
8.22 Signs sought included bat droppings and characteristic scratch marks and staining. Potential roost features (“PRF”) with potential to support roosting bats were also identified, such as rot holes, splits, snags and flaking or lifted bark. Ivy cover can be suitable for roosting, for example, where the stems are overlapping and matted to form a crevice feature beneath. Ivy cover that is not sufficiently established to offer roosting opportunities, but may mask other suitable features on a tree, was noted separately.
8.23 Trees were categorised based on the findings of the inspection with the aim of making recommendations for sensitive working methods or nocturnal survey as appropriate. In parallel with this, the PDS was considered for its value to support foraging and dispersal by bats, taking into account the habitats present, its position in the local landscape and connectivity to surrounding features. The categories used are as listed in Table 8.1 (based on BCT, 2016, Table 4.1).
107
Table 8.1: Categorisation of trees and habitats for bats
Category of Description of roosting habitat Description of habitat for foraging & dispersal suitability
Confirmed Roosting bats or evidence of roosting bats identified. Habitats known to be used by bats entering or exiting the roost, or roost which support associated foraging or commuting behaviour.
High A tree possessing PRF that is/are suitable for use by Continuous high quality habitat that is strongly connected with the larger numbers of bats on a regular basis and wider landscape and is likely to be used regularly by commuting or potentially for longer periods of time, due to their size, dispersing bats (e.g. river valley, vegetated stream, woodland edge, shelter, protection and surrounding habitat. hedgerows with trees), or by foraging bats (e.g. broadleaved woodland, grazed parkland, tree-lined watercourses or ponds).
Moderate A tree with PRF that could be used by bats but which is Continuous habitat connected to the wider landscape that could be unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status used by bats for commuting (e.g. lines of trees or scrub or linked with respect to roost type i.e. maternity or hibernation. back gardens), or foraging bats (e.g. trees, scrub, water, grassland). Note: roosts of high conservation status with respect to species can only be determined once presence is confirmed.
Low A tree with PRF that could be used by individual bats Habitat that could be used by small numbers of commuting bats on an opportunistic basis, but which do not offer (e.g. a gappy hedgerow or an un-vegetated stream) or foraging bats sufficient space, shelter, appropriate conditions and/or (e.g. a lone tree or small patch of scrub) but which is isolated from suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular the surrounding countryside. basis or by larger numbers of bats.
Negligible Inspected tree with no/exceptionally poor suitability No, or exceptionally poor quality, habitat features on site that likely PRF. to be used by foraging, commuting or dispersing bats. A general lack of linear features and low habitat, structural or floristic diversity.
108
8.24 As the trees were in leaf at the time of survey, parts of the canopy could not be fully inspected from ground level. This was taken into consideration during the survey and a precautionary approach taken to assigning the category of suitability.
Bats: Nocturnal Activity Transect & Static Detector Surveys 8.25 Nocturnal bat activity transects and automated static detector surveys were completed during the peak period of June, July and August 2016, in accordance with BCT (2016) (Ref 8.3, ES Volume 3b: Plans 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7). It was not deemed appropriate to continue survey into September as the level of bat activity and the assemblage of bats recorded within affected areas of the application site were found to be low.
8.26 On each survey, a single walked transect with ten monitoring stops was surveyed during favourable weather conditions to identify the assemblage and level of bat activity associated with habitats across the site. The transect route respected the arable crop. As plough lines which could be walked were widespread through the field, the route provided good coverage. Each survey was led by a licensed surveyor.
8.27 Bat passes were recorded with time expansion and frequency division detectors (Petterson D240x coupled with Anabat Express) for subsequent sonogram analysis using AnaLook software. Observations including flight behaviour and direction were recorded by the surveyors to aid in the species identification and understanding of bat activity at each monitoring point and the intervening walks.
8.28 Each transect survey was complemented by the use of an automated static detector (Wildlife Acoustics SM2+), deployed for a period of five nights to record bat activity over a prolonged period. The static detector was affixed to the tree which stands close to the centre of the PDS, along the line of the central ditch corridor. Recorded bat passes were also subject to sonogram analysis to determine species present (see ES Volume 3b: Plans 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7).
8.29 Not all sonograms can be attributed to species level owing to the overlapping nature of some call parameters and in such cases, identification to genus level or to ‘bat species’ has been given for transparency.
8.30 It is recognised that passes of bats with low amplitude (quiet) passes can be overlooked, particularly where background noise (e.g. walking through tall crop) is high. In the northwest of England, this is principally a risk with brown long-eared bats but can also apply to some Myotis species. The monitoring stops are designed to allow sampling of such species along the transect. Moreover, the use of an automated detector each month to augment the transect data means that under-recording of these species is not considered to pose a significant constraint to the baseline data.
8.31 Habitats present for bats were valued using the criteria detailed in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.3 Bats. These consider parameters such as rarity of species within the bat assemblage, the level of activity of each, presence of roosts nearby, habitat quality on site and landscape characteristics, to derive a score (Mitchell-Jones, 2004 (Ref 8.35), BCT, 2016 (Ref 8.3), CIEEM, 2016 (Ref 8.1) and Wray et al, 2010 (Ref 8.40) which can be translated to value at a given geographic frame of reference.
109
Birds 8.32 Based on the nature and extent of habitats present, and the commitment to retain and protect the peripheral woodland habitats within the development design, full breeding bird surveys were not considered appropriate. Nevertheless, an ornithological assessment was carried out by an experienced ornithologist on 19 July 2016 to augment the available habitat survey data as baseline for the assessment of effects.
8.33 The ornithological assessment entailed a walkover survey and sampling all habitats in and immediately adjacent to the site. A list of bird species and their behaviour (e.g. carrying food items or holding territory) was recorded using standard breeding bird survey codes (Bibby et al, 2000) (Ref 8.4) to give an indication of the species present on site at high summer (see ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.8 Ornithological Assessment).
8.34 Winter bird surveys using line transect and point count methods were carried out in January and February 2017. Results are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.8
Water Vole 8.35 The ditch which passes east-west through the PDS forms part of the Ellams Brook catchment, which is known to support water voles. Water vole survey was conducted by experienced surveyors in June and September 2016 in accordance with Dean et al (2016) (Ref 8.5) and Strachan et al (2011) (Ref 8.6). Following each survey, field signs of water vole were mapped using Global Positioning System (GPS) to illustrate the extent and level of activity present (see ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.9 Water Vole Survey).
8.36 Some stretches of the ditch were overgrown by dense bramble, which could not be readily surveyed either from the banks or within the channel. Whilst bramble can, to some degree, create areas of protection, extensive dense patches can also restrict the suitability for the species. Sufficient lengths of the ditch could be accessed for survey to generate robust baseline data for the assessment of effects.
Great Crested Newt and toads 8.37 Ponds within the PDS or within 250m of its boundary were identified from the desk study information, in conjunction with contemporary aerial photography and available base maps. Those connected to the site by suitable, or possibly suitable intervening connected habitat were considered in respect of great crested newt (GCN) (see ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.3 for pond locations).
8.38 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of all identified ponds was carried out in June 2016 and February 2017. The HSI method follows that set out by Oldham et al (2001) (Ref 8.7), assessing set parameters including pond size, location and vegetation cover to derive a score of suitability for GCN to breed. All ponds which could not be robustly discounted as possible breeding sites on the basis of the HSI score were then subject to environmental (eDNA) sampling.
8.39 DEFRA reported (Biggs et al, 2014) (Ref 8.8) on the effectiveness of eDNA testing of pond water to detect GCN presence, which was subsequently confirmed by the Natural England European Protected Species licensing department as accepted evidence of presence or probable absence of GCN in a given waterbody. eDNA sampling was carried out on all ponds by a trained ecologist in June 2016. Each held water of
110
sufficient depth, with sufficient percentage of accessible shoreline. As described in ‘Baseline Conditions’, given the negative DNA results, no further no further surveys for GCN have been recommended.
8.40 The potential effects on common toad are assessed by reference to phase 1 habitat survey data and also by reference to information gathered during the Habitat Suitability Index (“HSI”) assessment.
Significance Criteria
8.41 The approach to identify, quantify and evaluate potential effects of defined actions or stress on ecological features is carried out with due consideration for the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM, 2016) (Ref 8.1). The guidelines set out the approach to describe impacts (from a given source) and effects (on a given feature). Impacts should either be described as adverse or positive, as well as describing the characteristics of spatial extent, magnitude, duration, timing, frequency and reversibility. This provides a robust framework for EcIA, which is then informed by the interpretation of contextual information and professional judgement.
8.42 The approach to EcIA follows the ‘mitigation hierarchy’. Potential adverse effects are, in the first instance avoided. This is to be achieved by the Proposed Development through the early completion of ecological baseline studies, the results of which have informed the evolving development design. Where avoidance is not possible, adverse effects will be mitigated or compensated, with the intention of creating new and replacement habitats.
Valuation of Receptors 8.43 The CIEEM EcIA guidelines (2016) (Ref 8.1) recommend that the value or potential value of an ecological feature should be determined within a defined geographical context. The frames of reference used to describe each feature identified in the baseline conditions at Haydock Point are provided in Table 8.2. The defining criteria, developed by TEP, reflect the CIEEM guidelines.
8.44 Decisions on relative importance are outlined in the assessment and consider quality, extent, rarity (including local rarity) and threats or declines of a feature. Relevant statutory and non-statutory designations, legislation and policies are also taken account of, although not all populations of legally protected species show the same rarity, so contextual information is also provided. The supportive function of the feature (i.e. providing a buffer, connections or opportunities for expansion/ climate change resilience of a neighbouring feature) may also be taken into consideration when assessing ecological importance.
111
Table 8.2: Valuation of Ecological Features
Value Definition
International Designated or proposed/candidate Special Areas for Conservation (“SAC”), Special Protection Areas (“SPA”) and Ramsar sites and their qualifying features, some of which may depend on land outside the designation boundaries. Candidate or proposed designations are treated as of equal value to fully designated sites. Under the NPPF, land that is set aside as compensation for adverse effects of development on European sites should also be regarded as of European value. Species populations or habitat areas (such as those listed in Annex I, II or IV of the Habitats Directive or Annex I of the Birds Directive) of international importance due to relative size, rarity or quality of the receptor.
National Designated or proposed Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserve (“NNR”), Marine Nature Reserves (“MNR”) and their qualifying features, some of which may depend on land outside the designation boundaries. A viable area of ancient woodland. Species populations or habitat areas (including legally protected or NERC Act s41 species or habitats) of national importance due to relative size, rarity or quality of the receptor.
County Designated or proposed County Wildlife Sites (“CWS”), Local Wildlife Sites (“LWS”), Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (“SNCI”) and their qualifying features where they occur within the designation boundaries. ‘Important’ hedgerows (as described under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997) where these occur as an extensive network. Species populations or habitat areas (including legally protected or NERC Act s41) or Nationally Scarce species or habitats of district or county importance due to relative size, rarity or quality of the receptor. Sites should comfortably exceed Site of Nature Conservation Importance (“SNCI”) criteria if these exist, but not meet SSSI selection criteria.
112
Value Definition
Local Local Nature Reserves (“LNR”) unless also designated at a higher level, and other nature conservation designations (under local planning policies). Green infrastructure designations where these contribute to local landscape connectivity and/or buffer other ecological receptors valued at least at this geographic scale. Species populations or habitat areas (including legally protected or NERC Act s41 species or habitats) of local importance due to relative size or quality. Features that appreciably enrich the local ecological resource, although these may themselves be common and widespread, such as long-established hedgerows, woodlands and ponds, or large areas of grassland.
Less than Local Features of value at the neighbourhood level, including populations of common and widespread species or habitats without protection or conservation designation. Isolated and small fragments of NERC Act s41 habitats or species only where better representative examples of such habitats or species are common nearby.
Negligible Features that, based on their limited inherent ecological value, restricted extent and/or isolation, are not taken forward as valued ecological receptors in the impact assessment.
113
Magnitude of Effect 8.45 The magnitude of effect is the degree of change caused in an ecological feature, assessed against the baseline conditions. It is a function of the sensitivity of a receptor to the nature of a given effect (see relevant subheading below), and takes into account the timing, frequency, duration and spatial scale of the causative impact. Magnitude is a qualitative judgment of the ability of a receptor to maintain viability at the appropriate geographical scale, and is supported by quantitative information wherever possible. For the purposes of assessment, the defining criteria for magnitude, developed by TEP are set out in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3: Magnitude of Effect
Magnitude Definition Category
High Total loss or substantial harm/enhancement to key features of the baseline conditions, such that the post-development character or composition will be fundamentally changed. For example, permanent or long term impact on a given receptor and/or across a relatively large area.
Moderate Partial loss or harm/gain or enhancement to one or more key features of the baseline conditions, such that post-development character or composition will be materially changed. For example, permanent or long term impact on a receptor across a relatively small area, or large-scale temporary effect.
Low Loss or degradation/gain or enhancement will be discernible (i.e. some measurable change) compared to baseline conditions but the underlying character or composition will remain similar to pre- development conditions. For example, small-scale and/or temporary changes in quality or extent of a given population, habitat or site
Negligible No loss/gain or alteration.
Sensitivity of Receptor 8.46 The sensitivity of an ecological feature to a given impact depends on a range of parameters that reflect the physiology, behaviour and life stage of each species. Example parameters include:
• Life stage e.g. a nursery bat roost may be more sensitive to certain forms of disturbance during maternity period. • Life history e.g. populations of species that produce single offspring each year may be more susceptible to changes in availability of breeding or foraging habitat, than those which produce several litters each year.
114
• Seasonality e.g. wintering birds will be sensitive to impacts at a different time of year than breeding birds. • Relative spatial scale and connectivity e.g. species reliant on a restricted area of habitat, may be comparatively more sensitive to its loss than a case where alternative habitat remains unaffected. • Range, distribution and abundance e.g. populations at the edge of their range, or which occur at low numbers (and so too resilience to a given effect) may differ to those recorded in an area of stronghold.
8.47 The sensitivity of a receptor is inherently linked to its valuation and is reflected in the magnitude of effect (see relevant subheadings above). It is not therefore appropriate to categorise sensitivity separately from either of these parameters.
Duration of Effect 8.48 The duration of effect refers to the period required for a given feature to return to baseline conditions (in contrast to the duration of impact which refers to the period of causative action). For example, the duration of habitat loss is the period that the habitat type, grassland, hedgerows, woodland and so forth take to re-establish a condition comparable to that of the baseline. Timescales used to describe duration of effect are listed in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4: Duration of Effect
Timescale Definition
Short term 0 to 5 years from commencement of effect.
Medium term 5 to 15 years from commencement of effect.
Long term 15+ years from commencement of effect.
Significance of Effect 8.49 Impacts are considered to be either significant or non-significant at a given geographic scale, rather than using grades of significance.
8.50 For the purposes of assessment, a significant effect, in ecological terms, is defined in the CIEEM guidelines as “an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological features’ or for biodiversity in general”.
8.51 The CIEEM guidelines move away from traditional matrix assessment of significant effects, where significance is calculated as the product of the magnitude of the impact and the value or sensitivity of the nature conservation resources affected. The approach of the guidelines accommodates factors such as the size or conservation status of a species population, habitat quality or the natural geographical range of a species/habitat.
8.52 The viability of each ecological feature is considered, thereby determining whether the effect is significant or not, at the appropriate geographic frame of reference. The term ‘viability’ is equivalent to the terms ‘integrity’ in respect of habitats and ‘conservation 115
status’ in respect of species. A qualitative judgment is made on the maintenance of viability, supported by quantitative information where possible.
8.53 ‘Site integrity’ is defined in the Government Circular ODPM 06/2005 (Ref 8.24) as “…the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species for which it was classified”.
8.54 ‘Favourable conservation status’ of a species is defined in the Habitats Directive (Ref 8.10), Article 1(i)) as “Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; and the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced in the foreseeable future; and there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis”.
8.55 The decision on significance is made irrespective of the geographical scale at which the feature was originally valued; if an effect is found not to be significant at the level at which the receptor has been valued, it may be significant at a more local level. A significant adverse residual effect is not necessarily one that would make the proposals unacceptable.
Certainty of Effect 8.56 The following four-point scale will be used to express the degree of confidence with which the predicted impact may occur. For residual impacts this scale will also indicate the reliability of mitigation proposals.
• Certain/near certain; • Probable; • Possible; • Extremely unlikely.
Limitations and Assumptions
8.57 As the habitat survey was conducted in July, it was not possible to confirm whether the bluebells Hyacinthoides sp. present within the ground flora of the woodland that surrounds the site are the native species H. non-scripta. This woodland, and associated bluebells, will be retained and protected as part of the design of the scheme. The seasonal timing of survey is not therefore a constraint to the assessment.
8.58 Some stretches of the ditch were overgrown by dense bramble, and therefore could not be readily surveyed for water vole either from the banks or within the channel. Whilst bramble can, to some degree, create areas of protection, extensive dense patches can also restrict the suitability for the species. Sufficient lengths of the ditch could be accessed for survey to generate robust baseline data for the assessment of effects.
8.59 As the trees were in leaf at the time of the ground-based bat assessment, parts of the canopy could not be fully inspected from ground level. This was taken into consideration during the survey and a precautionary approach taken to assigning the category of suitability.
116
8.60 This assessment is of a development for which outline approval is sought, with all matters other than access reserved for future determination. In order to enable an accurate assessment, parameters plans have been provided by the applicant. These are 30926-FE-008H (Parameters Plan) and 30926-FE-027E (Green Infrastructure Mitigation Plan). These identify the design and mitigation measures which are “embedded” in the development. In turn this allows a “reasonable worst-case” assessment of ecological effects. The approach is described in detail later in this assessment (in the section titled “Assessment of Effects”).
Baseline Conditions
Designated Sites and Notable Habitats 8.61 Designated sites and notable habitats identified through the desk study are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1 Desk Based Research.
8.62 There are no national or international designated sites within 2km of the PDS. The site lies within the Impact Risk Zone for Abram Flashes SSSI and Highfield Moss SSSI. The Proposed Development is not listed within the land use types of risk for these SSSI.
8.63 The nearest international designated site is the Manchester Mosses Special Area for Conservation (“SAC”) which lies c. 9.5km to the east. This is a conglomerate SAC, comprising 3 parcels of SSSI raised bog habitat that, whilst degraded, is considered to be still capable of regeneration. The Proposed Development is not considered to be hydrologically linked to the SAC and does not provide any supporting function to the SAC or its qualifying features.
8.64 Mersey Estuary SPA & Ramsar site lies c.16km to the south (the river source being c.10km south beyond Warrington). The Estuary is designated for its wetland bird assemblage, for overwintering birds (golden plover, dunlin, pintail, redshank, shelduck and teal), as well as for redshank and ringed plover which it supports on passage. Whilst these species may use open arable habitats, the PDS is not considered to offer any tangible supporting function to the designated Estuary given the distance and its size relative to the intervening landscape.
8.65 The nearest national designated sites are listed below in order of proximity:
• Highfield Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) c.2.7km south east beyond the A580, designated for the peat, mite, acidic grassland and wetland communities. There is no direct habitat connectivity between the PDS and the SSSI owing to the main A-road network, which also separates the public footpaths that serve the SSSI from those in the vicinity of the PDS. • Abram Flashes SSSI c3.2km north east beyond Haydock Racecourse and Golborne. A series of shallow open waterbodies, remnant from the former mining industry which support a mosaic of wetland communities. The breeding waterfowl assemblage includes species which favour open water, wet grassland, reed, swamp and riverine habitats. Wintering waterfowl associated with the wider Wigan Flashes complex which feed and roost at the SSSI include migrant waders such as greenshank, ruff and dunlin. The intervening landscape between the site
117
and the SSSI, other than the racecourse, is dominated by open farmland, with scattered farms and light industrial sites as well as the rural edge of Golborne. • Stanley Bank Grassland SSSIc.4.4km west beyond the M6, designated for the grassland and woodland habitats which also support a range of insect and bird life. The site is separated from the SSSI by the Haydock as well as the motorway.
8.66 Seven Local Wildlife Sites (“LWS”) were identified within 1km of the site, as summarised in Table 8.5. The nearest of these is Haydock Park Woodlands LWS, which wraps around the north and eastern boundaries of the site. Ellams Brook LWS lies c.395m south at the closest point but forms part of the same catchment as the central ditch which flows through the application site.
118
Table 8.5: Summary of Local Wildlife Sites within 1km of the PDS
Local Wildlife Site within 1km Approximate distance and Citation summary of PDS direction from PDS
Haydock Park Woodlands Bordering the site to the north 13.94 hectares of broadleaf deciduous woodland, provides a roost site for LWS and east pipistrelle bats. Habitats: 1 regionally important habitat- standing water Plants: 1WCA SCH8 -bluebell species of conservation concern- bluebell 1 regionally important species- bluebell Animals: Regional rare/ Scarce- rook Roost- pipistrelle sp.
Fox Covert, including Cowhey 50m south west 5.49 hectares of semi-natural deciduous woodland and adjacent Cowhey Dam. Dam LWS Ground flora contains bluebell. Habitats: 1 priority BAP habitat- swamp 1 regionally important habitat- standing water- dam Plants: 1 WCA Sch8 species- bluebell 1 species of conservation concern-bluebell 1 regionally important species-bluebell 1 locally rare species- bearded couch.
119
Ellams Brook LWS 452m south 1.34 hectares. Provides habitat for water voles, 84.2% of plants are native to the borough.
Wickens Hedge & Ellams 386m south east 2.36 hectares of woodland surrounding the Ellams Brook. Brook LWS Habitats: 2 priority BAP habitats- swamp, marginal vegetation 2 regionally important habitats- marginal vegetation, standing water Plants: 1WCA SCH8- bluebell 1 species of conservation concern-bluebell 1 regionally important species-bluebell 1 locally rare species-hairy brome.
Kilbuck Lane Grassland LWS 467m west of the site boundary. This site has been developed – no features for which the LWS was designated remain.
Plantation Copse & Ponds, 638m north west 6.12 hectares of mixed deciduous corpse and rough grassland and a number Haydock LWS of ponds. Exceptional population of GCN. Habitats: 2 priority BAP habitats- swamp, unimproved neutral grassland 4 regionally important habitats- marshy grassland, swamp, standing water, Unimproved neutral grassland Plants: 1 WCA SCH8- bluebell 2 species of conservation concern- bluebell, western gorse 4 regionally important species- yellow wort, bluebell, smooth tare, western gorse.
120
Haydock Cross LWS 589m north west 0.70 hectares. Great crested newts were translocated to this site in 1998. The GCN populations have established and being maintained. Habitat: 2 priority BAP habitats- unimproved neutral grassland, swamp tall fen vegetation. 4 regionally important habitats- unimproved neutral grassland, marshy grassland, standing water (pond), Swamp tall fen vegetation Plants: 1 WCA SCH8- bluebell 1 species of conservation concern- bluebell, western gorse 3 regionally important species- silver hair-grass, western gorse, smooth tare.
121
8.67 Lady Hill Plantation, immediately east of the site, is a potential Local Wildlife Site.
8.68 Notable habitats identified from the MAGIC Map dataset within 1km of the site are summarised as follows:
• Priority Habitat Inventory Woodland (Deciduous Woodland) – numerous woodlands within the local landscape fall within this category, the closest of which are the Haydock Park Woodlands LWS that extend along the north and eastern boundaries of the site. Further areas of woodland are mapped as ‘Broadleaved’. • Priority Habitat Inventory (Lowland Fen) – located north of Haydock Park Farm, beyond the A580. • Priority Habitat Inventory (No Main Habitat Type) – small areas identified at Hollows Bridge c0.75km south beyond the A580.
8.69 The Liverpool City Region Ecological Framework evidence base includes maps of habitats and ecological networks in the city region.
8.70 In addition to the woodland and LWS features noted above, the framework notes the central ditch corridor and the hedge lining A49 Lodge lane as “linear features” based on priority habitats “rivers” and “hedgerows” respectively.
8.71 The framework also notes that some verges of the A580 East Lancashire Road are defined as lowland meadows. This includes the section from the A580/A49 junction eastwards for about 250m, which would be partially affected by proposed construction of a 3m wide cycleway parallel with the A580. The lowland meadow shown on the City Regional Ecological Framework does not affect the proposed point of access.
Habitats and Flora
8.72 The Phase 1 habitat survey results are mapped in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.2, with accompanying target notes provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.2 Habitats and Flora.
Woodland, Trees and Scrub 8.73 Broad-leaf woodland that extends around the north and eastern boundaries of the PDS, part of which is designated an LWS. This is a mature habitat dominated by English oak Quercus robur with sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, alder Alnus glutinosa, silver birch Betula pendula and downy birch Betula pubescens all occurring occasionally. Mature and veteran beech Fagus sylvatica and sweet chestnut Castanea sativa, were noted towards the north of the woodland. The woodland supports the non-native invasive rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum (listed in Schedule 9 of the W&CA 1981) (Ref 8.12) in the understorey, as well as bluebell Hyacinthoides sp. amongst the ground flora.
8.74 Coniferous plantation extends west from the broad-leaf woodland, along the northern PDS boundary, screening Haydock Racecourse. Broad-leaf specimens are increasingly frequent through the canopy toward the eastern end of this woodland where it meets the LWS.
8.75 Sub mature broad-leaf trees, dominated by sycamore extend along the southern boundary of the PDS. Specimens towards the western end appear to have been 122
planted relatively recently but the trees become denser and more mature towards the east, where the habitat begins to resemble a narrow woodland belt.
Hedgerows and Ditches 8.76 A deep, wet ditch flows east-west through the PDS, into the woodland at the south- eastern corner of the site12. Water starwort occurs occasionally and one stand of branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum) was recorded. An intact hawthorn-dominated hedgerow runs along the majority of the ditch. English oak and, rarely, elder (Sambucus nigra) were also present. This composite linear feature forms the principal ecological interest within the PDS, both in terms of inherent habitat value and connectivity within the landscape.
8.77 A tall hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna)-dominated hedgerow with occasional sycamore marks the western boundary of the PDS.
Grassland Habitats 8.78 The PDS is largely comprised of open arable farmland, which was planted with wheat at the time of the survey. The field margins supported a reasonable diversity of plant species typical of arable conditions, including small nettle (Urtica urens), field pansy (Viola arvensis), and black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus).
8.79 A belt of modified neutral grassland in the east of the site, whilst not botanically rich, offers habitat diversity.
8.80 An area of modified neutral grassland stands in the east of the PDS, adjacent to the off- site broad-leaf woodland. Left uncultivated, this is dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) with abundant creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Some marsh-tolerant species were recorded here, including compact rush (Juncus conglomeratus), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and remote sedge (Carex remota). This grassland type extends off- site having developed as a result of woodland clearance that was carried out to make way for an overhead power line. Young planted and self-sown trees and scrub are also scattered across this grassland.
8.81 A narrow (<10m) strip of species-poor modified neutral grassland extends along the track which runs along the ditch at and down to the southern boundary of the PDS. Species-poor modified neutral grassland is also found along the verges of the A580.
8.82 A small area of tall ruderal herb dominated by common nettle (Urtica dioica) has begun to colonise across part of a large compost pile that is stored in the west-most corner of the PDS. The compost mound itself is mapped as bare ground.
8.83 An amenity grassland track associated with Haydock Racecourse runs almost the entire length of the northern boundary, just outside the boundary fence. This is largely overhung or shaded by the adjacent woodland canopy.
123
8.84 The A580 East Lancashire Road has a neutral grassland verge (outside the PDS, except at the point of access). This is generally species-poor modified neutral grassland, although near the M6 interchange this is more species-diverse, as is recognised in the Liverpool City Region Ecological Framework.mapping.
Ponds 8.85 Two ponds stand just outside the north-eastern boundary within the LWS woodland. The south eastern pond is dominated by marsh cinquefoil (Comarum palustre), with duckweed (Lemna minor) and water starwort (Callitriche sp.) also present. The north western pond is dominated by duckweed with marsh cinquefoil and soft rush around its margins. Both are heavily shaded.
8.86 There is a pond on the racecourse land, approximately 50m north of the PDS boundary. This was confirmed by racecourse staff to be stocked with large carp and is therefore considered unsuitable for amphibians.
Valuation 8.87 Table 8.6 presents the value of each habitat type present. Given the scale of mapping, measurement of the small areas and narrow linear habitats illustrated should be considered approximate.
8.88 Some habitat types are not measurable and these are clearly listed in the table. The indicative locations of scattered trees, for example, have been mapped using GIS point data. As such, quantitative measurements are not provided.
8.89 The S41 habitats of principal importance for biodiversity (NERC Act 2006) (Ref 8.14) on and adjacent to the site are the ponds, hedgerows and woodland. A beech tree in the easternmost corner of the site (stands within the LWS woodland) is a veteran tree. The hedgerows are not sufficiently species-rich to qualify as ‘important’ under the wildlife criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) (Ref 8.16).
8.90 In summary, the broad-leaf woodlands designated as, or contiguous with, LWS or potential LWS designation are valued at the county level. The plantation woodland which extends the woodland cover, the central hedgerow and ditch corridor, and the off- site ponds are all valued at the Local level. The remaining habitats are Less than local.
8.91 The table confirms the projected baseline condition of the habitats in 2017 (commencement of development) and 2022 (the notional date for completion of development). The 2022 projection is made in the absence of development. It is not anticipated that the baseline value would change over this period of time.
124
Table 8.6: Valuation of Habitats
Habitat Type Area/ Description of baseline Description of baseline Description of baseline Value: Geographic length within PDS conditions in 2016 conditions in 2017 conditions in 2022 frame of reference boundary (commencement of (Completion of construction) development)
Semi-natural Immediately S41 habitat of principal No change No change County broad-leaved adjacent importance. Woodland woodland designated as, or contiguous with, LWS status. Part of an extended mosaic of woodlands in the local landscape, of inherent ecological value and for the connectivity it provides. Bluebell occurs amongst the ground flora. Veteran specimen and standing deadwood present along the boundary with the PDS.
Plantation Immediately Shelterbelt extends along the No change No change Local coniferous adjacent northern site boundary, woodland separating the racecourse from the PDS. Whilst this is not botanically rich it extends the woodland canopy cover within the local landscape and provides some buffering to the
125
Habitat Type Area/ Description of baseline Description of baseline Description of baseline Value: Geographic length within PDS conditions in 2016 conditions in 2017 conditions in 2022 frame of reference boundary (commencement of (Completion of construction) development)
western edge of the LWS. Offers opportunity for enhancement.
Scattered Indicative Sub mature broadleaf trees, No change No change predicted if Less than local broad-leaved locations mapped dominated by sycamore, site remains in arable trees standing on the southern use. boundary. Provide habitat ‘stepping stones’, particularly for passerines, in an area of otherwise poor structural diversity.
Species-poor Intact hedge Hedgerows form S41 No change Local intact 226m habitats of principal No change predicted if hedgerow & Ditch 542m importance. Linear feature of site remains in arable ditch inherent value as terrestrial use. and aquatic habitat, and offers connectivity through the PDS. Whilst overgrown by scrub in parts, the ditch supports marginal and true aquatic native flora.
Species-poor 226m S41 habitat of principal No change No change Less than local
126
Habitat Type Area/ Description of baseline Description of baseline Description of baseline Value: Geographic length within PDS conditions in 2016 conditions in 2017 conditions in 2022 frame of reference boundary (commencement of (Completion of construction) development) hedgerow & importance. Whilst, this trees stretch of hedgerow is not botanically rich it contributes to the local hedgerow network.
Scattered Indicative Largely accounted for by No change No change Less than local scrub locations mapped young planted trees to the east of the PDS below the overhead line. Occurs in mosaic with the broadleaved woodland and modified neutral grassland east.
Modified 1.17ha in PDS Occurs alongside the LWS in No change No change predicted if Less than local neutral and 0.15ha on the east of the PDS. A site remains in arable grassland A580 verges lost reasonably diverse sward has use. for proposed developed in the absence of cycleway cultivation, including some marsh-tolerant species, although all are typically common and widespread. Extends off-site to the east.
Species-poor 0.07ha Narrow strip <10m wide of No change No change predicted if Less than local modified impoverished grassland site remains in arable
127
Habitat Type Area/ Description of baseline Description of baseline Description of baseline Value: Geographic length within PDS conditions in 2016 conditions in 2017 conditions in 2022 frame of reference boundary (commencement of (Completion of construction) development) neutral extends along the tracks on use. grassland the PDS.
Tall ruderal <0.01ha Naturally established in the No change No change Negligible herbs absence of management, the assemblage comprises common and widespread species. Contributes to the structural diversity of localised vegetation patches, but very small area covered and vegetation at an early successional stage which is beginning to develop on a compost heap.
Arable 39.83ha Two large open fields account No change No change The cultivated areas for the majority of the PDS. are of Negligible These are intensively value. managed as arable land.
Arable field 1.08ha Whilst the majority of the No change No change predicted if Field margins are of margins arable fields are intensively site remains in arable Less than local value managed, the margins use.
128
Habitat Type Area/ Description of baseline Description of baseline Description of baseline Value: Geographic length within PDS conditions in 2016 conditions in 2017 conditions in 2022 frame of reference boundary (commencement of (Completion of construction) development)
supported a reasonable diversity of typical arable plants.
Amenity Immediately Mown sward of restricted No change No change Negligible grassland adjacent species and structural diversity.
Bare ground 0.03ha A compost pile close to the No change No change Negligible PDS entrance off Lodge Lane.
Standing water Within adjacent S41 habitats of principal No change No change Local LWS importance. Two ponds stand within the woodland to the north east of the site. Supporting some marginal and aquatic flora, these are of value for their position in the ecological mosaic. Heavily shaded.
129
Bats 8.92 All British bats are European protected species, afforded full protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Ref 8.9) and the W&CA 1981 (Ref 8.12). Bats are protected from killing or injury, and from disturbance at the place of rest. Bat roosts are also protected from obstruction, damage or destruction.
8.93 Records of bats identified through the desk study are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1 Desk Based Research. The results of the bat surveys are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.3 Bats.
Daytime Inspection of Trees 8.94 Trees and standing deadwood of the LWS woodlands along the eastern site boundary identified as suitable for bats to roost are illustrated in ES Volume 3b Plan 8.4 (TEP drawing G5843.002). A total of 3 trees were found to be of High suitability for bats to roost, nine of Moderate suitability and 25 of Low suitability. All of these trees stand at the periphery of the site, within the broad-leaved woodland.
8.95 Given the commitment to retain and protect the woodland edge habitats by incorporating an unlit buffer within the embedded mitigation (see relevant subheading below), thereby avoiding potential adverse impacts as part of the mitigation hierarchy, further aerial or nocturnal surveys were not required for the assessment.
Nocturnal Activity Transect & Static Detector Surveys 8.96 The results of the June, July and August 2016 bat activity transects are illustrated in are illustrated in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.5 to 8.7 respectively.
8.97 Individual monitoring point data recorded along the transect are summarised in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.3. A subjective assessment was made of the data recorded during the intervening walks as to whether bat activity was considered to be low, moderate or high based on the number of bats encountered and if bats appeared to be constantly foraging (see ES Volume 3b: Plans 8.5 to 8.7).
130
Figure 8.1: Monthly variation in Bat Activity at Point Count Locations (2016)
8.98 Three species of bat were recorded present within the transect data – common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and noctule, with almost all activity accounted for by common pipistrelle. All bat passes recorded at the monitoring points were of common pipistrelle bats in June, for example, apart from a single soprano pipistrelle bat pass recorded at Point 6.
8.99 Bats were recorded across the PDS, typically as passes by single bats but there were a few instances where group foraging by up to five bats was observed. These were concentrated around predictable habitat features, such as the woodland in the north and east. This habitat supports higher densities of insect prey as well as offering shelter for commuting and dispersal, in contrast to the more open arable habitat which dominates the PDS. There is existing artificial lighting around the south and western boundaries due to the close proximity of main roads, which may further discourage activity. The central ditch and hedgerow that run through the PDS function as a wildlife corridor and were found to be used by the local bat population, although the levels of activity here were not exceptional. Limited bat activity was recorded along the western boundary of the PDS while bats were typically not encountered until c50 minutes after sunset.
8.100 July showed the highest level of bat activity within the transect dataset, as illustrated in Figure 8.1.
8.101 Figures 8.2 and 8.3 show the results of the automated static detector surveys. A bat activity index has been created for these data by dividing the number of bat passes recoded by the length of recording time (number of hours), thus allowing comparison between months.
131
Figure 8.2: Bat Activity by Species at Static Detector Locations
Figure 8.3: Monthly Variation in Bat Activity at Static Detector Location
8.102 A fourth species, brown long-eared bat was confirmed present on site through the static detector data.
8.103 As with the transect data, common pipistrelle bat was by far the most frequently recorded species, accounting for 91.35% of the total activity recorded. Pipistrelle spp. (7.34%) and soprano pipistrelle (0.87%) were the next most frequently recorded, with brown long-eared (0.26%) and noctule (0.18%) comprising the remainder.
8.104 Within the static detector dataset, the highest level of activity was recorded in June, with nearly twice as much activity than the other two months. This may be attributable to the fact that June coincides with a peak in the number of births and therefore energetic demands are highest, requiring bats to increase foraging activity (Altringham 2003) (Ref 8.25). However it is acknowledged that there are limitations associated with static monitoring data because there is no observational context i.e. it is not possible to
132
distinguish whether a spike in the number of passes represents a single, repeatedly passing bat within a small foraging patch or high numbers of bats passing. The transect data have therefore been used to contextualise the static data and based on these surveys it appears that this particular area of the site is being used by solitary pipistrelle spp. bats foraging up and down the length of the central hedgerow and ditch. This central linear feature also connects with the mature woodland at the periphery, which may explain the presence of brown long-eared bats which are usually associated with woodland habitats (Swift, 1998) (Ref 8.41).
Valuation 8.105 Collectively, the suite of nocturnal activity surveys revealed the PDS to be used by at least four species of bat – common and soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and noctule. These are common and widespread in north west England and, as is typical of the locale, the vast majority of recorded activity was attributed to common pipistrelle bats (99% of passes recorded during the transect surveys and 91% during the automated surveys). Peaks in activity were recorded during June and July, although this varied between the activity transect and static monitoring datasets.
8.106 Bats were recorded throughout the site, with foci associated with the woodland edge habitats and the central hedgerow and ditch corridor. All trees identified to have PRF suitable for bats to roost stand at the periphery of the site within the woodlands.
8.107 The open arable habitat which accounts for the majority of the site is of low value to bats as this typically supports low densities of insect prey and offer minimal connectivity for bats to disperse. No roost opportunities occur within the main body of the site.
8.108 The PDS including peripheral habitats which front the site are evaluated as of Local importance for bat, supporting a total of 37 trees suitable for roosting and scoring a total of 14 points for both foraging and commuting habitat.
Birds 8.109 Nesting birds, their nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Ref 8.12) from damage and destruction. Additional protection is granted to species listed in Schedule 1, which protected fledglings that remain dependent.
8.110 Records of birds identified through the desk study are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1 Desk Based Research. The results of the ornithological assessment are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.4 Birds and illustrated in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.8.
8.111 Records of the following species were provided within 1km of the site:
• Lapwing (S41 and red list) – recorded within 2005, with at least 1 breeding pair recorded. • Kingfisher (Sch1 and amber list) – recorded on watercourse just under 1km north of site during 2003. • Reed bunting (S41 and amber list) – Recorded as probably breeding during 2008. • Skylark (S41 and red list) – one pair confirmed breeding in 2005. • Dunnock (S41 and amber list) – recorded approx. 700m east of site during 2014. 133
• Song thrush (S41 and red list) – recorded approx. 700m east of site during 2008. • Starling (S41 and red list) – recorded approx. 700m east of site during 2008.
8.112 The woodland edge habitat and the central hedgerow provide nesting habitats suitable for birds. These habitats and the open arable fields are also suitable for foraging and dispersal, although connectivity through the PDS is largely reliant on the central ditch and hedgerow.
8.113 The following S41 and Bird of Conservation Concern (BoCC) (Eaton et al, 2009) (Ref 8.23) species were recorded present on the PDS during the summer ornithological assessment:
• Tree sparrow (S41 and red list BoCC) associated with the central hedgerow, which may support nesting. • Skylark (S41 and red list) recorded in the north west of the site. This species nests on ground in open areas and so may nest within the open fields early in the breeding season before the crop becomes too tall (below approx. 40cm height). • Reed bunting (S41 and amber list) recorded near to the ditch in the north west of the PDS. A species typical of marshland with grassy banks and scattered scrub. • Dunnock (S41 and amber list) recorded in the hedgerows, which, along with the woodland edges and patches of scrub may support nesting. • Kestrel (S41 and amber list) recorded in the centre of the PDS where the four fields meet. This species is unlikely to nest within the PDS due to the lack of suitable habitat, but is likely to forage within the site as part of a wider range.
8.114 It is therefore likely that low numbers of tree sparrow, skylark, reed bunting and dunnock breed within the site.
8.115 From the habitat and ornithological assessment, the PDS was also considered to have features which might support small numbers of linnet (a species which utilises field edge habitats), corn bunting (an open field nester) and grey partridge (a species which nests in open field and hedgerows); all of which are S41 and red list species. However, none of these species were recorded during any of the surveys carried out on site in 2014 or 2016 and no desk based records of these species were provided within 1km of the site.
8.116 It is possible that lapwing could occasionally breed within the open fields within the PDS, however no evidence of this species was recorded on the PDS during any of the ecology surveys undertaken in 2014 and 2016. Due to the cereal crops present it is likely that the site would only be suitable for this species during the early breeding season.
8.117 Although kingfisher have been recorded within 1km of the site, there is no suitable habitat present within the site for this species.
8.118 The desktop records did not indicate any significant usage of the site or surrounding area by wintering birds. The PDS is bordered by major roads on two sides (M6 to west and A580 to south) which reduces the suitability of the site for wintering waders and wildfowl. The woodland to the north and east will reduce sight lines from within the PDS, also reducing the suitability for wintering waders and wildfowl.
134
8.119 Winter bird survey visits undertaken between January and February 2017 have shown that the site is consistently used by a small flock of lapwing which can occasionally exceed 200 birds, but more typically numbers 70 birds. However, relatively few BoCC were recorded during the survey visits besides lapwing. On one occasion in January 2017, 17 golden plover were recorded on site but these were not recorded at any other time. Detailed results are presented at ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.8
Valuation 8.120 The PDS is likely to support low breeding numbers of a small number of BoCC bird species characteristic of farmland. These include skylark, which are characteristic of open fields, however due to the crops present it is likely that this species will only be able to breed in this location early in the breeding season, limiting the value of the PDS for this species. The other BoCC species include reed bunting, associated with watercourses in the site and tree sparrow and dunnock, associated with hedgerows and scrub at the field boundaries.
8.121 Due to the low number of BoCC species and the low abundance of these species that the PDS is likely to support, this site is considered to be of less than local value for breeding birds.
8.122 The Lancashire and North Merseyside winter population estimates for golden plover and lapwing are 8,500 and 35,000 respectively. If 1% of these counts is considered a county important site, Haydock Point would not qualify, but the lapwing peak count in 2016/17 is 0.65%. The PDS is therefore valued at local (i.e. district) importance for lapwing. The site is not of apparent importance for golden plover but is used occasionally.
8.123 The PDS may be used by groups of feeding passerines such as mixed finch flocks during the winter period. However due to the low number of additional feeding resources such as berry bearing shrub/hedges this feeding resource is considered only limited.
Water Vole 8.124 Water vole is fully protected under Schedule 5 of the W&CA 1981(Ref 8.12) and is a S41 (Ref 8.14) priority conservation species. The species is protected from killing or injury, and from disturbance at the place of rest.
8.125 Records of water vole identified through the desk study are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1 Desk Based Research.
8.126 Water voles are one of the qualifying features cited in the Ellams Brook LWS some 400m to the south west, and the ditch within the PDS is connected to the LWS, albeit the connection is culverted under the A580 and the M6.
8.127 Water vole burrows, runs, feeding remains, latrines and food prints were recorded along the central ditch as illustrated in ES Volume 3b: Plan 8.9 (TEP drawing G5843.003) within areas that were not overgrown by dense bramble. Field signs were recorded throughout the central stretch of ditch but, taking into account the typical size of territories held and the presence of the species in connected watercourses off-site, the entire ditch is considered to support the species and is has been valued as a whole. 135
The ditch is not optimal habitat in its current condition but, importantly, provides aquatic connectivity through the site as part of the Ellams Brook catchment.
Valuation 8.128 The population of water voles within the immediate catchment form some of the qualifying features for LWS in the locality. The population present on site is valued at the County level.
Badger 8.129 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 protects badger from killing and injury, and their setts from damage, obstruction and disturbance.
8.130 No evidence of badger was recorded during the desk study or the field surveys.
Great Crested Newt and Toads 8.131 GCN is a European protected species, afforded full protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (Ref 8.9) and the W&CA 1981 (Ref 8.12). GCN are protected from killing or injury, and from disturbance at the place of rest. Habitat used by GCN is also protected from obstruction, damage or destruction.
8.132 Records of GCN identified through the desk study are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.1 Desk Based Research. The results of the GCN surveys are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.5 Great Crested Newt.
8.133 The site is dominated by intensively managed arable farmland. The peripheral LWS woodlands and the hedgerow and ditch that bisect the site form the only suitable terrestrial habitat for this species. No evidence of GCN was recorded at any of the ponds sampled.
8.134 Common toad is a s41 species of principal importance. Although no surveys were carried out to specifically identify the toad population levels, the species is expected to use the two offsite ponds and in the central ditch for aquatic breeding stages of its lifecycle, and woodland/rough grassland habitats immediately adjacent these waterbodies for sheltering and foraging.
Valuation 8.135 In the absence of any positive eDNA test results, GCN are not considered further in this assessment.
8.136 Common toad is assumed to be present.
Future Baseline – Species 8.137 The presence and distribution and ecological valuation of the above species is not expected to change between 2016 (year of most recent survey) and 2017 (commencement of development).
8.138 If the baseline is projected forward to 2022 (expected year of completion), it is unlikely that any changes in the surrounding environment would have resulted in any significant change to the presence, distribution or ecological valuation of the above species.
136
Assessment of Effects
Embedded Mitigation, including Design Parameters 8.139 In order to enable an accurate assessment of ecological impact, parameters plans have been provided by the applicant. These are 30926-FE-008H (Parameters Plan) and 30926-FE-027E (Green Infrastructure Mitigation Plan). These parameters are included in the application in order to provide a level of protection and mitigation for ecological features of the site and surrounds which are valued at Local or higher levels.
8.140 Other mitigation measures are also embedded into the scheme, by virtue of being:
• statutory requirements, such as protection for water voles, or pollution prevention measures required by the Environment Agency under flood defence consents • matters that will be secured through planning condition and can be accurately described at this stage, such as a habitat management plan for retained habitats (ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7).
8.141 The scheme has been designed in accordance with the St Helen’s Council Supplementary Planning Documents, in particular the Biodiversity SPD. Section 9 of the Biodiversity SPD relates to Impacts of development, mitigation and compensation. It states that where impacts to habitats and species cannot be avoided, mitigation will be required. Where damage is still likely to occur, compensation in the form of on or off- site habitat creation will be required, usually in the ratio 3:1. The scheme has been designed to deliver significant increases in woodland, wetland and (species-rich) grassland habitat, and insofar as compensation is required, to ensure this is created on site at least at a 3:1 ratio. The Biodiversity SPD also stipulates that developments must provide an overall net increase into the biodiversity resource of St. Helens and this will be dependent on the scale of the development, for example large scale developments such as Haydock Point will be expected to deliver a large net gain for biodiversity.
8.142 The embedded measures are summarised as follows:
• A minimum of a 15m zone within the perimeter of the PDS would be used for landscape planting, using woodland species, with the exception of the new road access from the A580. This would result in a minimum of 4.22ha of new broadleaf woodland planting (reason: to enable implementation of root protection zones from neighbouring woodland, as well as to provide visual softening of the development and local wildlife corridors, and to provide net enhancement of woodland habitat); • In addition to the 15m woodland planting buffer around the margins of the site, there will be an additional 10m minimum buffer zone along the eastern perimeter which will be formed by naturalistic planting, including inundation grassland, reedbed, scrub and meadow planting; • This buffer zone would be maintained as a “dark corridor” where there would be no lighting oriented towards the LWS canopy (reason: to maintain bat flyways and to avoid lighting effects on trees with bat roost potential on neighbouring land);The A580 frontage will have a landscape corridor of at least 25m width, of which at least 15m width will be woodland, and the balance will include grassland, swales and individual trees;
137
• The central ditch corridor would have no more than two road crossings, and an 8m buffer zone measured outwards from top of banktop on each side of the ditch would be kept as a permanent landscape zone. Within this 8m buffer zone, the central strip, measured 5m from banktop, would not be subject to ground level changes, except at the two crossing points. Mini-dams will be installed to create areas of deeper water. (reason: water voles are present in parts of the central ditch); • This will secure a central ditch corridor with an area of 1.54ha. • At least 370 linear metres of normally-wet ditch would be provided east of the existing ditch corridor and this will be positioned to minimise shading from the adjacent woodland. (reason: to ensure net enhancement of ditch habitats, even taking account of the two road crossings); • 0.07ha of new reed bed habitat will be created along the new ditch in the east of the site; • The south-western no-build zone will be planted with a mix of meadow grassland and woodland; • Vegetated surface water attenuation systems would be provided west and east of the northern development parcel, to include use of native grassland and reed bed mixes in swales and attenuation ponds • Collectively, these measures will guarantee a total area of 10.34ha to be largely naturalistic landscape, managed under a habitat management plan. This will include: ‒ At least 4.22ha of new woodland and woodland edge planting ‒ At least 1.54ha maintained and enhanced as ditch-associated grassland habitat in the central corridor ‒ Up to 4.51ha of meadow grassland, inundation grassland, reedbeds, ditches and scrub/woodland • Statutory measures relating to pollution prevention and wildlife protection would be implemented. This would include the following: ‒ Avoidance of damage to nesting birds; ‒ Any works to the ditch to either avoid water vole habitat or to be implemented under a Natural England licence (ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.6 summarises water vole mitigation proposals specific to this scheme); ‒ Avoidance of felling of any trees with potential for roosting bats; ‒ Control over construction stage surface water management in accordance with Environment Agency pollution prevention requirements; ‒ A construction-stage monitoring scheme to demonstrate statutory compliance with wildlife protection requirements. • A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (“LHMP”) would be implemented controlled by a planning condition to ensure that the habitats shown on the parameters plans would be protected and managed during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. The LHMP would also include a monitoring scheme to assess the success of establishment and wildlife use of the above habitats, and provide remedial responses to incidents of damage arising from construction and operation of the proposed development. ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7 outlines the Habitat management measures.
• A new 3m wide pedestrian/cycleway would be constructed within the A580 verge on land controlled by St Helens Council. This would result in the loss of 0.15ha 138
neutral grassland and the CEMP would ensure protection of the remaining verge from damage, and reseeding of verges affected by construction works using a native species wildflower grassland to St Helens Council’s specification.
Reasonable Worst-Case Assessment 8.143 Consideration of these parameters and embedded mitigation measures allows a “reasonable worst-case” assessment of ecological effects. This assumes the following:
• The landscape boundary is provided at the minimum width permitted by the parameters plans; • There will be two road crossings of the central ditch, both at maximum finished width of 20m; • Buildings will utilise all of the available space within the relevant development parcels; • The parameters plans show “No-Build Zone”, within which some areas may be used for structural landscape . These may have ecological benefits for habitats and species valued at the “less than local” level, but the quantity of habitat and the degree of benefit cannot be accurately predicted at this stage. Thus they have not been accounted for in the assessment of effects. • The CEMP provides statutory protection to wildlife e.g. prevention of damage to bird nests, implementation of a water vole conservation scheme; • Only habitats shown on parameters and ecology mitigation plans will be subject to a long-term habitat management plan.
Additional Mitigation 8.144 Although a Construction Environment Management Plan will be implemented, its detailed provisions are a matter for planning condition, so only statutory matters are considered as embedded mitigation.
8.145 There may be additional habitats created as part of the no-build zone, but these are matters for planning condition and cannot be predicted at this stage.
8.146 The currently grassed A580 verge would be affected by creation of a new 3m pedestrian footpath/cycleway. Additional mitigation would include a verge enrichment seeding programme to be agreed with St Helens Council.
8.147 In summary CEMP and these other matters are regarded as “additional mitigation measures”, since they are not currently sufficiently defined to allow a reasonable worst- case assessment of ecological effects.
8.148 The assessment below includes qualitative consideration of additional mitigation measures, but these are assessed separately to the embedded measures, in order to allow a “reasonable worst-case” assessment.
Receptors Scoped Out Due to No Likelihood of Effect 8.149 As the above embedded mitigation measures can be guaranteed, it is possible for this EIA to confidently predict that certain ecological receptors would not be affected. These are described below.
139
8.150 None of the internationally designated sites identified in the desk study are predicted to incur adverse effects as a result of the Proposed Development. In respect of the Manchester Mosses SAC, the distance between the PDS and the SAC, coupled with the lack of any pathways for emissions from the Proposed Development to reach the SAC, and the fact that the site would not generate any recreational disturbance; all mean that no adverse effect would occur
8.151 In relation to the Mersey Estuary SPA designated for wintering and migrating birds, the distances involved and the lack of any pathways for impacts to occur mean that no direct or indirect adverse effect on the site is predicted. Lapwing is the only species of wintering wader regularly encountered on the PDS that is listed as an assemblage feature for the SPA (Ref 8.42). However, it is not listed in the conservation objectives for the SPA. Although the SPA includes approximately 0.7% of the UK wintering lapwing numbers, the distance from the SPA (16km), coupled with the fact that lapwing are relatively weak flyers, mean that the lapwing associated with the site form part of a local population, rather than a population linked to the SPA.
8.152 Golden plover are individual qualifying features of the Mersey Estuary SPA, but given the infrequent occurrence on the PDS, and the low numbers of birds, it is not considered that the PDS is functionally linked to the Estuary in respect of golden plover.
8.153 Although the Mersey Estuary SPA is scoped out as a receptor, the impact of the scheme on wintering bird populations is not scoped out, and is assessed below.
8.154 Highfield Moss SSSI is c.2.7km south east beyond the A580. This means there are no pathways for adverse effects arising from emissions or construction activity on the PDS. The scheme would not give rise to any new recreational disturbance. Therefore no impacts are anticipated and this site is not considered further in this assessment.
8.155 Haydock Park Woodlands LWS, Lady Hill Plantation potential LWS and other adjoining woodlands (both Plantation Coniferous and Semi-natural broad-leaved) would be fully protected through application of the parameters, notably the avoidance of any disturbance to root protection zones, the provision of a 15m unlit woodland planting buffer and site perimeter fencing and the fact that the scheme would not generate recreational disturbance. Thus these sites are not considered further in this assessment;
8.156 For the same reason, the ponds within this woodland have also been scoped out as vulnerable receptors.
8.157 Other than Haydock Park Woodlands LWS, the only other LWSs with the potential to be affected by the Proposed Development are ‘Fox Covert, including Cowhey Dam’, which lies just to the south of the PDS, on the other side of the A580, and ‘Ellam’s Brook’. These form part of the same catchment as the central ditch which flows through the PDS. As this ditch is to be retained and buffered with native vegetation to ensure protection of water vole habitat, and as statutory measures in relation to protection from pollution and run-off both during, and post construction will be employed, it is not considered likely that there will be any adverse impacts on these wildlife sites. They are therefore not considered further in this assessment.
140
8.158 The species-poor intact hedgerow with trees along Lodge Lane is to be retained and appropriately protected, therefore this receptor is not considered further in this assessment.
8.159 Scattered scrub has not been included as a receptor as this is offsite and will not be affected.
Receptors Scoped Out Due to No Significance 8.160 Receptors identified as having a negligible value have not been included in this assessment (tall ruderal herb, bare ground, amenity grassland, arable cultivated areas). For the record, the effects on habitats of negligible value are quantified in Table 8.7 below
Table 8.7: Effects on Habitats of Negligible Value
Habitat Type Area within Area lost to Mitigation and Landscape PDS boundary development Creation
Tall ruderal herbs <0.1ha <0.1ha The areas allocated for sustainable drainage will result in natural regeneration of tall ruderal herbs, so this habitat type is likely to increase
Arable 39.83ha 39.83ha None proposed
Amenity grassland Immediately This area is None proposed as there adjacent offsite and will will be no loss, however the not be affected formal landscape of the development, including road verges will include amenity grassland therefore there will be a net gain in this habitat type
Bare ground 0.03ha 0.03ha None proposed
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects 8.161 The following section describes the potential effects upon ecological receptors arising from construction, describes the proposed mitigation measures, and describes the significance of the residual effects. Throughout, assessment of significance assumes that all mitigation measures are successfully implemented.
8.162 This “reasonable worst-case assessment” includes the effect of embedded mitigation measures. The effect of additional mitigation measures is described separately.
141
Designated Sites 8.163 These have been scoped out as discussed above. There would be no direct effects and any indirect effects would be avoided through implementation of the embedded mitigation measures.
Habitats and Flora
Scattered broad-leaved trees 8.164 Sub mature broadleaf trees, dominated by sycamore, stand on the southern boundary alongside the A580 boundary. These provide habitat ‘stepping stones’, particularly for passerines, in an area of otherwise poor structural diversity. The new access point in the south eastern corner of the PDS will require removal of some of these trees.
8.165 Embedded mitigation for tree loss involves a minimum of 4.6 ha new native tree planting specified in the Green Infrastructure Mitigation Plan drawing (Drawing number 30926- FE-027E). Management measures for areas of new habitat will be detailed in the LHMP. An Outline Habitat Management Plan is included as ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7 to this chapter and specifies management measures for retained habitats and those shown in the Parameters Plan (Drawing Number 30926-FE-008H – ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1).
8.166 A number of scattered trees will be lost as a result of the development; however the wildlife value of these features is limited due to the small areas represented and the low botanical diversity (dominated by non-native sycamore). Although potential habitat for flora and fauna is to be lost, new native tree planting will mitigate for this loss. Therefore the construction phase will represent a significant adverse effect on this receptor of less than local value in the short term, but embedded mitigation in the form of new tree planting will result in a significant residual positive effect on flora and fauna associated with this receptor in the long term.
Modified neutral grassland and species-poor modified neutral grassland 8.167 Modified neutral grassland occurs alongside the LWS in the east of the PDS. A reasonably diverse sward has developed in the absence of cultivation, including some marsh-tolerant species, although all are typically common and widespread. This habitat type covers an area of 1.17ha. The species-poor modified neutral grassland occurs as a narrow strip <10m wide of impoverished grassland which extends along the tracks on the PDS. A small area of modified neutral grassland on the A580 verges would be lost to create the new access.
8.168 The A580 verge, outside the PDS, will be subject to creation of a new 3m wide footpath/cycleway, involving the loss of approximately 0.15ha of neutral grassland, of which about 0.1ha is shown in the Liverpool City Region Ecological Framework as being a linear connectivity feature.
8.169 Embedded mitigation measures include the creation of new areas of wildflower meadow in the new vegetated surface water attenuation system west and east of the northern development parcel to include use of native grassland and reed bed mixes, and in the new meadow and woodland mix planting west of the southern development parcel . The 25m buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site and along the A580 will include
142
naturalistic meadow and inundation grassland planting. In relation to losses of A580 highway verge to form the footpath/cycleway, the embedded mitigation measures, within the PDS, will ensure that this loss is compensated on a 3:1 basis. An additional mitigation measure would be the provision of a verge enrichment seeding scheme for the retained A580 verges, a matter which can be detailed at planning condition stage.
8.170 These areas are specified in the Green Infrastructure Mitigation Proposals plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1 Drawing number 30926-FE-027E).
8.171 Management measures for areas of new habitat are detailed in the LHMP (Appendix 8.8).
The modified neutral grassland and species-poor modified neutral grassland within the PDS will be lost in their entirety as a result of the development; however the wildlife value of these features is limited due to the small areas represented and the comparatively low botanical diversity. Although potential habitat for flora and fauna is to be lost, new areas of wildflower meadow form part of the Proposed Development as embedded mitigation measures.
8.172 It is anticipated that the embedded mitigation measures involving habitat creation and on-going management measures would result in a significant residual positive effect on flora and fauna associated with the neutral grassland receptor in the medium term.
Arable field margins 8.173 Two large arable fields account for the majority of the PDS. Whilst the majority is intensively managed, the margins supported a reasonable diversity of typical arable plants.
8.174 Embedded mitigation measures include the creation of new areas of wildflower meadow in the new vegetated surface water attenuation system west and east of the northern development parcel to include use of native grassland and reed bed mixes , and in the new meadow and woodland mix planting west of the southern development parcel Unit 3. The 25m buffer along the eastern perimeter of the site and along the A580 will include naturalistic meadow and inundation grassland planting. These areas are specified in the Green Infrastructure Mitigation Proposals plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1 Drawing number 30926-FE-027E). Management measures for areas of new habitat are detailed in the LHMP.
8.175 Arable field margins will be lost in their entirety as a result of the development; however the wildlife value of these features is limited due to the small areas represented and the intensive agricultural practices employed on this land. Although potential habitat for flora and fauna is to be lost, new areas of wildflower meadow form part of the Proposed Development as embedded mitigation.
8.176 The implementation of the embedded mitigation measures involving habitat creation and on-going management measures would result in a significant residual positive effect on flora associated with this receptor in the medium term.
143
Species-poor intact hedgerow and ditch 8.177 This is a linear feature of inherent value as terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and offers connectivity through the PDS.
8.178 Whilst overgrown by scrub in parts, the ditch supports water voles, as well as marginal and true aquatic native flora. The length of the unculverted ditch is 542m. The hedgerow is species-poor and dominated by hawthorn. Elder and sycamore are occasionally present and ground flora recorded were typical of nutrient-rich conditions. The length of the hedgerow is 226m.
8.179 During development approximately 40m of the hedgerow and ditch will be lost to facilitate two access routes into the PDS, between the southern and northern parcels. This assumes crossing widths of maximum width 20m, including abutments, embankments and re-engineering associated with construction of the culverts. The adverse ecological effect arises from habitat loss and disruption to connectivity.
8.180 A vegetated surface water attenuation system would be provided west of Unit 1, to include use of native grassland and reed bed mixes, and a commitment to providing a reed bed and at least 300 linear metres of normally-wet ditch, east of the existing ditch corridor. This is shown in the Green Infrastructure Mitigation Proposals plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1 Drawing number 30926-FE-027E).
8.181 Management measures for areas of new habitat are detailed in the LHMP (see section on mitigation for details of the CEMP and LHMP).
8.182 There will be a significant adverse effect on the species-poor hedgerow and ditch receptor (valued at the local level) during the construction phase of the development; however, embedded mitigation in the form of permanently-wet ditch pool and swale systems would result in a net gain for the terrestrial and aquatic habitat network on site. On-going management of these features on site would be covered in a LHMP. An Outline Habitat Management Plan has been produced (ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7) which details the management regime for the habitats specified in the Parameters Plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1 30926-FE-008H). With this level of mitigation and with a guarantee of appropriate on-going management, the development would have a significant residual positive effect on this receptor in the medium to long-term.
Bats 8.183 Bats were recorded throughout the site, with foci associated with the woodland edge habitats and the central hedgerow and ditch corridor. All trees identified to have potential for roosting bats stand at the periphery of the site within the woodlands.
8.184 The open arable habitat which accounts for the majority of the site is of low value to bats as this typically supports low densities of insect prey and offer minimal connectivity for bats to disperse. No roost opportunities occur within the main body of the site.
8.185 The central ditch corridor would be affected by the construction of a maximum of two road crossings, each of a maximum width of 20m. Whilst this is an adverse effect, given the overall length of the ditch and the fact that it is already in an exposed arable landscape, the current levels of use of the corridors by bats can continue.
144
8.186 Embedded mitigation includes:
• Trees with potential for roosting bats and woodland edge habitats which are currently used for foraging and commuting will be appropriately protected, through the retention of an unlit 25m landscape buffer; • The proposed perimeter woodlands and the neighbouring mature woodlands will be maintained as an unlit buffer zone, meaning there is no prospect of light spill onto mature trees with potential roost features; • Retaining and enhancing the central ditch and hedgerow in the new development and keeping this as an unlit corridor.
8.187 With embedded mitigation there will be a negligible effect on this receptor during the construction phase of the development. No additional mitigation is proposed.
Birds 8.188 Due to the low number of BoCC species recorded and the low abundance of these species that the PDS is likely to support, this site is considered to be of less than local value for breeding and most wintering birds, including farmland birds. Consultation with St Helens Council and winter bird surveys undertaken in January and February 2017 indicated that the site is of local value to the s41 species lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) in their winter feeding period.
8.189 There is the potential for disturbance to nesting birds if vegetation clearance takes place during the nesting season of March to August. Embedded mitigation includes vegetation clearance to avoid the nesting season in line with legislation.
8.190 There will be permanent loss of feeding, roosting and nesting habitats for farmland birds, both in breeding and non-breeding/wintering stages, leading to a significant adverse effect at the less than local level on most s41 farmland birds (excluding lapwing), arising from construction. The embedded mitigation measures will create new woodland, scrub and ditchbank habitats which will benefit many s41 passerine species. The residual benefit of this habitat creation has been reported earlier (in respect of habitat impacts), so to avoid double-counting, the benefits to birds which would arise over time when these new habitats have become established is reported in the assessment of operational stage effects.
8.191 There will be permanent loss of feeding habitat for wintering lapwing. This is assessed as a significant adverse effect at the local level. This loss cannot be mitigated within the PDS as the new green infrastructure will generally be unsuitable for the foraging needs of this species. The birds are likely to forage across the wider landscape i.e. they are not restricted to the PDS. They would be displaced to suitable habitats on neighbouring land.
Water Vole 8.192 The population of water voles within the immediate catchment form some of the qualifying features for LWS in the locality. The population present on site is therefore valued at the County level. The Green Infrastructure Mitigation Proposals plan (ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1 Drawing number 30926-FE-027E) shows that there will be an 8m minimum buffer of native vegetation between the top of the ditch and the
145
development. Some works may be required between the 5m and 8m buffer as a footpath is proposed along this corridor. Two new bridge crossings are also proposed and therefore there will be loss of habitat for this species. Road crossings that do not create a complete barrier to water vole movement along the water course will be employed. Water voles are known to use culverts under roads of certain types and sizes, and oversized box culverts up to 30-35m in length with at least 1m of head room above normal water levels allow the passage of this species.
8.193 As discussed under the section dealing with embedded mitigation, standard statutory pollution prevention and dust/silt control measures will be implemented during site clearance and construction works. These measures will ensure the potential for indirect impacts on the ditch are reduced.
8.194 Pre-commencement checks by an ecologist for water voles will be required prior to starting works on the water course. If water voles burrows are present within the works area, a licence from Natural England will be required to permit displacement.
8.195 A water vole mitigation method statement is outlined at ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.6. This demonstrates how the statutory obligations requiring species conservation and monitoring would be implemented. The method statement would be reviewed and revised prior to commencement of development to ensure it responded to latest survey data.
8.196 The physical loss of 40m of ditch bank habitat arising from the two road crossings and the potential for accidental disturbance of retained bank habitats during construction would be offset by the creation of at least 370m of new permanently wet ditch, and 0.07ha of new reed bed habitat to be created along the new ditch in the east of the site, as well as new mini-dams along the central ditch to create areas of deep water. These measures would be delivered as embedded mitigation.
8.197 The embedded mitigation measures outlined above (i.e. the physical measures and adherence to statutory controls) will ensure that construction of the Proposed Development has a negligible effect on this receptor.
Assessment of Operation Phase Effects
Designated Sites 8.198 These have been scoped out as discussed above. There would be no direct effects. The distances involved and the intervening road and urban network mean there would be no pathways for emissions from the operation of the Proposed Development to the designated sites. Any adverse emissions affecting the watercourse network and therefore indirectly on downstream sites with watercourses would be avoided through implementation of the habitat management plan for the central ditch corridor (see Appendix 8.7), which is an embedded mitigation measure.
Habitats and Flora
Scattered broad-leaved trees 8.199 Without appropriate management of the tree stock (including existing and new tree planting) there would be a significant adverse effect at the less than local level. With 146
embedded mitigation in the form of a LHMP to ensure appropriate management there would be no adverse effects arising from the operation of the development on scattered broadleaved trees retained on site. The significant residual positive effect of the development on woodland has been reported in the assessment of construction- stage effects.
Modified neutral grassland and species-poor modified neutral grassland 8.200 Without appropriate management of new grassland habitats created as compensation for loss of grasslands there would be a significant adverse effect on this receptor. The LHMP will be implemented as embedded mitigation on grassland habitats created within the central ditch corridor and elsewhere in the PDS, enabling positive management for biodiversity and remedial response to any adverse incidents affecting habitat quality. Given the LHMP is embedded mitigation, there would be no adverse effects arising from the operation of the development on neutral grassland retained or newly-created on site.
Arable field margins 8.201 Without appropriate management of new grassland habitats created as compensation for loss of arable field margins there would be a significant adverse effect on this receptor. The LHMP will be implemented as embedded mitigation on grassland habitats created within the central ditch corridor and elsewhere in the PDS, enabling positive management for biodiversity and remedial response to any adverse incidents affecting habitat quality. Given the LHMP is embedded mitigation, there would be no adverse effects arising from the operation of the development on neutral grassland retained or newly-created on site.
Species-poor intact hedgerow and ditch 8.202 The existing hedgerow and ditch are retained and brought into ecological management under the parameters plan. The LHMP will be implemented as embedded mitigation on hedgerow, ditch and bank habitats created within the central ditch corridor, enabling positive management for biodiversity and remedial response to any adverse incidents affecting habitat quality during the operation of the Proposed Development. On the basis of embedded mitigation measures, no adverse effects are predicted.
8.203 Additional mitigation measures in the form of a vegetated surface water system, managed under the terms of a LHMP, would maintain the enhanced quantity of this habitat type in the development, and maintain the residual positive effect identified for the construction stage.
Bats 8.204 The operation of the development is not predicted to cause an adverse effect on bats or the new wooded areas created around the site perimeters. There would be no light spillage onto retained or newly-created woodland or onto ditch corridors potentially used by bats. The additional habitat along the woodland edge as an unlit corridor will provide additional foraging and commuting habitat for bats as it matures. This will result over time in a positive effect.
8.205 Additional mitigation measures, including the provision of new swales, some of which would be located close to the new perimeter woodland, would increase the quantity of
147
invertebrate food sources available to bats, and would further strengthen the residual positive effect that would arise from the scheme design and embedded mitigation.
Birds 8.206 The adverse effect of the scheme on farmland birds has been noted in relation to the construction phase.
8.207 Vehicular and pedestrian movements around the development, together with lighting and noise could disturb birds nesting in woodland or hedgerow habitats on neighbouring land. However, a new buffer of native vegetation is proposed along the woodland edge and disturbance from operational activities is therefore unlikely to significantly affect medium to long-term breeding capabilities off site.
8.208 During the operational stage, the perimeter woodlands and the newly-created ditch habitat (embedded mitigation measures) would mature and provide significant additional nesting and foraging opportunities for species associated with woodland, scrub and wetland.
8.209 Given these features of the scheme, and the management measures to be detailed in the LHMP, the development will have an overall residual positive effect on s41 birds associated with woodland, scrub and wetland, valued at the less than local level, but a residual adverse effect on the s41 lapwing wintering population, valued at the Local level, which would not be able to feed in the types of habitat to be created in the PDS
Water Vole 8.210 Embedded mitigation through creation of at least 370m of permanently wet ditch and installation of mini-dams along the central ditch to create areas of deep water will result in a net gain for the aquatic habitat network on site, creating more potential water vole habitat. On-going management of these features on site during the operation of the Proposed Development, including pollution prevention measures will be specified in the LHMP (see ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7). Without appropriate management of the ditch habitat as specified in the LHMP there would be a significant adverse effect at the less than local level on water voles. With the proposed level of mitigation and providing the new crossings use culverts that are designed to avoid fragmentation of the ditch habitat, over the long term the development will have a residual positive effect on this receptor, valued at County level during the operation phase of the development.
Summary of Effects
8.211 Residual effects for the construction and operational activities of the proposed development take into account the embedded mitigation measures described above and provide an indication of how the initial potential effects have reduced.
During Construction 8.212 Table 8.8 details the anticipated residual effects of the proposed development during the construction phase on identified ecological features, taking mitigation measures into account. As several receptors were scoped out for reasons described earlier, the table only considers ecological features where a likely significant effect is identified prior to mitigation.
148
Table 8.8: Summary of effects during construction
Effect Description Pre-Mitigation Significance Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Residual Significance
Scattered broad-leaved trees
A number of scattered Significant adverse effect At least 4.22ha new native tree None proposed Significant residual positive trees will be lost as a at a less than local level planting within landscape effect at the less than local level result of the corridors shown on plan is secured through embedded development 30926-FE-027E. mitigation Management measures for areas of new habitat presented in Outline LHMP (Appendix 8.7) with full detail to be contained in an LHMP which can be secured by condition.
Modified neutral grassland and species-poor modified neutral grassland
Physical loss to habitats Significant adverse effect The creation of new areas of With the implementation of to facilitate development at a less than local level wildflower meadow in the new embedded mitigation, there of the site and creation vegetated surface water would be a significant residual of a footpath/cycleway attenuation system west and positive effect at the less than alongside the A580 east of northern development local level (1.39ha loss, including parcel to include use of native 1.24ha within PDS and grassland and reed bed mixes. 0.15ha on A580 verge) Creation of new areas of grassland, including grassy swales and wildflower meadow west of Unit 3
149
Effect Description Pre-Mitigation Significance Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Residual Significance
Grassland habitats are expected to cover approximately 4.51ha (including species-rich grassland, wet grassland and reedbed) Management measures for areas of new habitat presented in Outline LHMP (ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7) with full detail to be contained in to LHMP which can be secured by condition.
Arable field margins
Physical loss to habitats Significant adverse effect The creation of new areas of to facilitate development at a less than local level wildflower meadow in the new of the site (1.08ha) vegetated surface water With the implementation of attenuation system west and embedded mitigation, there east of northern development would be a significant residual parcel to include use of native positive effect at the less than grassland and reed bed mixes local level . The creation of new areas of grassland, including grassy swales and high quality wildflower meadow west of
150
Effect Description Pre-Mitigation Significance Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Residual Significance
Unit 3 Grassland habitats are expected to cover 4.51ha (including species-rich grassland, wet grassland and reedbed) Management measures for areas of new habitat presented in Outline LHMP (Appendix 8.7) with full detail to be contained in to LHMP which can be secured by condition.
Species-poor intact hedgerow and ditch
Loss of some habitat to Significant adverse effect A vegetated surface water With the implementation of allow for new access at the Local level attenuation system would be Standard pollution embedded mitigation there would roads (40m loss) provided west of Unit A, to prevention measures be a residual positive effect at include use of native grassland as will be detailed in the local level and reed bed mixes. There is the CEMP also a commitment to providing at least 370 linear metres of normally-wet ditch east of the existing ditch corridor Creation of additional new hedgerow, ditch and pond
151
Effect Description Pre-Mitigation Significance Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Residual Significance
habitat within the PDS Management measures for areas of new habitat presented in Outline LHMP (ES Volume 4: Appendix 8.7) with full detail to be contained in to LHMP which can be secured by condition.
Bats
Disturbance/displaceme Significant adverse effect 15m minimum woodland No additional Embedded measures reduce the nt due to construction at the local level planting with additional 10m mitigation proposed adverse effect to Negligible lighting affecting off-site woodland edge planting and trees and flights along an unlit corridor at perimeters.
the central ditch No light spill to central ditch corridor
Birds
Loss of habitat for Significant adverse effect No mitigation for farmland Significant adverse effect on s41 breeding and wintering on the local level for birds possible. Embedded wintering lapwings, valued at the birds, including s41 wintering lapwing (s41 mitigation in the form of local level. farmland birds (loss of ca species) minimum-width of 15m 42ha open habitats) woodland buffer (minimum of Significant adverse effect on 4.22 Ha) at perimeter and the Significant adverse effect other s41 farmland birds, valued creation of 4.51ha new at the less than local value at the less than local level. grasslands and reedbeds and for s41 breeding birds scrub habitats in meadows
152
Effect Description Pre-Mitigation Significance Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Residual Significance
associated with farmland and vegetated surface water Embedded mitigation will over attenuation systems will time enhance conditions for s41 provide enhancement for birds associated with woodland, passerine species, valued at scrub and ditchbanks, and this is the less than local level. reported in the operational stage assessment.
Potential killing and Significant adverse effect Standard statutory mitigation None proposed Negligible injury at the Site level measures
Water vole
Loss of habitat and Significant adverse effect A vegetated surface water None proposed Negligible partial fragmentation due at the County level attenuation system would be to installation of new provided west of northern culverts development parcel. There is also a commitment to providing at least 300 linear metres of normally-wet ditch east of the existing ditch corridor, and new mini-dams along the central ditch to create areas of deep water. 0.07ha of new reed bed habitat will be created along the new ditch in the east of the site New culvert design to maintain
153
Effect Description Pre-Mitigation Significance Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Residual Significance
connectivity of ditch habitat. Conservation method statement to be implemented under Natural England licence if necessary Standard statutory pollution prevention and dust/silt control measures will be implemented during site clearance and construction works
Potential killing and Significant adverse effect Pre-commencement check for None proposed Negligible injury at the County level water voles, adherence to terms of licence if required
154
During Operation 8.213 Table 8.9 details the anticipated residual effects of the proposed development during the operational phase on identified ecological features, having taken mitigation measures into account. Only ecological features where a likely significant effect was identified prior to mitigation are considered.
155
Table 8.9: Summary of Effects during operation
Pre-Mitigation Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Effect Description Residual Significance Significance
Scattered broad-leaved trees
Lack of management of newly-created Significant adverse effect Outline LHMP applies LHMP applies to None woodland at a less than local level to perimeter additional landscape woodlands created within the PDS
Modified neutral grassland and species-poor modified neutral grassland
Lack of appropriate habitat Significant adverse effect Outline LHMP applies LHMP applies to None management of new grassland habitats at a less than local level to central ditch corridor additional landscape created within the PDS
Arable field margins
Lack of appropriate habitat Significant adverse effect Outline LHMP applies LHMP applies to None management of new grassland habitats at a less than local level to central ditch corridor additional landscape created within the PDS
Species-poor intact hedgerow and ditch
Lack of appropriate habitat None, LHMP applies to Outline LHMP applies LHMP applies to None management of new grassland habitats ditch and hedge corridor to central ditch corridor additional landscape from the construction- created within the stage onwards development
156
Pre-Mitigation Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Effect Description Residual Significance Significance
Bats
Disturbance/displacement due to None Unlit corridors shown The embedded mitigation operational lighting as ecological measures will ensure a parameters. Negligible initial effect, over Newly-planted time resulting in a woodland under significant residual positive management. The effect, at the local level, as vegetated surface new woodland matures. water attenuation system is likely to increase invertebrate prey along woodland edges used by bats for foraging and commuting
Birds
Availability of new nesting habitats for Significant positive effect The new woodlands The scheme results in a passerine species in the medium to at the less than local shown on parameter positive effect for s41 long-term level plans will be managed passerine species valued at under an LHMP. The the less than local level vegetated surface water attenuation system is likely to increase invertebrate
157
Pre-Mitigation Embedded Mitigation Additional Mitigation Effect Description Residual Significance Significance
prey
Water vole
Lack of appropriate habitat Significant adverse effect Standard habitat None proposed Residual positive effect at management of new and retained at the County level management the local level aquatic habitat measures implemented long- term under an LHMP. Additional 370m minimum length of permanently wet ditch and new mini-dams.
158
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
Inter-Project Effects 8.214 Four developments have been identified with potential significant cumulative effects in relation to biodiversity:
• Land To North Of Penny Lane And West Of M6 Motorway, Haydock – Planning Application Ref: P/2015/0571. • Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock - Planning Application Ref: P/2016/0608/HYBR • Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock - Pre-application • Parkside development - Allocated for employment in adopted St Helens Core Strategy and proposed employment allocation in St Helens Local Plan Preferred Options draft
8.215 When considered in combination with the development at Haydock Point, the cumulative impacts of these schemes on the identified receptors, without mitigation or compensation, would not change from those outlined above. This assessment is made because none of the ecological receptors on the PDS have territories or home ranges which include, or depend on, the above development sites. The above sites are at >1km distance from the PDS and are separated by major roads and urban development.
Intra-Project Effects 8.216 Table 8.10 identifies any potential cumulative effects arising from interactions between other disciplines.
Table 8.10: Summary of Effects during operation
ES Topic Potential Interaction with Ecology
Chapter 6 - Socio- No potential interaction identified. economic
Chapter 7 - The proposed ditch crossings have resulted in the need for Transport the creation of additional permanently wet ditch as mitigation. Access from the A580 will result in the loss of mature trees, which will be mitigated through the creation of a new 15m woodland buffer, and new tree planting. The final position of the proposed cycle track along the A580 will result in the loss of grassland verge habitat.
Chapter 8 - N/A Ecology
Chapter 9 - No potential interaction identified. Historic Environment
Chapter 10 – No potential interaction identified. Landscape and Views
159
ES Topic Potential Interaction with Ecology
Chapter 11 - Air No potential interaction identified. Quality
Chapter 12- Noise Noise mitigation during operation of the Proposed Development would be embedded in the design of the building and operations. No potential interaction identified.
Chapter 13 – There is a requirement to avoid level changes in tree Root Geology, Soils and Protection Areas (RPAs) and within 5m of the ditch to avoid Contamination adverse impacts on these features.
Chapter 14 – Flood Best practice measures to avoid pollution and run-off will be Risk and Drainage outlined in the CEMP. New SUDS basins and swales will not affect any habitats of local or less than local value, and are likely to themselves provide enhanced habitats for wildlife. The new permanently wet ditch is a bespoke part of the drainage plan, but also creates a valuable new habitat for wildlife.
Monitoring 8.217 A scheme of monitoring the ecological effects of the proposed development will be included in the embedded mitigation measures. The scope of this monitoring is as follows:
• Effectiveness of the water vole mitigation scheme, including population and habitat quality metrics, to be included in the Natural England licence • Success of establishment of the new habitats shown on the parameters plans, including measurement of their use by bats and birds which have been identified as receptors in this EIA; to be included in the LHMP
8.218 It is anticipated that monitoring would be reported annually during construction stages and thereafter at intervals to be agreed with the Council under the LHMP.
References
8.1 CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. 2nd Ed. CIEEM, Hampshire
8.2 JNCC (2010) Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee
8.3 BCT (2016) Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London
8.4 Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S.H. (2000) Bird Census Techniques, 2nd Edition. Academic Press, London
8.5 Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. & Andrews, R. (2016) Water Vole Conservation Handbook. The Mammal Society, London
8.6 Strachan et al (2011) Water Vole Mitigation Handbook, 3rd Ed. Wild CRU
160
8.7 Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J. and Swan, M. J. S. & Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus. The Herpetological Journal 10(4): 143-155
8.8 Biggs et al (2014) Analytical and Methodological Development for Improved Surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Defra Project WC1067. Freshwater Habitats Trust: Oxford
8.9 The Stationery Office (2010) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010: Elizabeth II. Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 490. The Stationery Office, London
8.10 Council of the European Union (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora: Official Journal of the European Communities. No. L206/7
8.11 Council of the European Union (2009) Council Directive 2009/147/EC of 30 November 2009 on the Conservation of Wild Birds: Official Journal of the European Communities. No. L20/7
8.12 HMSO (1981) Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981: Elizabeth II. 1981 Chapter 69. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London
8.13 The Stationery Office (2000) Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Elizabeth II. 2000 Chapter 37. The Stationery Office, London
8.14 The Stationery Office (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006: Elizabeth II. 2006 Chapter 16. The Stationery Office, London
8.15 DEFRA (2011a) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. Department of Food & Rural Affairs, London
8.16 The Stationery Office (1997) Hedgerows Regulations 1997: Elizabeth II. The Stationery Office, London
8.17 DCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London
8.18 Lawton, J. (2010) Making Space for Nature: A review of England's wildlife sites and ecological network. DEFRA, London
8.19 The Stationery Office (2011) The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. The Stationery Office, London
8.20 DEFRA (2008) England Biodiversity Strategy Climate Change Adaptation Principles: Conserving biodiversity in a changing climate. Department of Food & Rural Affairs, London
8.21 St Helens Council (2012) St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy. Adopted by St Helens Council on 31st October 2012. St Helens Council
8.22 St Helens Council (2007) St Helens Council Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies. Originally Adopted by St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council on 2nd July 1998. St Helens Council
8.23 Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. & Gregory, R.D. (2009) Birds of Conservation
161
Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341
8.24 The Stationery Office (2005) Government Circular: Biodiversity & geological conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system. The Stationery Office, London
Bibliography (Relevant texts not specifically listed in the chapter)
8.25 Altringham, J.D. (2003) British Bats. Collins, London
8.26 BCT (2014) Artificial Lighting Interim Guidance: Recommendations to help minimise the impact of artificial lighting. The Bat Conservation Trust, London
8.27 BTO (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4. British Trust for Ornithology. Available: https://www.bto.org/science/monitoring/psob
8.28 Cresswell, W. & Whitworth, R. (2004) English Nature Research Report 576: An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus. English Nature, Peterborough
8.29 DEFRA (2014) UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Follow-On. UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge
8.30 DEFRA (2011b) UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
8.31 English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough
8.32 European Commission (2013a) The EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change: Strengthening Europe's resilience to the impacts of climate change. Available: ec.europa.eu/clima/publications/docs/eu_strategy_en.pdf
8.33 European Commission (2013b) Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impacts Assessment
8.34 Jehle, R. & Arntzen, J.W. (2000) Post-Breeding Migrations of Newts with Contrasting Ecological Requirements. Journal of Zoology 251: 297-306. London
8.35 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough
8.36 Stace, C. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles, 3rd Ed. Cambridge University Press
8.37 The Stationery Office (2014) National Pollinator Strategy: For bees and other pollinators in England. The Stationery Office, London
8.38 The Stationery Office (2012) BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations. The Stationery Office, London
8.39 Walsh, A.L. & Harris, S. (1996) Foraging habitat preferences for
162
vespertilionid bats in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 508 – 518
8.40 Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. & Mitchell-Jones, A. (2010) Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In Practice 70: 23 -25
8.41 Swift, S.M. (1998) Long eared bats. London
8.42 English Nature, (2004) Mersey Estuary SPA UK9005131 classification citation May 2004 Version 1.1. Peterborough
163
9. Archaeology
Introduction
9.1 An assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the historic environment during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development has been undertaken by The Environment Partnership (TEP) Ltd.
9.2 Those aspects of the historic environment that hold value to this and future generations because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are called ‘heritage assets’. The National Planning Policy Framework Glossary (Ref 9.2) defines a heritage asset as “A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)”.
9.3 Some heritage assets are designated; these include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields, and Conservation Areas.
9.4 Effects on the historic environment include direct effects, and any indirect and cumulative effects. These effects could be permanent or temporary (short term, medium term or long term); beneficial or adverse; the assessment of effects identifies which is the case.
9.5 This chapter of the ES describes the Historic Environment baseline environment of the Proposed Development Site (PDS) and adjacent areas that may be effected by the Proposed Development. It goes on to describe the proposed method of assessment for identifying likely significant environmental effects. Effects are then assessed for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
9.6 Where appropriate, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or remove any likely significant effects and the likely residual impact has been assessed.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
Legislation 9.7 The statutory legislation most relevant to the Historic Environment ES chapter comprises:
• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979 (Ref 9.1): It is a criminal offence to carry out any works on or adjacent to a Scheduled Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent. This Act makes no reference to the setting of Scheduled Monuments. • Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (Ref 9.8): In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting (section 66). Special attention
164
shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area (section 72).
Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (Ref 9.2) 9.8 One of the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) is to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life to this and future generations” (paragraph 17) Chapter 12 of the NPPF provides policy provisions for conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
9.9 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF directs that local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.
9.10 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF notes that the significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset, or development within its setting. Great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.
9.11 Paragraph 133 of the NPPF describes how applications that would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefit or that specific criteria can be met. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF directs that less than substantial harm should also be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
9.12 The glossary describes significance in relation to heritage policy as “The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting”.
9.13 The glossary describes the setting of a heritage asset as “the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of the asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”.
9.14 The glossary describes a heritage asset as “A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)”.
Local Policy 9.15 Local planning policy relevant to this Chapter is included in the St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy, 2012 and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan (“UDP”)
165
9.16 Core Strategy Policy CQL 4, Heritage and Landscape, states that: “The council will protect, conserve, preserve and enhance St. Helens historic built and landscape character including designated and undesignated heritage assets such as Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological sites and buildings and structures of local interest by… ensuring all new development respects the significance and distinctive quality of the built and historic environment and landscape character… ensuring that all development is located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its historic landscape and setting and retains or enhances the character and context."
• Saved UDP Policy ENV23 requires that when considering development proposals affecting archaeological sites or remains, the Council will require developers to take full account of this in their proposals and normally resist any proposal affecting a Scheduled Ancient Monument. It will also normally refuse schemes, including where the development would prejudice the preservation of archaeological features where they are found and in those situations where preservation is not feasible, adequate provision has not been made for the excavation and recording of the site. • Saved Policy ENV25 identifies that the Council will seek to protect the setting of Listed Buildings from harmful development.
Guidance Documents 9.17 Guidance notes and standards relevant to the historic environment that have been consulted in the production of this ES chapter comprise:
• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Code of Conduct and Standard and Guidance documents (Ref 9.6 and 9.7); • English Heritage (2008), Conservation Principles; Policy and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (Ref 9.3); • Planning Practice Guidance on conserving and enhancing the historic environment (Ref 9.9); and • Historic Environment Good Practice Planning Advice Notes 2 and 3 (Historic England, 2015) (Ref 9.4 and 9.5).
Assessment Methodology
Study Area 9.18 The study area includes the Proposed Development site and a buffer of 1km. This study area encompasses all locations where effects on the historic environment may result from the Proposed Development. The study area is sufficient to determine the potential for direct effects on known heritage assets, effects on previously unidentified heritage assets, and effects on the heritage significance of assets resulting from development within their setting.
Baseline Surveys
Desk Based Research 9.19 A feasibility study was undertaken in 2014. The study included a desk-based appraisal of a wider potential development area that exceeded but fully included the PDS.
166
Subsequently, with reference to the PDS specifically, a detailed desk-based assessment has been undertaken to augment and update the 2014 desk-based data. The following data sources have been consulted:
• National Heritage List for up to date information regarding nationally designated heritage assets; • National Monuments Record held by English Heritage; • Historic Environment Records (HER) held by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service; • Ordnance Survey historic mapping sequence at 1:10,560, 1:10,000 and 1:2500 scale, supplied by Landmark Group; • Modern vertical aerial photographs; • LiDAR data; • Defence of Britain archive held by Archaeological Data Services; and • Local Planning Authorities for conservation areas and any other relevant local heritage designations.
Walk-over survey 9.20 A walkover survey has also been undertaken in November 2014. Field notes were taken to record the land use, condition of known heritage assets, surface evidence for any previously unrecorded heritage assets, the topography and landscape character as an indicator of potential for buried archaeology, and any health and safety or methodological constraints to further site surveys.
9.21 A vantage point survey has also been undertaken to determine the contribution to significance made by the setting of designated heritage assets within the 1km area of search.
Consultation 9.22 The scope of methodology for the assessment was presented to St Helens Borough Council (“SHBC”) in the Environmental Statement Scoping Report (“ESSR”) submitted in the November 2016. A summary of SHBC’s Scoping Opinion (issued on the 10 January 2017) as relevant to historic environment considerations is presented in ES Volume 4: Appendix 5.1.
9.23 The Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (“MEAS”) provided its Development Management Advice in a letter to St Helens Council dated 14 December 2016. With regard to the Historic Environment, MEAS confirmed that it was satisfied that the methodology proposed in the Scoping Report would meet the requirements of the NPPF, paragraph 128.
9.24 A further consultation was undertaken with MEAS, by telephone on 20 January 2017. This confirmed the approach to mitigation outlined below, and clarified that MEAS did not consider pre-determination archaeological field surveys to be required in this case.
Assessment of Effects 9.25 A staged assessment has been undertaken to determine the likely significance of effects of the development on the historic environment. This involved establishing the historic environment baseline to determine the importance of the known assets that may be affected (for the historic environment importance has the same meaning as “heritage
167
significance”). Once the baseline has been established, the extent of the impact of the Proposed Development (the “magnitude of impact”) on the heritage significance is assessed. By comparing the importance of the asset and the magnitude of change the overall significance of the effect has been determined.
Sensitivity of Receptor 9.26 Understanding the importance of the heritage assets within the historic environment baseline data includes an assessment of the heritage values of the asset, and the contribution made by setting to those values. The importance of a heritage asset is described in terms of the value of the heritage asset because of its heritage interest (architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic) and is also described in relation to the asset’s heritage values (evidential, historical, communal, and aesthetic).
9.27 For designated assets, the importance is recorded as ‘high’ or ‘very high’ as these assets meet the national criteria for designation under the relevant legislation. Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens (RPG) are graded (I, II* and II) according to relative significance. Grade I and II* Listed Buildings and RPGs are assets of higher significance than grade II listed buildings and RPGs, this is reflected in the criteria for determining relative heritage significance outlined in Table 9.1 below.
9.28 The relative importance of each non-designated heritage asset within the historic environment baseline has also been determined to provide a framework for comparison. These categories do not reflect a definitive level of significance or value of a heritage asset, but a provisional one based on the asset’s heritage values to provide an analytical tool that can inform later stages of assessment and the development of appropriate mitigation, where needed. The degree of survival is also taken into account in determining receptor importance. Assets where there is likely to be very limited physical evidence because they have been destroyed or extensively damaged are of low or negligible heritage significance. Determining heritage significance is a professional judgment made with reference to Conservation Principles (Ref 9.3).
Table 9.1: Criteria for determining relative heritage significance
Receptor Importance Description
Very High Internationally important resources and designated heritage assets of (International) the highest significance: Grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, scheduled monuments, world heritage sites, registered battlefields.
High Nationally important resources: Grade II listed buildings, conservation (National) areas, grade ii registered parks and gardens.
Moderate Regionally important resources: Non-designated heritage assets and (Regional) landscape features with high or moderate evidential, historical, aesthetic and/or communal values.
Low Locally important resources: Non-designated heritage assets and (local) landscape features with low evidential, historical, aesthetic and/or communal values.
168
Receptor Importance Description
Negligible Assets with very low or no evidential, historical, aesthetic and/ or (minor) communal values, or where remains are known to have been significantly altered or destroyed.
Unknown Assets and structures of uncertain character, extent and/or date where the importance cannot be readily predicted.
Magnitude of impact 9.29 Assessing the impact of the Proposed Development in relation to the historic environment baseline has been considered in relation to the following criteria. This includes “Step 3” of the assessment of effects on the setting of heritage assets (Historic England, GPA Note 3, 2015) (Ref 9.5) to determine whether, and to what degree, the heritage significance of an asset may be harmed or lost where the Proposed Development affects its setting, as well as the magnitude of any direct physical effects to the asset.
9.30 GPA3 (Ref.9.5) states that setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of a heritage asset. Significance can therefore only be harmed or lost if the significance of the asset is in some way derived from that part of the setting affected by the Proposed Development.
9.31 The descriptions of magnitude of impact, provided in the following table, relate to harm to or loss of significance of the asset (and not, where development only affects its setting, the degree of change within that setting). This is a professional judgement made with reference to Historic England Good Practice Advice Note 2 (Ref 9.4) and Planning Practice Guidance (Ref 9.9).
Table 9.2: Criteria for determining magnitude of effect
Magnitude Definition
High Total loss or substantial harm to key elements of the heritage interest of the asset, or features or characteristics of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that post development character or composition or attributes of baseline will be fundamentally changed.
Moderate Partial loss or harm to one or more important elements or features or characteristics of the baseline (pre-development) conditions such that post development character or composition or attributes of baseline will be partially changed.
Low Minor loss. Change arising from the loss or alteration will be discernible but underlying character or composition or attributes of the baseline condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances or patterns.
Negligible No loss or alteration. Change not distinguishable or does not result in loss of heritage significance.
Unknown The exact location, extent or nature of the baseline receptor is not known and therefore the magnitude of change cannot be discerned.
169
Duration of Effect 9.32 The assessment will consider the likely duration of the effect, based on the following timescales:
• Short term; 0 to 5 years including the construction period and on completion • Medium term; 5 to 15 years including mitigation establishment • Long term; 15 + years including long term operation of the development
Assessing significance of effect 9.33 A professional judgement has been applied in determining the overall significance of effect within the broad categories identified by the below matrix. The assessment took into account the relative heritage significance of the asset, the contribution made by setting to that significance, and the predicted magnitude of effect on that significance that would result from the Proposed Development. This determined the overall significance of effect.
Table 9.3: Criteria for determining significance of effect
Importance of Receptor Magnitude Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
Moderate or High High High Moderate Negligible Low
High or Moderate or Moderate or Low or Negligible Moderate Moderate Low Low Negligible or Neutral
Moderate or Low or Negligible or Low Low Neutral Low Negligible Neutral
Low or Low or Negligible or Negligible Neutral Neutral Negligible Negligible Neutral
9.34 The overall significance of effect reflects national heritage policy, which makes a distinction between substantial and less than substantial harm (NPPF, paragraphs 132 - 134). For the purpose of this assessment, high adverse effects will be considered to be equivalent to substantial harm, and as significant effects in EIA terms. The judgement will be guided by Planning Practice Guidance paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 18a-017- 20140306 “How to assess if there is substantial harm” (Ref 9.9)
9.35 Effects of moderate significance are equivalent to less than substantial harm, but are significant effects in EIA terminology. Effects of low or negligible significance are less than substantial and also are not significant in EIA terms. Effects recorded as negligible or neutral are not significant and are not harmful to the heritage significance of the asset.
9.36 The nature of an effect can be classified as adverse, negligible (or neutral), or beneficial:
• Adverse: Classifications of significance indicate disadvantageous or negative effects to an environmental receptor;
170
• Negligible and Neutral: Classifications of significance indicate imperceptible effects to an environmental receptor; • Beneficial: Classifications of significance indicate advantageous or positive effects to an environmental receptor.
9.37 Heritage significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. The former relates to any direct physical harm, including total or partial loss of the asset. Where the development only affects the setting of the asset, there is no direct physical harm but loss of or change to the asset’s setting can (where setting contributes to the significance of the asset) result in a reduced ability to experience and understand the asset’s heritage significance.
Limitations and Assumptions
9.38 Monument data from the HER and the NMR consists of secondary information derived from varied sources. This data, as well as that derived from other secondary sources such as historic mapping, is generally accurate. There are however several limitations to the data set, generic to any desk-based assessment. For example, where the known archaeological data relates to chance finds or cropmark evidence the fill extent, date and nature of the asset is often uncertain. Also, asset records, particularly older records, can fail to accurately locate assets. Due to these limitations, it is possible that previously unrecorded archaeological assets could survive within the PDS. Additionally, due to the buried nature of archaeological assets there is often an element of uncertainty regarding the precise survival, condition and extent of the asset.
9.39 This application is being made in outline with all matters reserved (except access), the assessment that follows is therefore made on a reasonable worst case basis, having regard to the development parameters as outlined in Chapter 3..
9.40 Baseline conditions identified through desk-based research and site walk over survey are considered sufficient in this case to understand the potential impact of the proposals on known and potential heritage assets. The archaeological potential of the site is low to moderate, and it is acknowledged that heritage assets with archaeological interest of local or regional importance could be present within the PDS. In order to ensure that an appropriate programme of archaeological recording is undertaken to advance understanding of any such assets within the site, a programme of further assessment is recommended. This includes a programme of geophysical survey, to be presented pursuant to the requirements of a planning condition, prior to the commencement of development.
Baseline Conditions
Designated Heritage Assets 9.41 There are no designated heritage assets within the PDS.
9.42 There are no world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, conservation areas or grade I or II* listed buildings, i.e. heritage assets of very high importance, within the 1km study area.
171
9.43 There are two grade II listed buildings within 1km of the PDS, i.e. within the Study Area. The grade II listed buildings (Asset ID’s LB1 and LB2) comprise Dean School House, a former school which has been converted to a house, and 37 Barn Lane, a house. Both assets date to the early post medieval period. These assets are of high heritage significance.
9.44 The setting of LB1 Dean School House is defined by its curtilage and surrounding mature trees and woodland. There is no intervisibility between the PDS and this asset, given the intervening woodland belts and mature trees. The setting of this asset does make a positive contribution to its significance, but does not include the PDS. The development would not therefore be capable of affecting the contribution made by setting to the significance of this asset.
9.45 The setting of LB1, 37 Barn Lane, includes the immediately adjacent farmland, which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the asset. The adjacent streetscape includes a number of more modern buildings and makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the asset. The setting of the asset does not include the PDS, given the distance of separation and intervening woodland. The development would not therefore be capable of affecting the contribution made by setting to the significance of this asset.
Non-designated Heritage Assets 9.46 There is one non-designated heritage asset within the PDS; NDHA02, Haydock Park. The PDS is within Haydock Park, a former medieval hunting ground. The former boundary is still extant on the south-eastern side. The former parkland has low heritage significance because it is not well preserved. Given the lack of any well preserved evidence for the former park identified through desk-based assessment or walk-over survey, the likelihood of finding as yet unknown archaeological remains relating to this asset within the development site is considered to be low.
9.47 There are a further 49 non-designated heritage assets within the study area. These assets are of low or negligible heritage significance. These are discussed further in ES Volume 4: Appendix 9.1, and briefly by period below:
• There are no non-heritage assets dating to the prehistoric period within the study area. • Roman; There is one non-designated asset relating to the Roman period (NDHA01) comprising the Roman Road between Wilderspool and Wigan. The asset is of low heritage significance. • Medieval; There are two non-designated heritage assets that relate to the medieval period within the study area. These comprise the former extent and boundary to Haydock Park (NDHA02, referenced above), and Haydock Lodge (NDHA03) a former manor house no longer extant, of negligible heritage significance. • Post Medieval; There are 43 non-designated heritage assets relating the to the post medieval period within the study area (NDHA04-42, 49-50) and comprise both extant and demolished built heritage including a watermill, former colliery and railway, housing and farms. Sixteen of the assets are still extant or expected to have below ground evidence and have low heritage significance, 27 are no longer extant and are of negligible heritage significance.
172
• Modern; There are three non-designated heritage assets relating the modern period within the study area. Two railway stations at Haydock Park and Ashton in Makerfield (NDHA 45 and 46) were opened in 1900 and subsequently closed in the 1950’s, both are of low heritage significance. Garswood Park was the site of a Second World War prisoner of war camp (NDHA 47) holding German internees, the camp closed in 1948 and is of low heritage significance. • There is one undated non-designated heritage asset in the study area, a cropmark of a two bay structure identified in 1996 (NDHA48). It is of negligible heritage significance as it now lies within an area of industrial redevelopment.
Potential for as yet unknown heritage assets within the PDS 9.48 There are no recorded assets from the prehistoric periods within the baseline evidence, although an undocumented reference to a prehistoric barrow within the vicinity indicates that there could be activity from this period locally. The PDS has a low potential for the presence of heritage assets with archaeological interest dating from the prehistoric periods.
9.49 The western side of the development site lies immediately adjacent to a Roman road (NDHA01) and given the vicinity of this, there is a moderate potential for associated Roman archaeology within the PDS.
9.50 Documentary evidence records medieval activity within the PDS, with Haydock Park (NDHA02) dating to the medieval period. The PDS has a low to moderate potential for the survival of as yet unidentified heritage assets of low or higher significance dating to the medieval period.
9.51 The post medieval period is well represented within the study area, although historic mapping indicates that the PDS comprised agricultural land throughout the late post medieval and modern periods. The potential for post medieval heritage assets with low or higher significance to be present within the PDS is therefore low.
9.52 Similarly, although there is evidence for modern activity throughout the study area, the documentary evidence does not suggest that any assets with heritage significance are present within the PDS, the potential for this period is therefore low.
Future Baseline
9.53 The historic environment future baseline conditions could differ from current baseline conditions, if an asset’s designated status is altered or any, as yet unknown heritage assets with archaeological interest, are identified through archaeology surveys within the PDS. However, as baseline data gathering included consultation with the statutory and non-statutory consultees responsible for designations and for dissemination of field survey data (i.e. Historic England and the MEAS HER), the likelihood of either circumstance occurring is low and, in any event, would not necessarily alter the assessment of effects undertaken, as this has been undertaken on a realistic worst case basis.
9.54 Therefore, the baseline conditions reported in this chapter are taken to also represent future baseline conditions (at the time of construction). The mitigation measures proposed will be subject to on-going discussion with the relevant consultees as part of
173
the determination of the planning application, consideration of reserved matters and discharge of planning conditions, and, in the unlikely event that the baseline conditions do alter, this can be taken into account as mitigation measures are refined, agreed and implemented.
9.55 It is not necessary to define baseline conditions which are predicted to obtain at the date of completion of development (2022) as no operational effects upon that baseline environment are predicted to occur (see below).
Matters which have been scoped out
9.56 The method of determining which heritage assets the Proposed Development could affect as a result of development within the assets’ setting is an iterative one based on the stepped approach outlined in the Historic England guidance, GPA 3, The Setting of Heritage Assets (Ref 9.5). This advocates setting out ‘what matters and why’ in terms of providing a robust yet proportionate assessment of the likely effects of development. Consequently, the study area has been scoped to include only those assets where a significant effect could arise, and assets within the 1km study area could be scoped out from a more detailed assessment for one or more of the following reasons:
• The setting of the asset does not include the Proposed Development; or • That aspect of the asset’s setting that includes the Proposed Development does not contribute to the significance of the asset; and / or • The magnitude of change from baseline conditions would not be appreciable and a neutral significance of effect is predicted.
Embedded Mitigation
9.57 No embedded mitigation measures are proposed in relation to historic environment constraints, given that there are no designated heritage assets that would be affected by development within the PDS.
9.58 Also the nature of the recorded heritage asset that includes the PDS (NDHA02 the location of a former hunting ground, Haydock Park) is such that there are no surviving above ground elements of the asset or known areas of archaeological interest associated with the asset that would benefit from embedded mitigation measures.
Assessment of Effects
9.59 Construction phase effects relate predominantly to physical effects on heritage assets within the PDS. No physical effects on heritage assets are predicted during the operation phase, as any further ground disturbance would be within the PDS, and any adverse effects will be within areas that have already been subject to archaeological mitigation during the construction phase..
9.60 Any predicted adverse operation phase effects on heritage assets resulting from development within their setting would occur during the construction and operation phases, but would be reversed on decommissioning, with the removal of above ground infrastructure.
174
Impacts during construction phase
9.61 There would be no direct or indirect effects on any designated heritage assets as a result of the construction phase activities.
9.62 There is a single non-designated heritage asset within the PDS, comprising Haydock Park (NDHA02), part of a former medieval deer park, of low heritage significance. Although there are no surviving elements of the asset evident on the ground or known areas of surviving archaeological evidence, construction phase activities do have the potential to affect as yet unknown surviving archaeological evidence associated with this asset.
9.63 The asset is of low heritage significance. The predicted magnitude of impact, based on a realistic worst-case scenario, is moderate adverse. The significance of effect is therefore predicted to be low adverse. This is not a significant effect.
Impacts during operational phase 9.64 The PDS is not within the setting of any designated heritage assets and therefore there are no predicted effects in relation to the Historic Environment during the operation phase.
Assessment of likely significant cumulative effects 9.65 Cumulative historic environment effects can occur during construction where areas of archaeology or contiguous / contemporaneous archaeology assets are affected by more than one development footprint. For such effects to occur development footprints need to overlap or be adjacent and where this is not the case the distance of separation is such that the inter-project development proposal can be scoped out of any cumulative assessment for this aspect of the historic environment topic.
9.66 There are no development proposals that could result in any cumulative effects during construction, as none of the reviewed proposals would affect heritage assets common to the Haydock Point PDS.
9.67 Different development projects in combination can also have a cumulative effect on the settings of a heritage assets, or shared setting of an associated group of assets, when it is affected by more than one development during the construction and operational phases of those developments; and where the part of the settings that are affected by both proposals makes a positive contribution to the heritage significance of the asset. Therefore effects can be scoped out where there are no heritage asset effects common to the Proposed Development and the project being assessed for cumulative effects, and / or the effects are individually and in combination not of sufficient scope to affect underlying historic landscape character or the contribution made by setting to significance.
9.68 One development proposal, land to north of Penny Lane and west of M6 Motorway, Haydock, has the potential to result in cumulative effects on the settings of heritage assets given the proximity and scale of the two proposals. However, as the PDS is not within the setting of any designated heritage assets there are no predicted significant affects in relation to the settings of any heritage assets as a result of the Haydock Point development, and therefore no cumulative effects are predicted.
175
Intra-project effects 9.69 Intra-project effects can occur where, for example intrusive archaeological works are within an area with a biodiversity designation. In this case, no intra-project impacts are predicted given the assessed baseline conditions of the PDS.
Proposed Archaeological Recording 9.70 Notwithstanding that no significant effects are predicted in relation to any known heritage assets, a programme of archaeological recording will be undertaken, to record and advance understanding of NDHA02, Haydock Park, in a manner that is proportionate to the asset’s significance and to the predicted level of impact, which is confined to a low adverse impact during construction only.
9.71 In this case, a low adverse effect is predicted which is not significant. However this is in relation to an asset where the exact location of any surviving associated archaeological evidence is not clear. The potential survival relates to evidence of the former parkland, which would, in any event, be of moderate to negligible heritage significance. The predicted significance of effect reflects this.
9.72 It is therefore proposed that a staged approach to mitigation is taken forward, comprising a geophysical survey followed by targeted archaeological investigation of any areas shown to have high archaeological potential as a result of that survey.
9.73 The geophysical survey would be targeted to areas of proposed disturbance. The geophysical survey would be provided in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation that has been approved by the Local Planning Authority and could be secured as a condition of planning consent. The subsequent archaeological investigation and recording would be undertaken in accordance with a further Written Scheme of Investigation that has been approved by the Local Planning Authority, targeted to areas of relatively high archaeological potential within the areas of proposed disturbance.
9.74 The record would advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets that are affected as a result of the development, in a manner that is proportionate to their importance and impact. Any recovered evidence would be made publically available through reporting and an archive commensurate to the findings.
Residual Impacts 9.75 Following the implementation of the archaeological recording works proposed above, the residual impact on Haydock Park (NDHA02, low heritage significance) would be negligible. The residual impact on any as yet unknown heritage assets with archaeological interest within the PDS would be of low or negligible significance (based on a predicted receptor importance of low – moderate and magnitude of impact of low – high).
Monitoring 9.76 The implementation of the mitigation measures will be monitored by an appropriately qualified archaeologist working in accordance with the appropriate Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Code of Conduct and Standard and Guidance documents.
176
9.77 The Local Authority’s archaeological representatives will also approve and monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures.
References
Ref.9.1 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979
Ref.9.2 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012. National Planning Policy Framework
Ref.9.3 Historic England, 2008. Conservation Principles; Policy and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment.
Ref.9.4 Historic England, 2015. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment. London: Historic England, 2015.
Ref.9.5 Historic England, 2015. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets. London: Historic England, 2015.
Ref.9.6 Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Code of Conduct. Reading: CIfA, 2014.
Ref.9.7 Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment. Reading: CIfA, 2014.
Ref.9.8 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Ref.9.9 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/http://planningguidance.planni ngportal.gov.uk/
Ref.9.10 TEP, 2014. Preliminary Heritage Statement for Land at Haydock, St Helens. Unpublished Report, 2014.
177
10. Landscape and Visual Effects
Introduction
10.1 An assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on landscape character and visual amenity has been undertaken by TEP - The Environment Partnership (“TEP”).
10.2 Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape which may give rise to changes in its important characteristics and thus its character, and how this is experienced. Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.
10.3 This ES Chapter presents the results of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (“LVIA”) which has been undertaken in accordance with The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA3) (Landscape Institute (LI) and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 2013) (Ref 10.1). The full LVIA Method and Visual Impact Tables will form Appendices 10.1 and 10.2 to this ES chapter.
10.4 GLVIA3 emphasises the distinction between landscape effects and visual effects and this Landscape Character and Visual Amenity chapter clearly distinguishes between the assessment of landscape effects, dealing with changes to the landscape as a resource, and the assessment of visual effects, dealing with changes in views and visual amenity.
10.5 This chapter describes the baseline environment of the Proposed Development Site (PDS) and wider areas that may be affected by the Proposed Development. The chapter goes on to describe the method of assessment for identifying likely significant environmental effects and concludes with the results of the assessment.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance Framework
10.6 This section of the chapter provides a review of National and Local Planning Policy relevant to the landscape and visual context of the land and the surrounding area.
The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”)
10.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012) (Ref 10.2) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied at a local level in development plans. The following sections are applicable to the landscape and visual assessment:
• Section 7: Requiring Good Design • Section 9: Protecting Green Belt Land • Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
178
10.8 The current local planning policy is provided by the St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (CS) (Ref 10.3) and those policies which have been saved from the St Helens Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Ref 10.4). The planning context is shown in Figure 10.2.
St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (October 2012)
CP1 Ensuring Quality Development in St Helens 10.9 The policy sets out the minimum standards for the development of built environment within the Borough. The standards which are applicable include the following:
• Maintain or enhance the overall character and appearance of the local environment (with regard to siting, layout, massing, scale, design, materials, building to plot ratio and landscaping); • Be sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers, avoiding detrimental impact on the amenities of the local area, in particular residential amenities; • Provide landscaping as an integral part of the development, protecting existing landscape features, providing open space and enhancing the public realm;
10.10 In addition, the policy addresses the protection of the natural and historic environment and the relevant criteria are:
• Safeguard and enhance Green Infrastructure, biodiversity and geodiversity and bring these resources into positive management; • Avoid unnecessary tree loss and make provision for new and replacement planting; • Safeguard or enhance landscape character, including historic landscape and townscape character; • Avoid loss or damage to high quality soils where possible and minimise loss or damage where this can be shown to be unavoidable; and • Ensure protection of watercourses from encroachment, modification and degradation and return modified and degraded water bodies to sustainable, natural environments where appropriate and feasible.
10.11 The policy is consistent with national policy and also seeks to assist in the delivery of locally important policy and strategy including the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.4) which is described in Section 5 of this Landscape and Visual baseline report.
Policy CAS5 Rural St Helens 10.12 The Proposed Development Site is within the area identified in the St Helens Core Strategy as Rural St Helens. Section 11 of the Core Strategy document states that the rural areas of St Helens generally correspond to the designated Green Belt. Policy CAS5 states that development will be restricted to within rural settlement boundaries and will comply with Green belt policy outside these areas. The policy places an emphasis on landscape character and Green Belt policy and advises that any development in the rural area will be informed by the St Helens Landscape Character assessment.
179
10.13 Opportunities are also identified under policy CAS5 and include access for recreation, enhancement of landscape character and the implementation of Green Infrastructure projects.
CQL1 Green Infrastructure 10.14 Green Infrastructure (GI) is defined, in Section 16 of the Core Strategy document, as ‘an integrated network of open spaces…within the countryside having a wide range of functions and value’ which include recreation, and enhancement of the landscape. The policy suggests a number of ways in which the Council will seek to enhance and, where appropriate, expand the GI network. With reference to the land under consideration, these options could include promoting and improving ‘the accessibility of open space within walking distance of housing’ and requiring ‘new development to contribute to the expansion and/or improvement of GI in accordance with local circumstances’.
CQL2 Trees and Woodlands 10.15 The policy seeks to ensure that the multi-purpose value of trees, woodlands and hedgerows will be protected and enhanced by a number of measures including the requirement for developers to plant new trees on appropriate sites and the conservation, enhancement and management of existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows. Trees and woodlands are considered to be essential in creating character and local distinctiveness and provide opportunities to improve the visual appearance of the countryside which is consistent with the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment. The Council recognises that trees can be used to enhance the landscape character of an area and help to create a more positive image of an area for the encouragement of economic regeneration.
10.16 St Helens is a partner in The Mersey Forest and the CS will be instrumental in delivering the St Helens Woodland Strategy (Ref 10.5) in conjunction with the NW Regional Forestry Framework.
St Helens Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2012
10.17 The District UDP was superseded by the Core Strategy in 2012. The St Helens Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies is a statutory document that sets out the council's saved planning policies to guide development, conservation, regeneration and environmental improvement activity in St Helens
10.18 Policies of relevance to landscape (see ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.2 Planning Context) are summarised below identifying their relevance in relation to the land:
S1 Green Belt 10.19 The Green Belt boundary was established in 1983 with the purpose of checking urban sprawl, safeguarding valuable countryside and assisting urban regeneration. A number of Green Belt policies have been saved from the UDP (including GB1 and GB2) and set out the general criteria for development control in the Green Belt as follows:
• New buildings will not be permitted except in very special circumstances. • Development must be appropriate in terms of its siting, design, materials and landscaping and should not detract from the appearance and openness of the Green Belt.
180
ENV1 Protection of Open Space 10.20 The policy states that open space, whether or not there is public access to it, is important for its contribution to the quality of urban life. The policy also refers to the impact of development on the visual amenity of users of existing Public Open Space and suggests that the potential for extending the provision of Open Space within new developments should be considered by developers.
ENV3 Greenway 10.21 The Council attaches considerable priority to the development of the Greenway network and is seeking increased public access onto more of the Greenways. The network has been defined on the basis of physically or visually linking existing open spaces along the major linear features of the Borough, such as river valleys, canal systems and disused railway lines. These corridors are also particularly important in defining the physical character of St. Helens, contributing to the Borough's individuality.
10.22 The Greenway network is an important framework for the development of a footpath and cycle network through the Borough (Policy REC 5).
ENV10 The Mersey Forest 10.23 The Council will encourage woodland planting especially where this would contribute to the creation of the Mersey Forest. Lyme and Wood Pits, to the west of Vista Road, was allocated under this policy for woodland planting, informal recreation and wildlife habitat creation.
10.24 In addition to promoting the woodland planting of sites identified in the policy, the Council will review opportunities to bring additional areas into the Mersey Forest initiative. The policy specifically refers to planting in transport corridors as an important opportunity.
ENV13 New Tree Planting on Development Sites 10.25 The Council will require the planting of trees on any development site and specifically those which are:
• Adjacent to roads or other public frontages • Adjoining amenity area and open spaces • In, or adjacent to, the Green Belt
10.26 The policy states that this requirement is to increase tree cover in the Borough, to improve the appearance of the area and create wildlife habitats.
ENV20 Landscape Renewal 10.27 The policy identifies the areas in which the Council will give priority to landscape renewal including the land between Haydock and Newton-le-Willows (including the south-west quadrant). The policy states that new development will not normally be permitted in this area if it would lead to ‘further deterioration of the landscape’. The policy states that the need for landscape renewal is influenced by the visual prominence of the area from several strategic transport routes.
181
ENV21 Environmental Improvements within Transport Corridors 10.28 This policy sets out the Council’s requirements for new development on major transport corridors to be of a high design standard and suitably screened or landscaped wherever necessary. These major transport corridors include the A580 East Lancashire Road and the M6 motorway.
REC5 Strategic Footpaths and Cycleways 10.29 The policy states that the Council will give due weight to development proposals which would provide new links in the network or improve existing links with the aim of providing access between town and country. A shortage of bridleways has been identified in St Helens.
REC6 Key Recreation Areas 10.30 Key Recreation Areas within the study area were identified at Haydock Park Racecourse and Lyme and Wood Pit. The Lyme and Wood Pit Site has now been developed into a Country Park.
REC7 Water Features 10.31 This policy states that the Council will protect the Borough’s water areas and seek to promote their recreational use where this will not conflict with their ecological value. Many of the water features have been created by dams as a result of the Borough’s industrial past. There are no water features within the PDS.
Emerging Policy Guidance
10.32 The St Helens Local Plan Preferred Options is currently being consulted upon and contains policies that are relevant to Landscape and Views although they currently carry limited weight. The following policies are relevant:
Policy LPD01 – Ensuring Quality Developments in St Helens Developments should seek to (inter alia)
• ‘…Maintain and where feasible enhance the overall character and appearance of the local environment (with regard to siting, layout, massing, scale, design, materials, building to plot ratio and landscaping);
• Be sympathetic to surrounding land uses and occupiers, avoiding detrimental impact on the amenities of the local area, in particular residential amenities;
• Ensure that the occupiers of new developments enjoy an appropriate standard of amenity and will not be adversely affected by neighbouring uses and vice versa;
• Provide landscaping as an integral part of the development, protecting existing landscape features, and enhancing the public realm…’
Policy LPC09: Landscape Protection and Enhancement 10.33 Where appropriate to the nature and scale of development, development proposals must:
182
• Demonstrate that proposal is the best option for meeting the aims of the development and minimising impacts on the landscape and respecting local distinctiveness; • Seek to implement St. Helens Landscape Character Assessment guidance to help conserve, enhance or restore landscape character, as appropriate; • Include an assessment of landscape sensitivity and the implications of the development proposal on landscape character; and • Include a visual impact assessment of the development, carried out to current best practice guidelines. • Where impacts on landscape character are agreed to be unavoidable, the Council will require mitigation measures to reduce the scale of impacts to acceptable levels. Where this cannot be achieved, but the overall value of the development outweighs the impacts, the Council will require compensation measures. If unacceptable harm cannot be avoided, suitably mitigated or compensated, planning permission will not be granted.
LPD06: Development in Prominent Gateway Locations 10.34 The Council will develop a policy covering the following points:
• New development at prominent gateway locations and frontages along major gateway routes will be required to be of significant architectural quality which could be contemporary in design provided it would make a positive contribution to the setting of the location. New development will be expected to contribute positively to the image and built environment of St. Helens. • Prominent gateway locations in the Borough are motorways, A roads, railway lines and visually prominent sites especially at road junctions and railway stations.
10.35 There are some strategic policies in the Plan which are relevant to Landscape and Views, including Policy LPA01 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development), LPA02 (Spatial Strategy) and LPA03 (Development Principles). LPA03 in particular states that new development should contribute to a ‘high quality built and natural environment by…taking account of the Borough’s landscape character, townscape, roles and setting of different areas in St. Helens in the location and design of new development…’
10.36 The majority of the land is allocated as a Strategic Employment Site (ref. EA4) for new B2/B8 employment uses (Policy LPA04), with the Policy identifying that the ‘…design and layout should seek to mitigate and minimise impacts on Haydock Racecourse to the north of the site’ and ‘all sites should be outward facing with high quality soft landscaping which creates a strong sense of place and represents St. Helens well.
Landscape Policy Summary
10.37 A review of the local plan policies which are relevant to landscape and views has identified overarching themes which are applicable to the Proposed Development.
10.38 Firstly there is an emphasis on the desirability of greater access to green space in the local area. The creation of enhanced recreational permeability as part of any new development on the urban fringe would be in accordance with policy CQL1 of the Core Strategy and saved policies ENV1, ENV3, ENV20 and REC5 from the UDP.
183
10.39 Secondly, there is an emphasis on woodland creation, the strengthening of landscape character and the enhancement of transport corridors through planting. This is relevant to policies CQL2 and CAS5 (of the Core Strategy) and saved policies ENV10 and ENV21 from the UDP.
10.40 Finally, there is guidance relating to the role of the Green Belt in this location and the protection of its objectives. This also applies to the policies relating to areas identified as Rural St. Helens. Any new development within these areas is required to be appropriate to the Green Belt objectives and to satisfy the saved policies S1 (including GB1 and GB2) and ENV13. In addition the Green Belt policies emphasise the importance of, and the need to comply with, the supplementary guidance contained in the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.6). The Landscape Character Assessment is considered in the Landscape Baseline section of this ES Chapter.
Assessment Method
10.41 The landscape and visual assessment method has been used to provide an assessment of effects on landscape character and on views as a result of the Proposed Development during the construction and operation stages.
10.42 The method for the landscape and visual assessment is based on the guidance contained in GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1). Paragraph 1.20 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.10) (Ref 10.1) explains that the guidance ‘concentrates on principles while also seeking to steer specific approaches where there is a general consensus on methods and techniques. It is not intended to be prescriptive, in that it does not provide a detailed ‘recipe’ that can be followed in every situation. It is always the primary responsibility of any landscape professional carrying out an assessment to ensure that the approach and methodology adopted are appropriate to the particular circumstances.’
10.43 There are five stages to the method of assessment of landscape and visual effects as detailed in GLVIA3, Chapters 5 and 6 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.70-118) (Ref 10.1). These comprise:
• scope; • establishing the landscape and visual baseline; • predicting and describing landscape and visual effects; • assessing the significance of landscape and visual effects; and • judging the overall significance of landscape and visual effects.
The Study Area
10.44 The Proposed Development Site comprises an area of open farmland surrounded by a landscape of degraded hedgerow networks and substantial blocks of largely deciduous trees. Ponds in the wider area are numerous and frequently formed by man-made dams.
10.45 The land is north east of Junction 23 of the M6 motorway and bounded to the south by the East Lancashire Road, the A580, running from west to east (ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.1)
184
10.46 Land use is predominantly agriculture but the large fields are interspersed with, or bordered by, woodland blocks, most notably White Door Covert and Lady Hill Plantation. Other substantial tree screens are formed by roadside vegetation associated with both the M6 motorway and the A580 East Lancashire Road. The M6 motorway is largely on an embankment to allow it to pass over the East Lancashire Road. This permits elevated views across the land for users of the motorway.
10.47 The land lies within an area currently designated as Green Belt and nearby land uses include the Haydock Park Racecourse. There is currently no public access to the land. There is a nearby Public Right of Way (PRoW) with filtered views of the land across the racecourse.
10.48 The 5km diameter study area, (see Appendix 10.1 for explanation) which is wider than the land under consideration, contains several settlements including Haydock, Ashton- in-Makerfield, Golborne and Newton-le-Willows. Each of the settlements is characterised by an urban edge of private housing, detached or semi-detached, which backs onto open farmland. The extent of the Study Area is shown in ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.3.
Baseline Surveys
Desk-Based Studies 10.49 Desk-based studies comprised a review of mapping and aerial photography of the Proposed Development Site and its environs; a review of published landscape character assessments relevant to that area; and deriving ‘Bare Earth’ and ‘Screened’ Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs). The ‘Bare Earth’ and ‘Screened’ ZTVs were used to identify the potential visual extent that may be affected by the Proposed Development at the maximum building height of 60.65 AOD. The ZTVs were used to identify suitable locations for baseline viewpoint photographs, in consultation with the Local Planning Authority. The Screened ZTVs were based on an assumption that the woodland blocks are impermeable to views and therefore represents the ‘best-case’ summer view. The degree of filtering of these views, afforded by woodland blocks in winter, has been assessed through field surveys and the Bare Earth ZTV.
Field Surveys 10.50 Initial site visits were undertaken in 2014 to consider the baseline environment. Site visits were undertaken in November 2016 to update earlier baseline assessments and to carry out winter photography from representative viewpoints in accordance with GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1).
10.51 In accordance with GLVIA3 Paragraph 5.15 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.79) (Ref 10.1) fieldwork was used to check the applicability of published character assessments within the study area, identifying variations in character at a more detailed scale. The landscape within the study area was experienced, and landscape characteristics and features recorded from publicly accessible locations with reference to the latest guidance provided in Natural England’s ‘An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment’ (Natural England, 2014) (Ref: 10.7).
10.52 Field survey has considered all receptor locations from where views of the land are considered likely. It has also considered the content of the existing views. No access
185
has been sought to private properties or land and assessment has been made from the nearest publicly accessible viewpoint. Panoramic photographic views have been recorded from a series of photo locations and they are shown on ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.5. The photographic images illustrate the current nature of the area and are shown on ES Volume 3a: Figures 10.7.1 to 10.7.7.
10.53 Photographs have been taken at each viewpoint and used to create a panorama of the view. The location and aspect have been described for each viewpoint photograph taken. The weather was fine and dry although there is a small degree of haze arising in distant views. These winter photographs were taken in November 2016 to reflect a worst case scenario in terms of the potential for adverse effects on views and were used as the basis for consultation with St Helens Council.
Consultation
10.54 The method for the landscape and visual impact assessment and the selection of photo viewpoints at publicly accessible locations are as agreed with St Helens District Council (23 November 2016).
10.55 In accordance with GLVIA3 (LI&IEMA, 2013:109) (Ref 10.1), a range of photo viewpoints was selected to represent the experience of different types of visual receptor, as described in Table 10.1 below. The photo viewpoints were agreed with the St Helens Council Landscape Officer as being representative of the range of views of the Proposed Development Site experienced by sensitive receptors within the study area. The photo viewpoints also formed the basis for discussions regarding potential photomontages and wireframes to be submitted as part of the application. It was agreed with St Helens Council (12 December 2016) that photo viewpoints 4, 10 and 11 would be presented as fully rendered photomontages and photo viewpoints 1, 5 and 6 would be presented as wireframes to illustrate the extent of the build-zone.
Table 10.1: Photo viewpoints
Viewpoint Location Representative of the following receptors: number
1 Lodge Lane Car users and pedestrians/cyclists on Lodge Lane. The Holiday Inn.
2 PRoW 655 Walkers and cyclists on the public footpath. Views from the northern side of the racecourse at ground level.
3 Harvey Lane, Golborne Residential properties, the roadside parking area for PRoW 655, private access to Haydock Park racecourse.
4 Newton Lane (N of Residential properties, access to Haydock Park A580)/Park Road, racecourse (Sandy Lane). Golborne
186
Viewpoint Location Representative of the following receptors: number
5 Newton Lane (S of Car users and pedestrians/cyclists on Newton A580)/Haydock Park Lane. Users of Haydock Park Golf Course. Golf Course Access to residential dwellings/farms west of the Lane.
6 View North from the Road users, cyclists and pedestrians adjacent to Lay-by, A580 the westbound carriageway.
7 Billington Ave, Newton- Residential properties with front elevations facing le-Willows north, minor road users, users of PRoW 648 and 649.
8 Vista Road (B5209), Scattered residential dwellings, road users, pedestrians and cyclists, users of PRoW 648
9 A599 Penny Lane Road users, Old Boston Trading Estate
10 Ashton Heath Residential, PRoW between Ashton Heath and Millington Brook.
11 B5207 Golborne Road Road users and residential dwellings
12 A573 Warrington Road Road users (railway line)
13 PRoW adj Industrial Walkers, local commuters, (cyclists) estate
14 PRoW, Garswood Walkers, residential properties, railway line
10.56 St Helen’s Council also requested a photomontage from privately owned land within Haydock Park Racecourse to reflect its role as a tourist destination within the Borough. Consultation with Haydock Park racecourse and a subsequent site visit resulted in the selection of two additional photomontage locations being selected in the Tommy Whittle Stand and the County Enclosure.
Assessing Significance of Effect
10.57 The method for the assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the landscape is in accordance with the guidelines at paragraph 5.38 to 5.52 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.88-91) (Ref 10.1). Assessing the significance of identified landscape effects requires an assessment of the sensitivity of the landscape affected (its susceptibility to change and value), and an assessment of the magnitude of the impact (size or scale, geographical extent, nature of the impact (adverse or beneficial), and its duration and reversibility on the landscape.
10.58 The method for the assessment of the likely significant visual effects of the Proposed Development is in accordance with the guidelines at paragraph 6.30 to 6.45 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.113-116) (Ref 10.1) and considers receptor sensitivity (determined by susceptibility to change and value of the view), the magnitude of the
187
effect (size or scale, geographical extent, adverse or beneficial nature of the effect and its duration and reversibility) resulting from the proposed change to the view, and the overall significance of the effect.
Magnitude of Impact on Landscape Character 10.59 The magnitude of impact has been considered in accordance with paragraphs 5.48 to 5.52 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.90-91) (Ref 10.1). The magnitude of impact combines the judgements on the scale of change (i.e. whether it is high, moderate, low or negligible); its nature (adverse, beneficial or neutral) and its duration (short, medium or long term) and its reversibility. Table 10.2 below describes the magnitude criteria for the landscape assessment, which can be adverse or beneficial.
Table 10.2: Typical Criteria for the Assessment of the Magnitude of Impact on Landscape Character
Magnitude of Typical Criteria Impact
High Major alteration to key features or characteristics in the existing landscape and or the introduction of elements considered totally uncharacteristic. Typically this would be where there would be a great scale of change to the character of the landscape for the long or medium- term.
Moderate Partial alteration to key features or characteristics of the existing landscape and or the introduction of prominent elements. Typically this would be where there would be a perceivable scale of change to the character of the landscape for the medium and long- term; or where there would be a great scale of change on the landscape for the short-term.
Low Minor alteration to key features and characteristics of the existing landscape and or the introduction of features which may already be present in the landscape. Typically this would be where there is a perceivable or low scale of change to the character of the landscape for the short-term; or where there would be a low scale of change on the landscape in the medium or long-term.
Negligible A very minor alteration to key features or characteristics of the existing landscape. Typically this would be where in the short, medium or long-term the scale of change on landscape character would be barely perceptible.
Magnitude of Visual Impact 10.60 In accordance with paragraphs 6.38 to 6.41 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.115) (Ref 10.1), the magnitude of impact evaluates the visual impact identified in terms of the size or scale of each component of a development; the geographical extent of the area
188
influenced; and its duration and reversibility. The assessment of magnitude also refers to the nature of the impact (adverse or beneficial). More weight usually is given to impacts that are greater in scale and long-term in duration. In assessing the duration of the impact, consideration is given to the effectiveness of mitigation, particularly where planting is proposed as part of the works which would change the scale of visual impact. Table 10.3 below describes the magnitude criteria for visual assessment, which can be adverse or beneficial.
Table 10.3: Typical Criteria for the Assessment of the Magnitude of Impact on Views
Magnitude of Typical Criteria Impact
High Major alteration to the existing view and or the introduction of elements considered totally uncharacteristic in the view. Typically this would be where a development would be seen in close proximity with a large proportion of the view affected with little or no filtering and there would be a great scale of change from the present situation for the long or medium-term.
Moderate Partial alteration to the existing view and or the introduction of prominent elements in the view. Typically this would be where a development would be seen in views for the long or medium-term where a moderate proportion of the view is affected. There may be some screening, which would minimise the scale of change from the present situation. This would also be where a development would be seen in close proximity with a large proportion of the view affected for the short-term.
Low Low alteration to the existing view and or the introduction of features, which may already be present in views. Typically this would be where a moderate or low proportion of the view would be affected for the short-term or the development would be visible for the long-term in distant views; where only a small proportion of the view is affected in the medium-term or long-term; where the medium- term or long-term effect is reduced due to a high degree of filtering and or screening or where there is a low scale of change from the existing view.
Negligible Very low alteration to the existing view. Typically this would be where, in the short, medium or long-term, a development would be barely perceptible within a long distance panoramic view and or where a very small proportion of the view is affected. The scale of change from the existing view would be barely perceptible.
Sensitivity of Landscape 10.61 The sensitivity of the landscape has been considered in accordance with paragraph 5.39 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.88) (Ref 10.1). Landscape sensitivity considers
189
the landscape’s susceptibility to change to the development proposed, as stated at paragraph 5.42 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.89) (Ref 10.1), and the value attached to the landscape potentially affected. In addition to landscape character assessments, and with reference to Box 5.1 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.84) (Ref 10.1), other factors are considered when determining landscape value. These factors can include landscape quality, scenic quality, rarity, representativeness, conservation interest, recreation value and perceptual aspects. The susceptibility of a landscape to change is dependent on the characteristics of the receiving landscape and the type and nature of the development proposed. Landscape character types or areas also have varying sensitivity to the types of development they are able to accommodate. The assessment of landscape sensitivity has been assigned to the landscape within the study area by combining judgements on susceptibility to change and landscape value, with consideration to the typical criteria identified in Table 10.4 below.
Table 10.4: Typical Criteria for the Assessment of Landscape Sensitivity
Landscape Typical Criteria Sensitivity
High The landscape has a high susceptibility to change and has regional, national or international value; or The landscape has a medium susceptibility to change and has national or international value.
Medium The landscape has a high susceptibility to change and has community or local value; or The landscape has a medium susceptibility to change and has local or regional value; or The landscape has a low susceptibility to change and has national value.
Low The landscape has a medium susceptibility to change and has community value; or The landscape has a low susceptibility to change and has community, local or regional value.
Sensitivity of Visual Receptors 10.62 The sensitivity of visual receptors depends on the susceptibility of the view to change, and the value attached to the view experienced. The susceptibility of different visual receptors to potential changes in views and visual amenity is mainly a function of:
• the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view at particular locations; and • the extent to which their attention or interest may therefore be focussed on the views and the visual amenity they experience at particular locations.
10.63 The land use planning system considers that public views are of greater value than views from private property. This visual assessment has considered the effects on both public views and private views.
190
10.64 Judgements about the values attached to the views experienced have been considered in the context of the value placed on a scene, alternatives available and the relative scenic quality of a view. Most views are appreciated by the person experiencing them as they are preferable to not having a view and they provide some interest. The judgement of the value of a view is subjective and, in accordance with paragraph 6.37 of GLVIA3 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.114) (Ref 10.1), takes account of recognition of the value attached to particular views, for example in relation to heritage assets or through planning designations.
10.65 Receptor sensitivity has been assigned to receptors in accordance with the typical criteria in the table below.
Table 10.5: Typical Criteria for the Assessment of Visual Receptor Sensitivity
Receptor Typical Criteria Sensitivity
High The receptor view has a high susceptibility to change and has national, regional or local value; or The receptor view has a medium susceptibility to change and has national value.
Medium The receptor view has a high susceptibility to change and has community or local value; or The receptor view has a medium susceptibility to change and has community, local or regional value. The receptor view has a low susceptibility to change and has national value.
Low The receptor view has a low susceptibility to change and has community, local or regional value.
Duration of Effect 10.66 Duration of effect has been judged on a scale of:
• short-term: 0 to 5 years during the construction period and on completion; • medium-term: 5 to 15 years, which represents the establishment phase for any embedded replacement planting or additional mitigation planting; and • long-term: 15 years onwards for the life of the Proposed Development.
Significance of Landscape Effects 10.67 The significance of effect on landscape character is determined through the sequential combination of judgements on the landscape sensitivity and magnitude of impact in accordance with GLVIA3, paragraph 5.53 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.91) (Ref 10.1). Significance of effect on landscape character can be beneficial (enhance the landscape) or adverse (at odds with or harmful to the landscape’s key features or character) considering the typical criteria presented in Table 10.6 below.
191
Table 10.6: Typical Criteria for the Assessment of the Significance of Effect on Landscape Character
Significance Typical Criteria
Major adverse An effect of major adverse significance is generally recorded where a high adverse magnitude of impact occurs to a high or medium sensitivity landscape receptor. For example, when the Proposed Development would: be at complete variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape; would permanently degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of valued characteristic features and/or their setting; would substantially damage a high quality, highly valued landscape.
Moderate adverse An effect of moderate adverse significance is generally recorded where a moderate adverse magnitude of impact is experienced by a landscape receptor of high or medium sensitivity. For example, when the Proposed Development would: be at considerable variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape; would degrade, diminish or destroy the integrity of some characteristic features and/or their setting; would cause damage to the character of a valued landscape.
Minor adverse An effect of minor adverse significance generally relates to a low adverse magnitude of impact on the landscape. For example, when the Proposed Development would: result in short-term landscape effects; not quite fit into the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape; have an adverse effect on an area of recognised landscape character.
Negligible An effect of negligible significance is recorded where a negligible magnitude of impact occurs. For example, when the Proposed Development would: be in keeping with the scale, landform and pattern of the existing landscape; maintain the existing landscape quality.
192
Significance Typical Criteria
Minor An effect of minor beneficial significance generally relates to a low beneficial beneficial magnitude of impact on the landscape. For example, when the Proposed Development would: fit with the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape; enable the restoration of valued characteristic features partially lost through other land uses to improve the landscape quality and character.
Moderate An effect of moderate beneficial significance is generally recorded beneficial where a moderate beneficial magnitude of impact is experienced by a landscape receptor of high or medium sensitivity. For example, when the Proposed Development would: fit well with the existing scale, landform and pattern of the landscape; improve the quality of the landscape through removal of damage caused by previous or existing land uses.
Major An effect of major beneficial significance is generally recorded beneficial where a high beneficial magnitude of impact occurs to a high or medium sensitivity landscape receptor. For example, when the Proposed Development would: enhance and redefine the landscape character in a beneficial manner; repair or restore landscape badly damaged or degraded through previous or existing land uses.
10.68 A residual landscape effect of Moderate to Major Adverse significance would typically be considered significant in terms of being reported in an Environmental Statement.
Significance of Visual Effect 10.69 The assessment of the potential significant visual effects of the proposed Development is in accordance with GLVIA3 paragraphs 6.30 to 6.45 (LI and IEMA, 2013, p.113-116) (Ref 10.1). The significance of effect on views has been determined through the sequential combination of judgements on visual receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of impact. The significance of visual effects can be either adverse or beneficial or be recorded as ‘no effect’. The significance of visual effects considers the typical criteria shown in Table 10.7 below.
193
Table 10.7: Typical Criteria for the Assessment of the Significance of Effect on Views
Significance Typical Criteria
Major An effect of major significance is generally recorded where a high magnitude of impact occurs to a high or medium sensitivity receptor. For example where an unobstructed view of development would represent a large part of the view from a recreational footpath where views are presently open and of high scenic quality.
Moderate An effect of moderate significance is generally recorded where a moderate magnitude of impact is experienced by a receptor of high or medium sensitivity. For example where part of a development is visible in a view from a private property for the long or medium-term, but where it does not comprise the whole view; or where an unobstructed view of development is visible for the short-term.
Minor An effect of minor significance generally relates to a low magnitude of impact and often relates to a change in a view for the short-term; to a change in a distant view or a change in only a small part of a view, possibly because the view is already screened to a large extent.
Negligible An effect of negligible significance is where the change to a view will be barely perceptible from the view presently experienced.
10.70 A residual visual effect of Moderate to Major Adverse significance would typically be considered significant terms of being reported in an Environmental Statement.
Limitations and Assumptions
10.71 The assessment has been carried out in accordance with best practice guidance using the method in ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.1. Site surveys have been carried out on publicly accessible land and no access to private land has been undertaken other than Haydock Park racecourse by separate agreement. All surveys have been undertaken during daylight hours and a night-time assessment has not been requested by St Helens Council.
10.72 Photography has been undertaken during the winter months, in accordance with best practice guidance in GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1), in order to carry out the visual assessment using a worst case scenario of maximum visibility for visual receptors. The assessment assumes a maximum building height of 60.65m AOD across the build-zone with an assumption that the finished construction platform levels may vary by +/- 750mm.
10.73 The screened ZTV and visual assessment have assumed that the existing woodland beyond the PDS will be retained and managed in accordance with best practice.
194
Residual effects have been assessed using the predicted screening effects arising from the existing woodland in conjunction with the proposed planting.
Baseline Conditions
Landscape Character Baseline 10.74 The landscape character of the PDS and its surroundings is described in the following paragraphs at regional and local scale. This section identifies and summarises the relevant national and local Landscape Character Assessments and concludes with a landscape baseline summary drawn from site survey work and describing the existing baseline of the Proposed Development Site.
10.75 The published baseline information is extracted from the following guidance:
• National Character Area Profile 56: ‘Lancashire Coal Measures’ (Ref: 10.8) • St Helens Landscape Character Assessment: Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) (Ref: 10.6) • Wigan Landscape Character Area 1.A: ‘East Lancashire Road Corridor, Lowton Heath to Lately Common’ (Ref: 10.9)
NCA Profile 56: Lancashire Coal Measures 10.76 The Lancashire Coal Measures National Character Area (“NCA”) (Ref 10.8) surrounds the towns of St Helens and Wigan, and extends from the Mersey Valley NCA in the south to the Lancashire and Amounderness Plain NCA in the north-west. Rocks from the Carboniferous Coal Measures underlie most of the area, giving rise to a varied topography of gentle hills and valleys, with patchy layers of glacial deposits.
10.77 Within the urban fabric there are some large tracts of agricultural land and isolated pockets of former farmland. Agricultural land use is predominantly split between arable farming and permanent grassland for livestock.
10.78 Across much of the area woodland cover is very limited, although in recent years significant areas of woodland have been created. Some small, isolated pockets of semi- natural habitat remain within this NCA, such as relict ancient woodlands.
10.79 The NCA Profile states that this is an area of urban and industrial development. The settlement pattern is based around the historical development of mines and industry centred on Wigan and St Helens, leading to a scattered layout and close intermingling of housing and industry.
10.80 Future challenges for the area include continued pressure to accommodate the development of both housing and industry. This may provide opportunities for incorporating environmental and social benefits, such as accessible green space and recreational provision, as well as improving habitat quality, distribution and connectivity through linking urban areas with more open areas of countryside. Other benefits could include providing better water quality and storage, minimising soil erosion and increasing carbon storage. All of these factors can strengthen landscape resilience and adaptation to climate change.
10.81 The Key Characteristics of NCA56 are:
195
• Fragmented landscape created by a complex pattern of mining and industrial activity intermixed with housing; this is a densely populated area with a scattered settlement pattern. • The area is underlain by Coal Measures, which are buried under a patchy layer of glacial deposits, subsequently affected by a long history of mineral working. • Woodland cover is limited across most of the area (covering 9 per cent), except to the north-west of Wigan. Community woodlands have been established on many post-industrial sites, and bring multiple benefits, including for public access and nature conservation. • Some large tracts and isolated pockets of agricultural land remain within the urban fabric, principally used for permanent grassland or cereal production, although horse grazing and stabling are also common. • Field patterns are predominantly medium to large and rectangular, mostly resulting from 18th-century and later change, with field boundaries defined by poorly managed hedges or post-and-wire fencing. Scattered ponds and fragmented pockets of semi-natural habitat remain. • The area is significantly influenced by transport and utilities infrastructure, with motorways, major roads and rail lines criss-crossing the landscape.
10.82 The NCA Profile contains Statements of Environmental Opportunity (SEO) which identify opportunities for enhancement of the character area. The following SEOs are relevant to this land and its environs.
• SEO 1: Safeguard, manage and expand the mosaic of wetland habitats, watercourses, and ponds – to protect and enhance their ecological value, to increase their contribution to the landscape, to manage flood risk, to improve water quality, and to increase the resilience to climate change of these habitats and associated species. • SEO 3: Manage and support the agricultural landscape through conserving, enhancing, linking and expanding the habitat network (including grasslands, woodlands, ponds, hedges and field margins) – to increase connectivity and resilience to climate change, and reduce soil erosion and diffuse pollution, while conserving the qualities of the farmed landscape and improving opportunities for enjoyment of the open countryside. • SEO 4: Expand and link green infrastructure through restoring and enhancing post-industrial sites and creating new habitat mosaics that raise the overall quality, design and location of new development, bringing multiple environmental benefits including functioning networks for wildlife and access and recreational amenities for people to enjoy.
St Helens Landscape Character Assessment: Haydock Park (WFE 2) 10.83 The area is described as fundamentally rural with a complex, predominantly developed edge incorporating sections of settlement edges at Newton le Willows, Haydock, Ashton-in- Makerfield (outwith Borough). To the east of Haydock the alignment of the M6 on embankment poses a strong robust edge to the industrial estate. More recent residential development to the south of Haydock and the north of Newton-le- Willow has produced highly visible hard urban edges. To the west of Newton-le- Willows the urban edge is indented with a typically historic pattern that relates well to the linear market town settlement pattern. East of this an area of narrow landscape has become
196
fragmented from the main parkland by the raised embankments to the M6. As a result urban edges vary from Strong to Weak in character.
10.84 The Key Characteristics are:
• a generally flat, open landscape with strong horizontal composition, subtly rising in elevation from the course of the Newton Brook to the south east at 25m AOD up to 50 metres at the urban edge with Ashton-in-Makerfield; • a park landscape covering an extensive area to the extreme east of St Helens Borough, although highly fragmented and divided by the location of the M6 running north to south and the A580 running east to west often at elevation. In addition the character area has a complex indented boundary defined to the east by the location of the St Helens Council administrative boundary and to the north, west and south by a varied and indented predominantly urban edge; • the predominant land use of the area is arable farmland cultivated within a large scale geometric regular field system. Hedged field boundaries vary in condition and where neglected they emphasise the sense of openness and scale of the landscape; • mature woodland blocks, shelterbelts and plantations interrupt the field pattern to create an interesting spatial sequence and partially enclose several of the fields; • to the north the character area is defined by the layout of the Haydock Race Course, for which the grassed white-fenced course sits relatively unobtrusively within the large scale open park landscape. Associated development to the racecourse including the entrance buildings, entrance road and parking is identifiable with the racecourse and defined by regular formal ornamental planting of conifers to the entrance area although the white stands extend above the tree crown; • within the mature landscape structure a number of small dams and lakes /ponds and associated riparian woodland are found along the narrow valley to Newton Brook and tributaries which flows southwards and is dammed at intervals to form the Dean Dam and Newton Lake; • there are remnants of former estate structures such as walls and ornamental gate features; • the large grade separated elevated road junction of the M6 and A580 separates and divides the character area, dominating the experience of the landscape and detracting from the rural qualities of the area; • within the area there is minimal settlement with buildings related to the functions of Haydock Park or a scatter of farm steading. The proximity and visual prominence of the surrounding settled edges imposes an urban character on the landscape.
10.85 The St Helens Landscape Character Assessment also makes a judgement about the area’s potential to accommodate development. It states that the area is considered to be generally unsuitable for development due to its strong intact character and varied number of well-established land uses. It goes on to suggest that there may be opportunities for limited small scale development reflecting the existing small scale patterns of development, which would avoid further fragmentation of the landscape and which would not interrupt the existing interplay of open to enclosed space.
197
10.86 The St Helens LCA suggests that the contemporary raw immature edges to the south of Haydock and north of Newton-le-Willows should be strengthened using an appropriate large scale landscape structure which reflects the typical scale and grandeur of the woodland structure elsewhere in the estate. Within this narrow undeveloped corridor the landscape structure should be reinforced to improve the strength of character and maintain a contrast between the urban and rural landscapes.
Wigan Landscape Character Assessment 10.87 The land immediately adjoining the St Helens Council boundary, to the east, lies within the Wigan Landscape Character Assessment. The broad landscape character ‘type’ is assessed as Character Type 1: Undulating Enclosed farmland and the character area immediately abutting St Helens Landscape Character Area WFE2 is Wigan Landscape Character Area 1.A: ‘East Lancashire Road Corridor, Lowton Heath to Lately Common’.
10.88 The Wigan Landscape Character Assessment states that Character Type 1: Undulating Enclosed Farmland (Ref 10.9) originally covered much more extensive tracts of low lying land to the centre, east and south of the Borough. They now form broken and fragmented parcels of land of varying size, often enclosed by surrounding development. Mining and extractive industries, together with residential, industrial and commercial use, have increased their fragmentation.
10.89 Specific areas of agricultural land have been taken for mining and open-cast extraction and later restored to agriculture. These areas are often characterised by their poor quality reinstatement, thin soils, poor drainage, lost hedgerows and altered ground levels.
10.90 There are a large number of ponds within the landscape, frequently identified by their fringes of willow and alder.
10.91 The undulating enclosed farmland mainly comprises of grazed pastureland, although cereal crops are frequently found, particularly around the areas of the Haigh and Haydock estates.
10.92 The arable areas are subject to high input farming, requiring large amounts of manure or organic fertiliser. The viability of the farming methods is clearly under pressure from the urban fringe and, in some locations, land has been sold or leased for horse grazing or other leisure activities.
10.93 The Key Characteristics of Character Type 1 which apply to this area are:
• Undulating enclosed farmland • Hedgerow field boundaries, often gapped, with few hedgerow trees • Fragmented areas of land mainly enveloped by urban, suburban and industrial development • Mainly medium-sized fields comprising a mixture of both pasture and cereal crops • Presence of small ponds • Lack of woodlands, except where associated with former halls and parkland estates
198
10.94 The Landscape Character Area which immediately abuts the study area is Area 1.A: East Lancashire Road Corridor, Lowton Heath to Lately Common (Ref 10.9). This area has a number of key characteristics in common with the Landscape Character Area described in the St Helens Landscape Character assessment. This area forms an agricultural landscape buffer to the densely developed residential areas of Golborne. Views within the area are limited due to the low-lying and relatively flat nature of the land and due to surrounding development and high hedgerows, particularly to the East Lancashire Road (A580). The East Lancashire Road is visually dominant throughout much of the area, particularly where it runs on embankments. Most of the land is closely associated with the East Lancashire Road and is typified by a medium to large- scale field pattern consisting of mainly arable land with poorly maintained remnant hedgerows with few hedgerow trees.
10.95 Small deciduous woodlands form backdrops to views within the landscape, mainly at Haydock Park and along the course of Newton Brook. The land is relatively flat and low-lying to the east with more strongly undulating ground to the west. Along the western boundary the land drops steeply into the discrete valleys of Newton Brook to the west and its tributary Millingford Brook to the east
10.96 The Key Characteristics are:
• Medium to often large-scale fields, mainly cereal crops • Lack of hedgerow trees • Hedgerows between fields often gapped • Deciduous wooded backdrops to the south and west • Limited internal views • The A580 road and its embankments • Views of residential urban edge to the north • Undulating ground to the west associated with Newton Brook and Millingford Brook
Summary of Opportunities and Constraints 10.97 The following opportunities have been summarised from the available Landscape Character Assessments described above:
• To enhance the degraded hedgerow structure by new hedges and supplementing existing poor hedges (NCA 56) (Ref 10.8); • To retain watercourses and enhance opportunities for bio-diversity (NCA 56: SEO1) (Ref 10.8); • To increase permeability and connectivity for adjacent urban areas (NCA 56: SEO4; St Helens LCA) (Ref 10.8 and 10.6); • To provide recreational opportunities – walkways and cycle routes (NCA 56: SEO4) (Ref 10.8); • To enhance existing woodland by providing linkages for visual and biodiversity benefits (NCA 56: SEO3) (Ref 10.8); • To introduce woodland for the further screening of detractors (St Helens LCA) (Ref 10.6); • To rationalise the fragmented landscape character by introducing a positive GI framework (NCA 56: SEO3) (Ref 10.8); and
199
• For new development to be in keeping with moderate sensitivity of landscape, characterised by flat landscape of large scale field pattern and mature woodland blocks (NCA 56: SEO3) (Ref 10.8).
10.98 The following constraints have been summarised from the available Landscape Character Assessments:
• The NCA Profile:56 (Ref 10.8) recommends the retention of open countryside between the industrial towns to enhance the landscape. It suggests that open countryside should be retained and managed between settlements to maintain the ‘complex pattern of farmed land, housing and industry/development’. • The St Helens LCA (Ref 10.6), states that this area is generally considered unsuitable for development due to its strong intact character and varied number of well-established land uses. The LCA suggests that there may be opportunities for limited small scale development reflecting the existing small scale patterns of development, which would avoid further fragmentation of the landscape and which would not interrupt the existing interplay of open to enclosed space. • The LCA also suggests that the developed industrial edge to the east of Haydock, reinforced by the elevated line of the M6, should pose a constraint to further development eastwards. • In addition the LCA it is suggested that the ‘contemporary raw immature edges’ to the south of Haydock and north of Newton-le-Willows should be strengthened using an appropriate large scale landscape structure which reflects the scale of the woodland structure elsewhere in the estate. Within this narrow undeveloped corridor the landscape structure should be reinforced to improve the strength of character and maintain a contrast between the urban and rural landscapes.
10.99 Any development of the area should also:
• mitigate encroachment of further urban development with unsympathetic buildings; • conserve open, large scale character of the landscape and woodland blocks; • Maintain and reinforce woodland belts and landscape features of lakes and streams dissected by road corridors to retain links between areas and a strong landscape structure which can avoid emphasising the road corridor and withstand future development inappropriate to the landscape character.
Landscape Character of the PDS and the study area
The Land 10.100 The PDS comprises an area of farmland to the east of the M6 motorway and north of the A580 East Lancashire Road, as indicated on the Site Location Plan (ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.1). The agricultural land to the north of the A580 and east of the M6 motorway has an open character with a largely degraded pattern of field boundary vegetation and an existing field drainage ditch.
10.101 The western boundary of the land is marked by a roadside hedgerow which is well- maintained and separates the land from Lodge Lane and the M6 motorway embankments to the west. The northern boundary of the land is characterised by dense woodland shelterbelts and screening plantations which follow the boundary of the
200
adjacent Haydock Park Racecourse. The woodland is regimented in its form to the north and comprises single species blocks, some comprising evergreen trees and others comprising deciduous trees. As the plantations follow the boundary around its eastern edge and merge with White Door Covert, the composition of the woodland becomes more mixed and natural in appearance. The entire eastern boundary is wooded with the exception of a small field adjacent to the A580 road corridor. However, the woodland screen continues beyond the field providing a wooded visual boundary further to the east.
10.102 The southern boundary of the land is marked by the A580 road boundary and verges. Roadside vegetation is limited on the westbound approach to the M6 motorway but further east, trees and hedgerows are a characteristic feature of the road boundary and merge with the adjacent woodland.
10.103 There is no built form within the boundaries of the Proposed Development site.
Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and access 10.104 The PDS currently offers little in the way of public access with no PRoW within its boundaries. A PRoW (PRoW 655) follows the north eastern boundary and there is a combined footpath/cycleway along the westbound carriageway of the A580 East Lancashire Road to the south of the land. The cycleway is a local route and does not form part of the National Cycle Network (Sustrans).
Value of the Landscape 10.105 The value of the landscape is considered in the following paragraphs at a local scale. This section summarises the value ascribed to the landscape in the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (2006) (Ref 10.6) and concludes with an updated and revised assessment of landscape value in accordance with GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1) (LI & IEMA, 2013:p80).
St Helens Council assessment of landscape value 10.106 An assessment of the value of the landscape within the Haydock Park Character Area (WFE 2) (Ref 10.6) has previously been carried out by St Helens Council. The assessment characterises the area broadly as Wooded Former Estate and the positive features of the landscape are noted as being the flat, large scale agricultural landscape and the large scale, open parkland with strong woodland structure creating interplay of open to enclosed space.
10.107 Negative aspects of the area have been identified (ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.4: p112) (Ref 10.6) and those which are applicable to the land under consideration include:
• Loss of hedgerows and field boundaries in some locations. The weakest area of PDS is in the northern section where the field boundary vegetation has been lost. • Physical, visual and audible influence of the M6 and A580 within the area, fragmenting the landscape character area. The M6 in particular is elevated which increases its influence. • The encroachment of urban elements and unsympathetic buildings and landscape features associated with the racecourse. Much of this development is screened from the PDS by tree belts including a proportion of evergreen species but glimpses of the stands are visible from the most northerly part of the land.
201
10.108 The parkland landscape value was assessed by St Helens Council as medium in 2006. The condition and intactness of the area was assessed by St Helens Council as moderate due to the fragmentation of the landscape by the large scale development of communications infrastructure.
Landscape Sensitivity 10.109 An assessment of the sensitivity of the landscape within the Haydock Park Character Area (WFE 2) (Ref 10.6) was carried out by St Helens Council in 2006. The assessment considered the following criteria:
• strength of the typical landscape character • the condition and intactness of the landscape; and • the aesthetic character of the landscape
10.110 Overall, the strength of character was described by St Helens Council as moderate due to the overriding flat landscape with large scale field pattern and interplay of mature woodland blocks. The aesthetic character has been described by St Helens Council as moderate to strong due to the woodland blocks, coppices and plantations which retain a strong character although it is noted that the aesthetic character is influenced, in part, by infrastructure and visible urban edges.
10.111 The parkland landscape sensitivity has been assessed by St Helens Council as medium.
10.112 Based on these factors, the land contained was judged to be of moderate sensitivity to change by St Helens Council (Ref 10.6) in 2006. Following the publication of GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1), the method of assessment carried out by St Helens Council, in 2006, has been superseded. An updated assessment of landscape value, in accordance with GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1) (LI & IEMA, 2013:p80), has been carried out in the next section of this assessment
GLVIA3 assessment of landscape value 10.113 In accordance with the current best practice guidance contained in GLVIA3 (LI & IEMA, 2013:80) (Ref 10.1), landscape value has been assessed in accordance with the method, contained at Appendix 10.1, as follows:
202
Table 10.8: Criteria for the assessment of Landscape Value
Criteria Description Value Assessment
Landscape quality and condition The PDS is characterised by a large-scale pattern of arable Community fields some ditches and fragmented hedges that have become weak and broken in places. These elements bring a feeling of openness to the area. Urban influences, such as local roads, affect the character of parts of the landscape. The local settlements of Ashton-in-Makerfield and Golborne exert some influence on the character of the immediate surrounding landscape in contrast to its open rural character. Overall the landscape quality and condition is Fair.
Scenic quality The PDS has limited views which are disrupted by motorway Community embankments, woodland blocks, copses and the surrounding built form of settlements. Whilst this largely screens any visual intrusion, the local roads to the south and west are perceptible throughout much of the area, although the northern and eastern extents between White Door Covert and Lady Hill Plantation retain a more tranquil feel. Intervisibility with other areas and sites is largely restricted, although some open views are possible looking south across the A580.
Rarity This landscape does not contain any particularly rare landscape Local elements or features. Areas of woodland are present outside the PDS boundary. White Door Covert and Lady Hill Plantation are remnants of a degraded parkland landscape associated with the historic Haydock Lodge and Haydock Park with an adjoining former coursing ground (now the site of the Haydock Racecourse).
203
Criteria Description Value Assessment
Representativeness The Study Area is generally representative of the Lancashire Local Coal Measures NCA Profile 56 (Ref 10.8). The local landscape is consistent with some of the key characteristics described in NCA 56, including some large tracts of agricultural land with scattered ponds and limited woodland cover. The area is significantly influenced by transport infrastructure with the M6 Motorway and a major road, the A580, crossing the landscape. The site is within the St Helens Landscape Character Area: Haydock Park (5 WFE 2) (Ref 10.6). It is consistent with the description of a park landscape to the extreme east of St Helens Borough although highly fragmented and divided by the M6 and the A580.
Conservation Interests There are no scheduled monuments in the study area. Community There are no known Listed Buildings within the PDS. There is one Grade II Listed Building in Barn Lane which is not visible from the PDS. The Heritage value of the PDS is described in detail in Chapter 9.
Recreational Value There are no Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within, or Community immediately adjacent, the PDS boundary. There is no public access to the PDS.
204
Criteria Description Value Assessment
Perceptual Aspects The landscape is influenced by human activity, with intensive Community farming, major road infrastructure and the influence of the built edge of Golborne and Ashton-in-Makerfield. The M6 motorway, on embankment, and the A580 are visually intrusive in the wider landscape and there are also a small number of local roads which are visible as corridors of movement within open views of the landscape.
Associations The PDS is not associated with any specific historical events, Community people or literature. The local wider landscape contains remnant parkland and the Haydock Park Racecourse but the PDS has no important associations.
Overall Judgement on Value With consideration of the factors described above, the PDS has Community a predominantly community value.
205
10.114 In consideration of the factors described above, overall the Proposed Development Site and its surroundings has Community value meaning that it is a landscape which is valued by residents and workers within the community, but for which there is no particular indication of a higher value (ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.1, Table 1).
Visual baseline
Visual Context 10.115 This visual baseline has been prepared in accordance with the guidance contained in GLVIA3 (LI&IEMA, 2013: pp98-112) (Ref 10.1) and the visual influence of the land has been determined through a combination of topographic analysis, the production of two ZTVs (bare earth and screened) and field evaluation of existing features affecting visibility such as built form and trees, hedgerows and vegetation that would filter and screen views of any Proposed Development. This analysis has determined the potential visibility of the land and identified potential visual receptors.
10.116 There are no key views identified in Local Planning Policy or Landscape Character Assessments but the area has been allocated a medium visual sensitivity by St Helens Council in the Landscape Character Assessment produced in 2006 (Ref 10.6). This was based upon the following criteria which are heavily influenced by landscape character:
• General visibility – Low to medium. Open, flat landscape with limited visibility to other character types by road embankments. The mature woodland blocks frequently create a sense of enclosure and restrict views. • Population – Moderate. There are minimal numbers of people living within this area. High levels of viewers will travel through the area at an elevated level with views across the landscape.
Topography and Views from the Proposed Development Site 10.117 The topography is relatively flat. This is associated with farmland overlying the Lancashire Coalfield. Views are available from the Proposed Development Site towards the surrounding settlements of Ashton-in-Makerfield, Golborne and Haydock but these are frequently limited to filtered glimpses due to the extensive woodland blocks and scattered hedgerows. The most visible feature is the manmade embankment of the M6 motorway which passes through the study area. The motorway boundary is characterised by intermittent trees and hedgerows at the base of the east and west facing grass covered slopes.
10.118 Despite the flat terrain, the presence of substantial woodland blocks in the landscape results in a lack of long distance views from the PDS. Views are strongly influenced by the embankments of the M6 motorway. The main detractors in views from the PDS are the major transport corridors of the M6 and A580 with constant traffic movement, much of it elevated around Junction 23 of the M6.
Views of the PDS from the North 10.119 The settlement of Ashton in Makerfield and Haydock Park Racecourse lie to the north of the PDS. The presence of tree belts to the south of the residential areas, and also on the southern boundary of the racecourse, reduces the potential for open views of the PDS. Views from residential properties are filtered in winter and likely to be all but
206
obscured by deciduous woodland in summer. Views from the racecourse are limited by the evergreen tree boundary to its southern boundary although there is the potential for views from the upper stands. More open views across the PDS are possible from the curtilage of the Holiday Inn Hotel although there is some filtering by vegetation on the boundary to the car park. The most open views from the north are available from the elevated southbound carriageway of the M6 motorway and the slip road at Junction 23 but it is likely that these views will be brief, oblique and experienced at speed by road users.
Views of the PDS from the West 10.120 The town of Haydock lies to the west of the land. Views from Old Boston Trading Estate are screened by a combination of vegetation, built form and roadside embankments. Views of the PDS are mainly restricted to glimpses beneath the grade separated Junction 23 of the M6.
Views of the PDS from the East 10.121 Views from the east are experienced by the western edge of Golborne, scattered farm properties and private recreational sites. Views of the PDS from Golborne are largely screened by the existing woodland blocks of White Door Covert and Lady Hill Plantation although there is the potential for any future tall structures to be visible above the trees. There are open views across the intervening farmland from Park Road, Newton Lane and Barn Lane. Properties in Barn lane experience direct views across fields from the rear elevation but the views are filtered by garden vegetation and the land is obscured by woodland in the middle distance.
10.122 Other receptors to the south of the A580, East Lancashire Road, include Dean Dam Farm but views to the west are screened by the woodland associated with Dean Dam and Dean Moor Wood. This woodland also largely screens the views from the Haydock Park Golf Course on Newton Lane.
Views of the PDS from the South 10.123 The northern edge of Newton-le-Willows does not have views of the PDS. Views generally are filtered or completely screened by field boundary vegetation, the tree belt associated with Ellam’s Brook and King’s Coppice and the embankments of the M6 motorway.
10.124 The most open views from the south are available from the elevated northbound carriageway of the M6 motorway and the slip road at Junction 23 but it is likely that these views will be brief, oblique and experienced at speed by road users.
Visual Receptors 10.125 Both public and private receptors have views towards the Proposed Development Site. Public receptors include users of a Public Right of Way (PRoW) that runs north of the land; users of the M6 motorway; and users of the A580 East Lancashire Road and other local roads including pedestrians and cyclists.
10.126 Private receptors refer to residential, commercial and industrial properties close to the Proposed Development Site which are anticipated to have views towards the PDS. There are no residential properties within the site boundary. Adjacent and surrounding residential properties and farms are largely associated with Golborne to the north-east,
207
Haydock to the west, Newton-le-Willows to the south and Ashton in Makerfield to the north. There are also scattered dwellings and farmsteads within the farmland that separates the settlements. The sensitivity of these visual receptors depends upon the location of the viewpoint, the expectations and activity of the receptor and the importance of the view.
10.127 The following visual receptors will form the basis of the Visual Impact Assessment and are shown on ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.6:
Public Receptors 10.128 Users of Footpaths
(a) PRoW 655 (b) PRoW 648 and 649 (c) PRoWs to the east and north of the Old Boston Trading Estate (d) PRoW 40 (e) PRoW 29 (f) PRoW 13
10.129 Users of Roads
(a) M6 motorway (b) A580 East Lancashire Road – car users (c) A580 East Lancashire Road – pedestrians and cyclists (d) A49 Lodge Lane (e) A599 Penny Lane (f) Vista Road (g) Local road network including Golborne Rd, Newton Lane and Warrington Rd.
10.130 Private Receptors
(a) Haydock Park Farm and Haydock Park Farm Cottages (b) Residents in Haydock (c) Residents in Newton-le-Willows (d) Residents in Ashton-in-Makerfield (NW of PDS) (e) Residents in Aston-in-Makerfield (NE of PDS) (f) Residents in Golborne (g) Holiday Inn Hotel (h) Mercure Hotel, Haydock (i) Old Boston Trading Estate (j) The Parks (k) Shell Petrol Station, Haydock (l) Haydock Park racecourse (m) Haydock Park Golf Club
Assessment of Likely Significant Effects on Landscape and Views
10.131 This assessment has been carried out on the basis of the Landscape and Visual Baseline which is a description of the conditions existing at the time of the desk-top study and field surveys in winter, 2016. The assessment of potential effects has been
208
carried out in accordance with the project phasing and delivery plan which anticipates that construction would commence in 2017 with completion anticipated in 2022.
10.132 Parameters plans have been developed which assist with the assessment of the likely landscape and visual effects. The parameters are included in the application in order to provide a level of protection and mitigation or enhancement for the landscape and ecological features of the site and its surrounds. The plans are 30926-FE-008E (Parameters Plan with Site Layout Overlaid) and 30926-FE-027B (Ecology Mitigation Proposals).
10.133 The embedded measures shown on the parameters plans are summarised as follows:
• A 15m zone within the PDS boundary would be used for landscape planting, using predominantly native woodland species, with the exception of the new road access from the A580 (reason: to enable the implementation of root protection zones from neighbouring woodland, to strengthen the local landscape character by connecting existing woodlands and to assist in the visual integration of the PDS; • The 15m buffer zone adjacent White Door Covert and Lady Hill Plantation would be maintained as a “dark corridor” where there would be no lighting oriented towards the tree canopy in the interests of the Local Wildlife Site (Ref Chapter 8: Ecology) and to avoid light spillage in views from residential areas to the east. • Generally, external lighting will be kept to a minimum to serve the operation needs of the PDS. Upward lighting and light trespass shall be minimised with lighting kept near to, or below, the horizontal. Narrow spectrum bulbs shall be used with the emission of UV light kept to a minimum. Lighting columns shall be as low in height as possible with directional lighting to ensure that the ‘dark corridors’ described in Chapter 8: Ecology, are maintained at 3 lux or below. • The central ditch corridor would have no more than two road crossings, and an open 8m buffer zone measured outwards from top of banktop on each side of the ditch would be kept as a permanent landscape zone in the interests of water voles (Ref Chapter 8: Ecology); • A vegetated surface water attenuation system would be provided west of Unit A, to include use of native grassland and reedbed mixes, and a commitment to providing at least 300 linear metres of normally-wet ditch that is separate to the main attenuation surface water system which fluctuates in level to ensure net enhancement of ditch habitats, • A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) would be implemented to ensure that the landscape corridors shown on the parameters plans would be protected and managed during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. The Habitat management measures are contained in Appendix 8.7.
Landscape Assessment
Landscape sensitivity 10.134 In accordance with the assessment method (ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.1), landscape sensitivity sequentially combines judgements of the landscape’s susceptibility to change of the type of development proposed and the value attached to the landscape as
209
defined in the Landscape Baseline. The following assessment considers the extent to which the landscape can accommodate the proposed change without suffering detrimental effects on its character.
Landscape Susceptibility to Change 10.135 The Proposed Development Site is within an area of farmland characterised by a small number of medium to large sized fields with hedgerow or woodland boundaries particularly in the north and east. The landscape of the study area contains man-made elements including the elevated M6 motorway corridor to the west, the A580 East Lancashire Road corridor to the south and there are urban influences arising from the surrounding urban areas, including Haydock and Golborne, in the Study Area. The combination of the motorway embankments, woodland blocks and built form provides a degree of enclosure to the farmland which contains the PDS.
10.136 In summary, there is some small-scale residential development and built form present in the landscape of the Study Area and there is screening in the form of woodland and man-made landform. The landscape cannot completely accommodate the construction and operation of the Proposed Development Site without suffering some detrimental effects on its character but these effects will be contained to the PDS, and the landscape immediately surrounding the PDS, and the Susceptibility to Change is therefore assessed as being Medium in the context of the Study Area.(ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.1: LVIA Methodology: Table 2).
Landscape Sensitivity 10.137 The landscape sensitivity considers the landscape’s susceptibility to change to the development proposed and the value attached to the landscape affected. The Landscape baseline has identified the study area as having Community value and the Susceptibility to Change has been assessed as Medium. Landscape sensitivity has been assigned to the landscape of the study area with consideration to the criteria set out in ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.1: LVIA Method: Table 3.
10.138 The landscape of the study area has medium susceptibility to change and is of community value. The landscape is therefore assessed as being of Low Sensitivity.
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects
10.139 During construction there would be an increased level of activity on the application site which would have a short term effect on the character of the PDS and the immediate surrounding landscape. Construction would involve temporary operation of plant and machinery engaged in soil-stripping and storage, followed by works to build the access roads, areas of hard standing and the construction of Logistics buildings. Some work would take place using cranes at heights greater than the structures being built. The use of higher cranes or rigs is only anticipated to occur on a short-term basis associated with deliveries, foundation and roofing work. It is anticipated that works may proceed across the application site in phases. Temporary structures would include compounds, stockpiles for soil and stone, hoardings and fencing. As construction proceeds, the new buildings would become increasingly visible, altering the character of the application site from being farmland surrounded by trees to a site with increased human activity and new industrial and commercial elements.
210
10.140 The trees and woodland around the periphery of the Proposed Development Site are distinctive features in the landscape and all would be retained during construction work. This would help maintain some consistency in landscape character during the construction phase. In addition, sections of the hedgerow along Lodge Lane would be retained. The magnitude of effect on landscape character would be moderate to low adverse during the construction period in that there would be a perceivable scale of change on the local landscape but this would be for a short duration.
10.141 The landscape is of low sensitivity to the proposed development. Given the moderate to low magnitude of effect during construction, the significance of effect would be Moderate to Minor adverse during the construction phase.
Assessment of Operational Phase Effects 10.142 The PDS lies within National Character Area Profile 56: ‘Lancashire Coal Measures’ (Ref 10.8) and the local St Helens Landscape Character Assessment: Haydock Park (WFE 2) (Ref 10.6). The National Character Area Profile covers a wide area and broadly identifies the fragmented character of the wider landscape with specific reference to the motorway corridors and large tracts and isolated pockets of agricultural land within the urban fabric which are characteristic of the Study Area. At this scale, the magnitude of effect on the National Character Area would be Low adverse on the basis that the Proposed Development will introduce features that are already present in National Character Area 56. The significance of effect on the landscape character of National Character Area 56 would be Minor adverse.
10.143 The effects on the landscape character of LCA WFE2 (Ref 10.6), as defined by St Helens Council, are offset by the existing man-made elements that influence the area including the physical, visual and audible influence of the M6 and A580, fragmenting the landscape character area. The M6 in particular is elevated which increases its influence. The intactness of the character area around the PDS has been further fragmented by the loss of hedgerows and field boundaries resulting in the area around the PDS being the weakest part of the LCA.
10.144 St Helens Council Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.6) refers to the encroachment of urban elements and unsympathetic buildings and landscape features associated with the Haydock Park racecourse. Much of this development is screened from the PDS by tree belts including a proportion of evergreen species but glimpses of the stands are visible from the most northerly part of the PDS which adds to the urban influence and results in a lesser magnitude of effect on the LCA from the Proposed Development.
10.145 During operation the developed parts of the Proposed Development Site would be an enduring presence in the landscape. They would permanently alter the PDS landscape character from open farmland, partly bounded by woodland, to a low density logistics park with associated infrastructure and a landscaped boundary treatment providing a visual link to surrounding woodlands.
10.146 However man-made influences are currently present in the Study Area to the west of the PDS including the embankments of the elevated M6 motorway and the Old Boston Trading Estate beyond. Other urban influences include the A580 corridor to the south and small business and industrial parks in the wider landscape, including Stone Cross
211
Park, although these do not share intervisibility with the PDS. There are urban influences arising from the edge of nearby settlements including Golborne and Ashton- in-Makerfield, and a group of structures associated with the racecourse to the north. There will be no effect on the existing woodland plantations in the Study Area and these would provide a mature setting for the PDS limiting its visibility in the wider landscape. The Proposed Development would result in a Moderate magnitude of effect on the landscape character of the Study Area as it would introduce prominent elements onto land formerly used for farmland. There would be a perceivable scale of change to the character of the PDS for the long term although this would be largely contained within the Study Area. Given the high level of enclosure by existing woodland, the presence of other features which detract from the quality of the landscape and the Low sensitivity of the undesignated landscape, the significance of effect on landscape character would be Moderate to Minor adverse.
Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects
Intra-project
Table 10.9: Intra-relationship of Effects
ES Topic Potential Interaction with Landscape
Chapter 6 - Socio- No potential interaction identified. economic
Chapter 7 - The site access has been designed to ensure that a 15m Transport landscape corridor can be achieved in the south east corner of the PDS. The proposed landscape corridor of 15m will compensate for any loss of trees required to construct the new road access to the PDS from the A580 and A49.
Chapter 8 - Chapter 8 identifies embedded ecological mitigation Ecology measures and the proposed landscape corridors, comprising predominantly native species, will be managed through a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) providing a beneficial effect on landscape character. The protected water vole corridor will restrict the area for new screen planting on part of the PDS boundary by avoiding new planting within 5m of the ditch through the water vole corridor and a proposed, permanently wet ditch will encroach into part of the eastern landscape corridor but will have little effect on landscape due to the adjacent existing woodland. On balance, the interaction is not predicted to have any significant adverse or beneficial effects on landscape.
Chapter 9 - No potential interaction identified. Historic Environment
212
ES Topic Potential Interaction with Landscape
Chapter 10 – N/A Landscape and Views
Chapter 11 - Air No potential interaction identified. Quality
Chapter 12- Noise Noise mitigation during operation of the Proposed Development would generally be embedded in the design of the building and operations. The future detailed design of the Proposed Development in the south west corner of the Site may result in the requirement for an acoustic barrier, up to 5m high, in the no-build zone. The barrier would match the appearance of the buildings in views and would screen ground level operations in views from the south. On balance, the interaction is not predicted to have any significant adverse or beneficial effects on landscape. Further details are presented in chapter 12.
Chapter 13 – No potential interaction identified. Geology, Soils and Contamination
Chapter 14 – Flood Flood risk and drainage measures have been addressed Risk and Drainage through SuDs as embedded mitigation. Restrictions on planting will apply to catchment areas which will be outside the 15m landscape corridor. On balance, the interaction is not predicted to have any significant adverse or beneficial effects on landscape.
10.147 Potential interaction has been identified between the Transport, Ecology, Drainage, Noise and Landscape topic areas. It is predicted that, in the medium to long term, there will be no significant effects arising from these interactions. The management of the proposed landscape corridors through a LHMP will be beneficial but, on balance, the landscape effects will remain as assessed.
Inter-project 10.148 A review of planning applications in the local area has considered the potential for other projects to give rise to likely significant cumulative effects on landscape when considered in conjunction with the PDS.
10.149 The following local sites have been considered as part of this cumulative assessment:
• Land to the North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway, Haydock • Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock • Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock • Parkside Development
10.150 Details of each are provided below.
213
10.151 All of the planning applications fall within The Lancashire Coal Measures National Character Area (NCA) 56 (Ref 10.8) which surrounds the towns of St Helens and Wigan, and extends from the Mersey Valley NCA in the south to the Lancashire and Amounderness Plain NCA in the north- west. Although the NCA Profile states that this is an area of urban and industrial development, the small scale of the planning applications under consideration within the wider scale of the character area is not predicted to be significant in terms of any cumulative effect on the NCA. This assessment will consider the cumulative effects of the proposed sites with the PDS on the Landscape Character Areas identified by St Helens Council (Ref 10.6)
Land to the North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway, Haydock 10.152 The site identified as Land to the North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway, Haydock, is a B8 warehouse hybrid planning application. The application site is 0.5km west of the PDS but separated from it by the M6 motorway embankments and the A49, Lodge Lane.
10.153 A LVIA forms part of the Environmental Statement (July 2015) in support of the application and the landscape judgements within that assessment have been used as the basis for determining whether there are likely to be any cumulative effects arising from the two developments, which are separated by the M6 motorway.
10.154 The Land to North of Penny Lane lies within the ‘Industrial Fringe: Haydock Industrial Estate’ LCA as identified in the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.6) which is separated from the ‘Wooded Former Estate: Haydock Park’ LCA (Ref 10.6) by the M6 motorway corridor resulting in limited intervisibility between the character areas. Overall, the proposed development to the west of the motorway has been assessed as having a Slight to Moderate adverse effect on landscape in the short-term. The Proposed Development has been assessed as having a Moderate to Minor adverse significance of effect on Landscape Character.
10.155 The identified landscape effects arising from the Penny Lane site and the Proposed Development apply to the landscape of different LCAs and are both physically and visually separate. It is not anticipated that they will give rise to changes in the landscape of LCA to such an extent that there will be a significant cumulative effect on landscape character in either of the LCAs Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of Moderate to Minor adverse significance of effect.
Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock 10.156 The site identified as Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock is a B2/B8 outline planning application for commercial/industrial buildings with office accommodation. The application site is on farmland 2km west of Haydock Industrial Estate and separated from the PDS by the built form of the Industrial Estate and the M6 motorway on embankment.
10.157 A LVIA was produced in support of the application and the landscape judgements within that assessment have been used as the basis for determining whether there are likely to be any cumulative effects arising from the two developments.
10.158 The Land at Florida Farm North lies within the ‘Broad Rural Slopes: Arch Lane Slopes’ LCA as identified in the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.6) which is
214
remote from the PDS and has no physical link or intervisibility with the area to the east of the motorway corridor. Overall, the proposed development at Florida Farm North has been assessed as having a Minor/Moderate adverse effect on the ‘Broad Rural Slopes: Arch Lane Slopes’ LCA. For the adjoining landscape character areas, as defined in the St Helens Borough LCA study (Ref 10.6), the LVIA identifies that any effects upon completion will be no more than Minor Adverse and, for the more distant LCAs where there is only limited influence, the effects are predicted to be Negligible.
10.159 The identified landscape effects arising from the Florida Farm site and the PDS apply to the landscape of different LCAs which are both physically and visually separate. It is not anticipated that they will give rise to changes in the landscape of either LCA to such an extent that there will be a significant cumulative effect. Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of a Negligible significance of effect.
Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock 10.160 Pre-application publicity indicates that an application for planning permission is expected shortly. The site is expected to comprise between 1 and 4 buildings, of 30,000 to 300,000 square feet, to be constructed through design and build contracts. In the absence of application documents, it has been assumed that the likely landscape effects arising from the development will be similar to those assessed for the Florida Farm North Site which is immediately adjacent to the south west.
10.161 Any landscape effects arising from the Canmoor site and the PDS will apply to the landscape of different LCAs which are both physically and visually separate. It is not anticipated that they will give rise to changes in the landscape of either LCA to such an extent that there will be a significant cumulative effect. Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of a Negligible significance of effect.
Parkside Development 10.162 The Parkside Site is allocated for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and is expected to comprise 4.5 million square feet of logistics floor space. In the absence of application documents, an assumption has been made on the potential for cumulative landscape effects to arise from the development on the basis of its location 3km to the south of the PDS, east of Newton-le-Willows and west of the M6 motorway.
10.163 The Parkside Development will lie within the ‘Agricultural Moss: Highfield Moss’ LCA as identified in the St Helens Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.6) which is adjacent to the ‘Wooded Former Estate: Haydock Park’ LCA but is both physically remote from the PDS and has no intervisibility with the study area. It is considered unlikely that the Parkside Development and the PDS will give rise to changes in the landscape of the adjoining LCAs to such an extent that there will be a significant cumulative effect. Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of a Negligible significance of effect.
Conclusion 10.164 This cumulative landscape assessment has taken account of consented development and future planning applications for logistics developments within 3km of the application site as agreed with St Helens Council. The assessment indicates that, for all receptors which would experience an adverse effect from the PDS, the cumulative effect is not expected to have greater adverse significance due to future predicted development. The
215
cumulative effect of the PDS and Land to the North of Penny Lane is predicted to be of Moderate to Minor adverse significance of effect at worst due to their proximity. There is predicted to be no cumulative effect with the remaining three sites which lie within separate and more distant landscape character areas.
10.165 With reference to paragraph 7.28 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (2013) (Ref 10.1), the PDS would not comprise a ‘tipping point’ which would give rise to greater significance of adverse effects on landscape cumulatively with other projects at a local scale.
Mitigation of Effects
Construction Phase 10.166 The mitigation of effects during the construction phase will be carried out in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”). Typical measures will be designed to reduce the influence of temporary construction areas and activity in views as follows:
• Early installation of temporary topsoil bunding, with stockpiles around the edges of the compounds and some work areas to screen activity; and • Screen fencing erected to a minimum height of 2m along the boundaries of working areas. • Protective fencing identifying the edge of the Root Protection Area for adjacent woodland
Operational Phase 10.167 The PDS benefits from embedded mitigation, as part of the outline application. A detailed landscape layout and design would be submitted as part of any future detailed application.
Residual Landscape Impacts 10.168 The parameters plans (30926-FE-008E: Parameters Plan with Site Layout Overlaid and 30926-FE-027B: Ecology Mitigation Proposals) ensure that extensive landscape corridors around the boundary of the PDS will be delivered as part of the embedded mitigation for the Proposed Development Site. The 15m+ wide corridors will comprise deciduous trees and understorey which will be compatible with the existing local landscape character of woodlands and plantations and will seek to link the existing landscape features both physically and visually. Whilst the structures of the Proposed Development will be an enduring element in the landscape, the benefits offered by the embedded landscape framework will, in conjunction with the continued growth of the existing woodlands, reduce the significance of effect on landscape character from a Moderate to Minor adverse to a residual Minor adverse Significance of Effect after 15 years.
Visual Assessment
10.169 This section summarises anticipated changes in baseline views. Appendix 10.2 provides Visual Impact Tables with a detailed narrative describing the predicted visual effects (during operation and after 15 years) that would be experienced by each receptor. Baseline photo viewpoints, showing winter views, are illustrated on Figures
216
10.7.1 to 10.7.7 and the assessment is also informed by photomontages and wireframe views from selected photo viewpoints illustrated on Figures 10.8.1 to 10.8.8.
Visual Sensitivity
10.170 The sensitivity of the visual receptors depends on the susceptibility of the visual receptor to changes in views as a result of the proposed development and the value of the view (ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.1: Method Tables 7 and 8). Visual receptor sensitivity has been assigned in accordance with the method at Appendix 10.1: Table 9 and is set out in the Visual Impact Tables at Appendix 10.2. The land use planning system considers that public views are of greater value than views from private property and this assessment considers both public and private views (see ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.2: Visual Impact Tables).
10.171 Generally, walkers and cyclists using the local PRoW or the road network around the PDS are considered to be receptors of high susceptibility to change. Motorists range from medium to low susceptibility to change as they are more transient and experience views for a shorter period of time. The existing residents would have a high or medium susceptibility to change in views, depending on whether views of the proposed development would be experienced from the lower and upper storeys, or primarily from the upper storeys. In general the views within and surrounding the Proposed Development Site are of community importance, and the public and private receptors identified range from high to low sensitivity (see ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.2: Visual Impact Tables).
Visual effects during the Construction Phase
10.172 The greatest visual effects resulting from construction works are anticipated where low- level views are possible, where the application site forms a large part of the receptor’s view and where there is little or no intervening screening or filtering. Views would typically comprise temporary operation of plant, vehicles and machinery engaged in soil- stripping, road construction and building operations including the use of scaffolding, temporary compounds, stockpiles, hoardings and fencing. Construction activity generally would be at no more than the maximum height of the buildings although there will be a period of high level construction activity above 60.65m AOD when taller cranes and rigs will be needed. Views of construction activities generally would be filtered by the retained mature woodland trees and other vegetation around the periphery of the Proposed Development Site. High level working will be visible above the tree canopies but is likely to form a very small component of the view in the short-term.
Public Views 10.173 The public views identified close to the PDS would have medium sensitivity to the construction of the Proposed Development, with all other receptors having a low sensitivity to proposed construction works, where they would experience views fleetingly and for a short duration of time.
10.174 During construction the magnitude of visual effects in public views would range from moderate adverse to negligible.
217
10.175 Visual effects during construction would be temporary and over the short-term. Given the moderate adverse to negligible magnitude of effects predicted, and the medium and medium to low sensitivity of public views assessed, the significance of visual effects would range between moderate adverse to negligible during construction.
Private Views 10.176 Private views identified towards the PDS would have a medium or low sensitivity to the construction works. Visual effects resulting from proposed construction works would be temporary and over the short-term. Visual effects of moderate adverse magnitude would be experienced by residents immediately overlooking the application site such as properties at Haydock Park Farm, and visitors to the racecourse. These receptors would experience a great scale of change during construction but for a short duration. Views from other residential properties are slightly more filtered or more distant and the magnitude of effect would generally be low adverse. Given the medium to low sensitivity of private views assessed and the moderate to low adverse magnitude of effects, the significance of visual effects would range from moderate adverse to minor adverse during construction.
Visual effects during Operation
Public Views 10.177 The greatest adverse visual effects predicted in public views on completion of the Proposed Development would be experienced by receptors closest to the Proposed Development. There are no predicted effects of major adverse significance largely due to the absence of sensitive receptors within or immediately adjacent to the Proposed Development Site. A moderate significance of effect on views has been identified for pedestrians and cyclists using the local footpath/cycleway along the A580 East Lancashire Road (Receptor 9) and users of Lodge Lane (Receptor 10). A moderate to low significance of effect has been identified on completion for users of the M6 motorway (Receptor 7), on the elevated section, and drivers on the A580 East Lancashire Road between Junction 23 of the M6 motorway and Ladyhill Plantation (Receptor 8). The view for all of these receptors would alter from farmland to views of the Proposed Development either in close proximity (Receptors 8, 9 and 10) or from an elevated vantage point and experienced at high speed (Receptor 7). Each of the views already contains urban elements including the existing road corridors and surrounding commercial and residential areas in the middle distance and the Proposed Development would form a prominent element in a part of that view for the long term. This would increase the urban influence in the view as experienced against the existing mixed agricultural/urban fringe environment.
10.178 The remainder of the receptors are more distant, or views are oblique with the PDS forming a small part of the view, or being viewed at speed by car users. A minor adverse significance of effect is predicted from the north west, north east and south east of the PDS (Receptors 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13) whereas views from the south west are predicted to be Negligible (Receptor 2 and 12).
Private Views 10.179 The greatest adverse visual effects predicted in private views on completion of the Proposed Development would be experienced by receptors closest to the Proposed
218
Development. The greatest adverse visual effects predicted in private views on completion of the Proposed Development would be of moderate adverse magnitude and moderate adverse significance. Existing mature woodland retained adjacent to the Proposed Development Site boundary, and mounding and new dense buffer planting as part of the Proposed Development, would help to minimise the visual effects for the majority of private views.
10.180 Private views predicted to experience moderate adverse significance of visual effect on completion of the proposed development are due to the proximity of the development and its replacement of open views across farmland with prominent built structures. The significance of effect would vary depending on the angle of view and degree of vegetation screening but it is predicted that visual effects of moderate adverse significance would be experienced from the south by residents of Haydock Park Farm and Haydock Park Farm Cottages (Receptor A) due to the openness of the land between these receptors and the A580 East Lancashire Road in views to the north. The most open views would be experienced from the rear, upper storeys but framed, glimpsed or filtered views of the Proposed Development, seen against the sky, would be possible from ground level within the curtilage of the properties.
10.181 Users of Haydock Racecourse (Receptor L) are predicted to experience visual effects of moderate adverse significance due to the proximity of the proposed Development to the southern boundary of the Racecourse and the introduction of a prominent element above existing trees in the view beyond the large, oval track of 1 mile and 5 furlongs surrounded by woodland blocks and evergreen tree screens. A range of different views of the Proposed Development are predicted from within the Racecourse depending on the elevation of the viewer in the enclosures, terraces or stands. The most elevated views, from the fourth floor of the Tommy Whittle Stand will experience views of the top of the Proposed Development fully backgrounded by the undulating landform to the south (Verified Photomontage ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.8.1) whereas viewers at lower levels will experience views of the top of the Proposed Development against the sky (Verified Photomontage ES Volume 3a: Figure 10.8.2). The Proposed Development will form a prominent feature in a small to medium part of the view in the long term but the main focus of all of the views from the Racecourse will be on the activity in the near distance set within the context of white painted rail fencing, advertising hoardings and built structures. The existing view is heavily influenced by man-made elements and the introduction of new built form, although prominent, will not be entirely at odds with the overall context.
10.182 A range of visual effects of moderate to minor adverse significance would be experienced by users of the Holiday Inn at Haydock (Receptor G). The majority of receptors employed at the hotel, or using the venue for work-related purposes, would experience a visual effect of minor adverse significance. However, the hotel is a wedding venue and is widely used by recreational race-goers as well as having a leisure club which is open to non-residents. The hotel entrance and some public rooms experience oblique views of farmland in the middle-distance, to the south, which would be replaced in part by the Proposed Development. The Proposed Development would be a prominent feature in part of the view to the south east although it would be filtered or screened by a combination of existing vegetation around the hotel and proposed planting forming part of the Planning Application. The Proposed Development would be
219
seen in the context of existing urban influences including the A580 East Lancashire Road.
10.183 The remaining private receptors are expected to experience visual effects of minor adverse or negligible significance with the majority of the minor adverse visual effects also reducing to negligible over time.
Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects
Intra-project 10.184 Table 10.10 below considers the intra-relationship of effects with other topics in this ES.
Table 10.10: Intra-relationship of Effects
ES Topic Potential Interaction with Views
Chapter 6 - Socio- No potential interaction identified. economic
Chapter 7 - The position of the proposed road access has been Transport determined through Highways constraints and will result in the loss of trees on part of the southern site boundary. Replacement tree planting in the south east corner of the PDS will compensate for the loss of any screening.
Chapter 8 - Chapter 8 identifies embedded ecological mitigation Ecology measures. The protected water vole corridor will restrict the area for screen planting on part of the PDS boundary by avoiding new planting within 5m of the ditch through the water vole corridor. A proposed, permanently wet ditch will encroach into part of the eastern landscape corridor but will have no effect on views due to the adjacent existing woodland. The commitment to unlit corridors around the eastern boundary of the PDS will reduce light spillage in views from the east. In the long-term the residual effects on views would remain as assessed.
Chapter 9 - No potential interaction identified. Historic Environment
Chapter 10 – N/A Landscape and Views
Chapter 11 - Air No potential interaction identified. Quality
220
ES Topic Potential Interaction with Views
Chapter 12- Noise Noise mitigation during operation of the Proposed Development generally would be embedded in the design of the building and operations. The future detailed design of the Proposed Development in the south west corner of the Site may result in the requirement for an acoustic barrier, up to 5m high, in the no-build zone. The barrier would match the appearance of the buildings in views and would screen ground level operations in views from the south. On balance, the interaction is not predicted to have any significant adverse or beneficial effects on views.
Chapter 13 – No potential interaction identified. Geology, Soils and Contamination
Chapter 14 – Flood The design of construction platforms as part of the drainage Risk and Drainage strategy would not increase the magnitude of effect on views and the significance of effect judgements would not change. Flood risk and drainage measures have been addressed through SuDs as embedded mitigation and restrictions on planting will apply to swales and dry basins which will be visually contained by the 15m landscape corridor. In the long-term the residual effects on views would remain as assessed.
10.185 Potential interaction has been identified between the Transport, Ecology, Drainage, Noise and Visual topic areas. It is predicted that, in the medium to long term, there will be no significant effects arising from these interactions and the residual significance of effect on views will remain as assessed.
Inter-project 10.186 A review of planning applications in the local area has considered the potential for any local sites to result in likely significant cumulative effects on views when considered in conjunction with the Proposed Development.
10.187 The following local sites have been considered as part of this cumulative assessment:
• Land to the North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway, Haydock • Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock • Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock • Parkside Development
10.188 In order to assess the likelihood of significant cumulative effects arising from other Projects in conjunction with the PDS, viewpoints have been reviewed from the Project LVIA, where available, and compared with the selected viewpoints for the Proposed Development. Where Project LVIAs are as yet unavailable, a reasonable assumption has been made based on topographical data and a Bare Earth ZTV prepared for the PDS as part of the Desktop Study.
221
Land to the North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway, Haydock 10.189 The site identified as Land to the North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway, Haydock, is a B8 warehouse hybrid planning application. The application site is 0.5km west of the PDS but separated from it by the M6 motorway embankments and the A49, Lodge Lane.
10.190 A LVIA forms part of the Environmental Statement (July 2015) in support of the application and the judgements on views within that assessment have been used as the basis for determining whether there are likely to be any cumulative effects arising from the two developments, which are separated by the M6 motorway. There are no common photo viewpoints from which cumulative effects may be assessed.
10.191 The LVIA states that the visual impacts of the development will be restricted to the area immediately surrounding the site due to the prominence of screening vegetation and existing built development.
10.192 The Land to North of Penny Lane is separated from the PDS by the M6 motorway corridor with limited inter-visibility between the two sites due to the height of the Proposed Development as viewed above the motorway embankments. Views are glimpsed and filtered by intervening vegetation comprising trees on the motorway embankments and along Lodge Lane.
10.193 Visual effects from common receptors have been identified for Land to North of Penny Lane and the PDS. The common receptors comprise local roads, PRoW, residential properties at Haydock Park Gardens, the Mercure Hotel and The Parks. Users of local roads including the A49 and Penny Lane will experience fleeting but separate views of both development sites. Users of the M6 motorway will experience open, elevated, oblique views of the two sites, particularly from the south. The views will be experienced at speed and the developments will be seen in the context of existing built form and landscape structure. Users of local PRoW west of the motorway are not predicted to experience significant cumulative effects and users of Footpath 652 are unlikely to experience views of the PDS due to the proposed diversion of this PRoW as part of the development of the Land to the North of Penny Lane. The properties in Haydock Park Gardens, the Mercure Hotel and The Parks are not predicted to experience any views which will contain both the application site and the PDS giving rise to significant cumulative effects.
10.194 Overall, it is not predicted that there will be any significant cumulative visual effects arising from the two developments. Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of a Minor adverse to Negligible significance of effect.
Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock 10.195 The site identified as Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock is a B2/B8 outline planning application for commercial/industrial buildings with office accommodation. The application site is on farmland 2km west of Haydock Industrial Estate and separated from the PDS by the built form of the Industrial Estate and the M6 motorway on embankment.
222
10.196 A LVIA was produced in support of the application and the judgements on views within that assessment have been used as the basis for determining whether there are likely to be any likely significant cumulative effects arising from the two developments.
10.197 There is no predicted intervisibility between the proposed developments or common viewpoints in the LVIAs for the PDS and Land at Florida Farm North. There will not be any cumulative visual effects arising from the two developments. Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of a Negligible significance of effect.
Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock 10.198 Pre-application publicity indicates that an application for planning permission is expected shortly. The site is expected to comprise between 1 and 4 buildings of 30,000 to 300,000 square feet to be constructed through design and build contracts. In the absence of application documents, an assumption has been made that the likely effects on views arising from the development will be similar to the Florida Farm North Site on the basis of the proximity to that site which is immediately adjacent to the south west.
10.199 There are no common viewpoints in the LVIAs for the PDS and Land at Florida Farm North. The ‘Bare Earth ZTV’ for the PDS identifies the potential for limited intervisibility between the proposed developments from the junction of Haydock Lane and Millfield Lane. However, this is considered unlikely due to the intervening built form of the Haydock Industrial Estate and it is predicted that there will not be any cumulative visual effects arising from the two developments. Overall, the cumulative effect is predicted to be of a negligible significance of effect.
Parkside Development 10.200 The Parkside Site is allocated for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange and is expected to comprise 4.5 million square feet of logistics floor space. In the absence of application documents, an assumption has been made on the potential for cumulative landscape effects to arise from the development on the basis of the consultation events held in January 2017 at which a draft masterplan was available for comment. The ‘Bare Earth ZTV’ for the PDS identifies the potential for views from a landscaped area to the east of the Parkside Phase 1 masterplan. However, the views are some 3km to the south of the PDS which would be a barely perceptible feature in the view. It is not predicted that there will be any cumulative visual effects arising from the two developments. There is the potential for a sequential view from users of the M6 motorway. The two sites will not be visible simultaneously but rather viewed obliquely, in succession, by road users travelling at speed. Overall, the cumulative effect and is predicted to be of a Negligible significance of effect.
Conclusion 10.201 This cumulative visual assessment has taken account of consented development and future planning applications for logistics developments within 3km of the application site as agreed with St Helens Council. The assessment indicates that, for all receptors which would experience an adverse effect from the PDS, the cumulative effect is not expected to have greater adverse significance due to future predicted development.
10.202 With reference to paragraph 7.28 of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (2013) (Ref 10.1), the PDS would not comprise a ‘tipping point’
223
which would give rise to greater significance of adverse effects on views cumulatively with other projects.
Mitigation of Effects
Construction Phase 10.203 The mitigation of effects during the construction phase will be carried out in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”). Typical measures will be designed to reduce the influence of temporary construction areas and activity in views as follows:
• Early installation of temporary topsoil bunding, with stockpiles around the edges of the compounds and some work areas to screen activity; and • Screen fencing erected to a minimum height of 2m along the boundaries of working areas.
Operational Phase 10.204 The mitigation of effects during the operational phase will largely comprise embedded landscape mitigation comprising planting to site boundaries to be implemented on completion. Thereafter, management of these woodland belts will be undertaken in accordance with best practice in landscape management.
Residual Effects on Visual Receptors 10.205 The following table (Table 10.11) summarises the visual assessment judgements presented at ES Volume 4: Appendix 10.2 - Visual Impact Tables. This table presents the judgements on the significance of effect after 15 years, following the establishment of embedded mitigation in the form of tree and hedgerow planting within the PDS boundary. This planting would help to partially filter or screen views of built development for the majority of receptors after 15 years. The majority of views have been assessed as having a residual Minor adverse or Negligible significance of effect. The significance of effect on views experienced by the racecourse is dependent on the rate of growth and effectiveness of the existing conifer screen and the proposed woodland edge within the PDS. If the existing boundary conifers continue to be managed to achieve the maximum growth, there is the potential for the residual visual effect to reduce to minor adverse significance and to be limited to glimpsed views of the Proposed Development. For the purposes of this assessment, the significance of effect 15 years after completion has been predicted as moderate to minor adverse for the Racecourse to reflect a ‘worst- case scenario’ in the timescale required for the planting to reach maturity. In the long term, beyond 15 years, it is predicted that any appropriately maintained new woodland planting will have the capacity to reach 22 to 25m+ in height and there would not be any significance of effect greater than Minor adverse on views in winter.
224
Table 10.11: Residual Visual Impact Summary Table
Significance of Effect Significance of Effect 15 Magnitude of Effect Visual Receptor Sensitivity during operation (short years after completion during operation and medium-term) (long-term)
Public Receptors
1 Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to PRoW 655 negligible with time)
2 PRoW 648 and 649 Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible
3 PRoWs at Old Boston Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Trading Estate negligible with time)
4 PRoW 40 Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible
5 PRoW 29 Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to negligible with time)
6 PRoW 13 Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse
7 M6 Motorway Medium/ Low Moderate to Low Moderate/ Minor Minor adverse adverse adverse
8 A580 East Lancashire Medium Moderate to Low Moderate/ Minor Minor adverse Road – car users adverse adverse
9 A580 East Lancashire Medium Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse Road – pedestrians and cyclists
10 Lodge Lane users Medium Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse
225
Significance of Effect Significance of Effect 15 Magnitude of Effect Visual Receptor Sensitivity during operation (short years after completion during operation and medium-term) (long-term)
11 A599 Penny Lane, Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Haydock negligible with time)
12 Vista Road Medium No effect No effect No effect
13 Local road network: Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Golborne Road, Newton negligible with time) Lane and Warrington Road
Private Receptors
A Haydock Park Farm and Medium Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse Haydock Park Farm Cottages
B Residents in Haydock Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible
C Residents in Newton-le- Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Willows
D Residents in Ashton-in- Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Makerfield (NW) negligible with time)
E Residents in Ashton-in- Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Makerfield (NE) negligible with time)
F Residents in Golborne Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to negligible with time)
226
Significance of Effect Significance of Effect 15 Magnitude of Effect Visual Receptor Sensitivity during operation (short years after completion during operation and medium-term) (long-term)
G Holiday Inn Hotel, Medium/ Low Moderate to Low Moderate to Minor Minor adverse Haydock adverse adverse
H Mercure Hotel, Haydock Low Low adverse Minor adverse Negligible
I Old Boston Trading Low Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Estate negligible with time)
J The Parks Low Low adverse Minor adverse Negligible
K Shell Petrol Station and Low Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to Deli negligible with time)
L Haydock Park Medium Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Moderate to Minor adverse Racecourse
M Haydock Park Golf Club Medium Low adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse (reducing to negligible with time)
227
Conclusion
10.206 The Proposed Development Site is on farmland between the M6 motorway, the A580 east Lancashire Road and the settlements of Ashton-in-Makerfield and Golborne. The PDS is primarily farmland but is surrounded by mature woodland blocks to the north and east.
10.207 The Proposed Development comprises logistics buildings with a site access from the A580 East Lancashire Road and emergency access from the A49. The mature woodland adjacent to the PDS will be unaffected by the development but sections of hedgerow and scattered trees will require removal on the A580 highways boundary to facilitate access into the Proposed Development Site.
10.208 The PDS is in the St Helens Council LCA WFE2 (Ref 10.6) and there would be a Moderate to Minor adverse significance of effect on landscape character on the PDS and immediate surrounding landscape on completion. The development would alter the application site from farmland to logistics buildings with associated roads and parking. However, the development would be in a wider landscape characterised by manmade elements including the elevated transport corridor of the M6, the dual carriageway of the A580 and areas of built form associated with the racecourse and the urban areas of Ashton-in-Makerfield and Golborne. The design and scale of the PDS, with its proposed landscape corridors benefitting from existing woodlands on adjacent land, would help to create a strong landscaped boundary treatment which would help to integrate the PDS into the local landscape and enhance the connectivity of the existing woodland.
10.209 Visual receptors surrounding the application site generally are restricted close to the application site. The wider area is characterised by a PRoW network but there are no paths within the PDS. There are a small number of distant glimpsed or oblique views due to the degree of enclosure afforded by the local landform, semi-mature woodland and mature trees and hedges in the wider landscape.
10.210 On completion, the public receptors who would experience a Moderate adverse significance of effect are road users on the A49 Lodge Lane and the A580 East Lancashire Road, predominantly pedestrians and cyclists who would experience the open, oblique views at a slower pace than car users (Receptors 9 and 10). From these receptors, the new development would be visible in proximity on one side and would occupy a moderate proportion of the view. The character of the view would alter from farmland to the Proposed Development, but it would only be seen in the context of near views due to the screening effects of the motorway embankments to the west and the existing woodland blocks to the east. Two public receptors would experience visual effects of no greater than Moderate to Minor adverse significance (Receptors 7 and 8) with the remaining receptors experiencing visual effects of Minor adverse or Negligible significance.
10.211 The greatest effects on private views, on completion, would be experienced by properties south of the A580 East Lancashire Road (Receptor A) and visitors to the Haydock Park racecourse (Receptor L), to the north of the PDS, who would experience a Moderate adverse significance of effect due to the proximity of the Proposed Development, altering existing views across farmland although partly filtered by existing
228
vegetation. A Moderate to Minor significance of effect would be experienced by visitors to the Holiday Inn, Haydock (Receptor G).
10.212 On completion, minor adverse significance of effects would be experienced in all other private views from dwellings where the new development forms only a small part of the view, or is glimpsed at a distance in views that contain other manmade features. A negligible significance of effect would be experienced by residential receptors to the west of the motorway.
10.213 Following 15 years' establishment, whilst tree and hedgerow planting within the Proposed Development would help to partially filter or screen views, the significance of effect on views experienced by the majority of visual receptors would remain the same as on completion. A reduced significance of effect would be experienced in views which would benefit from the growth of existing mature woodland and the establishment of the landscape corridors, particularly along the A580 and the southern boundary of the racecourse. In the long term, 15 years onwards, the new and existing woodlands would continue to grow and mature providing screening and filtering of the Proposed Development. It is predicted that there would be a long-term significance of effect of Minor adverse at worst.
10.214 A residual landscape or visual effect of Moderate to Major Adverse significance would typically be considered significant in terms of being reported in an Environmental Statement. The Landscape and Visual Assessments have predicted that there will be no residual significant effects arising from the Proposed Development Site.
References
10.1 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, Routledge, London
10.2 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012,National Planning Policy Framework, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil e/6077/2116950.pdf
10.3 St Helens Council, 2012, St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy, adopted October 2012 https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/3385/sthelens-local-plan-core-strategy- october-2012.pdf 10.4 St Helens Council, 2007, St Helens Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2012 https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/3391/sthelens-unitary-development-plan- saved-policies-2013-addendum.pdf
10.5 St Helens Woodland Strategy http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/climatechange/doc.php?docID=129 10.6 St Helens Council, 2006, The Landscape Character Assessment for St Helens, St Helens Council
229
https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/5011/sthelens-landscape-character- assessment-final-report-january-2006.pdf Appendix 10.4
10.7 Natural England, 2014, Natural England’s ‘An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment’, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil e/396192/landscape-character-assessment.pdf 10.8 Natural England, 2013, National Character Area Profile 56: ‘Lancashire Coal Measures’ http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/8505003?category=587 130 Appendix 10.3
10.9 Wigan Council, 2009, Wigan: A Landscape Character Assessment, https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Docs/PDF/Resident/Planning-and-Building- Control/LandscapeCharacterAssessment.pdf
230
11. Air Quality
Introduction
11.1 An assessment of the likely significant effects from emissions to air from or associated with the Proposed Development and the potential for poor air quality to impact upon relevant receptors has been undertaken by Miller Goodall Ltd.
11.2 This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) describes the legislative framework applicable to air quality and describes how the effects of the Proposed Development during construction and operational phases have been assessed in relation to such matters as the study area, surveys and significance criteria.
11.3 The baseline conditions of the Proposed Development Site (PDS) and adjacent areas that may be affected by the Proposed Development at the time of the assessment are presented. The results of the assessment are also presented, identifying the likely significant environmental effects, for the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development as is described in Chapter 3.
11.4 Where appropriate mitigation measures, proposed to reduce or remove any potential impacts, are described. Finally, the likely residual impact of the Proposed Development on air quality is assessed.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
11.5 The following section describes the relevant publications to which regard was had in undertaking the assessment.
Legislation
HMSO, (2010) Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 11.6 European Union (EU) legislation forms the basis for current UK air quality policy. The EU Air Quality Framework Directive 96/62/EC (Ref 11.1) on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management came into force in September 1996. This is a framework for tackling air quality through European-wide air quality limit values in a series of daughter directives, prescribing how air quality should be assessed and managed by the Member States. Directive 96/62/EC (Ref 11.1) and the first three daughter objectives were combined to form the new EU Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe (Ref 11.2), which came into force June 2008. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (Ref 11.3) set out the combined Daughter Directive limit values and interim targets for Member State compliance.
Policy
Department for Communities and Local Government, (DCLG) (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework. 11.7 National planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 11.4). The NPPF places a general presumption in favour of sustainable development, stressing the importance of local development plans. In respect to
231
conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF states that the planning system should contribute and enhance the natural and local environment by:
“preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability” (paragraph 109).
11.8 The NPPF goes on to state (paragraphs 120 and 124) that:
“To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.
Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with local air quality action plans”.
Guidance
Planning Practice Guidance – Air Quality 11.9 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref 11.5) has been issued in respect of Air Quality. It explains that whether or not air quality is relevant to a planning decision will depend on the proposed development and its location. Concerns could arise if the development is likely to generate an air quality impact in an area where air quality is known to be poor. They could also arise where the development is likely to adversely impact upon the implementation of air quality strategies and action plans and/or, in particular, lead to a breach of EU legislation (including that applicable to wildlife).
11.10 When deciding whether air quality is relevant to a planning application, Paragraph 005 of the PPG states that considerations could include whether the development would:
• Significantly affect traffic in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site or further afield. This could be by generating or increasing traffic congestion; significantly changing traffic volumes, vehicle speed or both; or significantly altering the traffic composition on local roads. Other matters to consider include whether the proposal involves the development of a bus station, coach or lorry park; adds to turnover in a large car park; or result in construction sites that would generate large Heavy Goods Vehicle flows over a period of a year or more; • Introduce new point sources of air pollution. This could include furnaces which require prior notification to local authorities; or extraction systems (including chimneys) which require approval under pollution control legislation or biomass boilers or biomass-fuelled CHP plant; centralised boilers or CHP plant burning other fuels within or close to an air quality management area or introduce relevant combustion within a Smoke Control Area; • Expose people to existing sources of air pollutants, for example by building new homes, workplaces or other development in places with poor air quality;
232
• Give rise to potentially unacceptable impact (such as dust) during construction for nearby sensitive locations; and • Affect biodiversity.
11.11 At Paragraph 006, the PPG goes on to state that where there are concerns about air quality, the local planning authority may want to know about:
• The ‘baseline’ local air quality; • Whether the proposed development could significantly change air quality during the construction and operational phases; and/or • Whether there is likely to be a significant increase in the number of people exposed to a problem with air quality, such as when new residential properties are proposed in an area known to experience poor air quality.
11.12 The PPG further advises at Paragraph 006 that air quality assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the level of concern about air quality, and because of this are likely to be location specific and should be agreed between the local planning authority and applicant before it is commissioned.
DEFRA, (2016) Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance TG(16) 11.13 This technical guidance (Ref 11.6), provided by DEFRA, is designed to support local authorities in the carrying out their duties in relation to local air quality management. It provides guidance on air quality monitoring, and modelling.
Defra Background Maps 11.14 Air pollution background concentration maps (Ref 11.7) are published by Defra and the Devolved Administrations to assist local authorities in carrying out Review and Assessment of local air quality as part of their duties under the Environmental Act 1995.
11.15 The main purpose of the background maps is to provide estimates of background concentrations for specific pollutants. These can then be used in air quality assessments to better understand the contribution of local sources to total pollutant concentrations. They provide information on how pollutant concentrations change over time and across a wide area; they also provide an estimated breakdown of the relative sources of pollution. The maps allow for the assessment of new pollutant sources that are introduced into an area and the impact they may have upon local air quality.
11.16 The current 2013 reference year background maps were considered within this assessment.
DEFRA Air Quality Management Area Maps 11.17 This online resource provided by DEFRA (Ref 11.8) identifies the locations of air quality management areas declared by local authorities.
Defra NOx to NO2 Calculator
11.18 This calculator allows users to derive NO2 from NOx wherever NOx is predicted by modelling emissions from roads. The calculator can also be used to calculate the road
component of NOx from roadside NO2 diffusion tube measurements. Version v5.1 of the calculator (ref 11.9) was utilised in this assessment.
233
IAQM, (2014) Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction 11.19 The Institute of Air Quality Management guidance (Ref 11.10) provides guidance on how to assess air quality impacts from construction. It provides a method for classifying the significance of effect from construction activities based on the magnitude of dust
impact, proximity of the site to the closest receptors and the background PM10 concentrations. It also suggests criteria for the classification of dust classes to be used along with professional judgement. The guidance recommends that once the significance of effect from construction is identified, the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. From experience it is noted that once mitigation measures are applied the effects are reduced to negligible levels.
AQM, (May 2015) Land Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality 11.20 This Institute of Air Quality Management guidance (Ref 11.11) provides guidance on how to assess air quality impacts of developments. It is applicable to assessing the effects of changes in exposure of members of the public resulting from residential and mixed-use developments
SHC Air Quality Annual Status Report 2016 11.21 This document (Ref 11.12) provides information in respect of the review and assessment work completed by SHC in relation to local air quality within its administrative area.
SHC Air Quality Action Plan 2013 11.22 The SHC Air Quality Action Plan (Ref 11.13) document provides information in respect of the actions planned by SHC in relation to the air quality management areas declared by the Local Authority within its administrative area. Action Plans are the mechanism by which the Local Authority, in collaboration with national agencies and others, outline their plans for working towards achieving the air quality objectives, through the use of powers that are available to them.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority, (GMCA) (2015) Updating and Screening assessment for Greater Manchester 2015 11.23 This document (Ref 11.14) provides information in respect of the review and assessment work completed by the Greater Manchester Authorities, including WMBC, in relation to local air quality within its administrative area.
GMCA (2004) Air Quality Action Plan 11.24 The Greater Manchester Combined Authority Air Quality Action Plan (Ref 11.15) provides information in respect of the actions planned by the Greater Manchester Authorities in relation to declared air quality management areas. Action Plans are the mechanism by which the local authorities, in collaboration with national agencies and others, outline their plans for working towards achieving the air quality objectives through the powers available to them.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority, (GMCA) (2016) 2015 Air Quality Annual Status Report for Greater Manchester 11.25 This document (Ref 11.16) provides information in respect of the review and assessment work completed by the Greater Manchester Authorities, Wigan MBC, in relation to local air quality within its administrative area.
234
GMCA (2016) Greater Manchester Low Emission Strategy and Air Quality Action Plan Public Consultation 11.26 The Greater Manchester Combined Authority Air Quality Action Plan published in 2004 is currently being reviewed and revised by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. A draft strategy and action plan document, Greater Manchester Low Emission Strategy and Air Quality Action Plan Public Consultation (Ref 11.17) was issued for consultation in March 2016 and has been considered within this assessment.
Assessment Methodology
11.27 The potential effects of the Proposed Development on local air quality relate to dust and road traffic emissions associated with both construction activities, and the operation of the development. This section of the ES chapter describes how the assessment of effects on the quality of the air has been completed, including describing the study area, the surveys completed, and the method of assessing significance. The method is described both in relation to dust and road traffic.
The Study Area 11.28 In accordance with IAQM guidance Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction (Ref 11.10) the study area in relation to construction activities has been defined as 50m from the routes used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance, and 350m around the location of construction activities. The extent of the study area in relation to construction activities (dust) is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.1.
11.29 The extent of the study area in relation to road traffic emissions has been informed by the influence of road traffic associated with the Proposed Development, the location of relevant sensitive receptors and the presence of air quality management areas (AQMAs) around the site. The extent of the study area in relation to road traffic emissions is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.2.
Baseline Surveys
11.30 This section describes the desk-based research, field surveys, and consultation undertaken to date to identify the baseline environment in the study areas.
Desk Based Research 11.31 A review of existing air quality information within the SHC 2016 Annual Status Report (Ref 11.12), 2015 Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment for Greater Manchester (Ref 11.14) and the 2015 Annual Status Report for Greater Manchester (Ref 11.16) which includes data from Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (WMBC), has been completed. This includes a review of existing levels of pollutants of interest, in
particular nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10).
11.32 The location of areas of known poor air quality (in particular Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) s) in relation to the study area has been identified using the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) interactive map (Ref 11.8).
11.33 The locations and results of NO2 diffusion tube monitoring of nitrogen dioxide levels around the site has also been identified. Such monitoring is carried out by both SHC
235
and WMBC and both local authorities have provided spreadsheets detailing these result (Ref 11.18 and 11.19).
11.34 Background NOx, NO2 and PM10 concentrations were also obtained from Defra (Ref 11.7) for the 1km x 1km grid squares covering the Proposed Development site and receptor locations for 2015 (verification year) and the years of assessment (2017 and 2022).
Consultation 11.35 Consultation was undertaken with SHC and WMBC prior to the submission of an Environmental Statement Scoping Report (ESSR). Miller Goodall Ltd consulted with SHC on 7 November 2016 and provided details of the baseline study and the proposed scope of this assessment. The consultation document is provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 11.1. Ms Lucy Northey (Scientific Officer at SHC) confirmed that the approach to be taken was acceptable.
11.36 Miller Goodall Ltd also consulted with WMBC on 7th November 2016. The consultation document is provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 11.2. Mr Steve Tesson-Fell (Public Protection Officer at WMBC) confirmed that the approach outlined within the consultation document was acceptable.
11.37 The air quality assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Scoping Opinion provided by SHC (dated 10 January 2017) in response to the ESSR. The full details of the stakeholder consultation and the Scoping Opinion is provided ES Volume 4: Appendix 5.1. A summary of comments received relating to air quality is presented below;
• SHC confirmed that Miller Goodall Ltd had consulted Environmental Health Division of SHC in respect of the methodology to be used within the assessment and that it had been agreed. • Natural England advised that the assessment should consider the effects of air pollution on sensitive habitats.
Field Based Surveys 11.38 No field surveys have been carried out in relation to this assessment. Defra, SHC and WMBC all publish information relating to monitoring of air quality within the study area which was considered sufficient to use within the assessment.
Assessment Methodology 11.39 This section of the chapter describes the methodology which has been used to assess the significance of effects from dust (associated with construction activities) and traffic on local air quality. The significance of likely effects arising from the construction and operation of the Proposed Development on air quality has been determined by identifying the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor.
Significance Criteria – Construction Dust 11.40 The IAQM methodology within document Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction (Ref 11.10) has been used for assessing dust from construction activities. The assessment procedure is divided into four steps and, construction activities were divided into four types, as follows:
236
• Demolition • Earthworks; • Construction; and • ‘Trackout’ of material onto local roads.
11.41 At step one the need for a detailed assessment is screened. An assessment is normally required where there are human receptors within 350m of the site boundary and/or within 50m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance(s). Ecological receptors within 50m of the site boundary or within 50m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance(s), are also identified at this stage.
11.42 In step two, the PDS is allocated to a risk category on the basis of the scale and nature of the works (Step 2A) and the sensitivity of the area to dust impacts (Step 2B). These two factors have been combined in Step 2C to determine the risk of dust impacts before the implementation of mitigation measures. The assigned risk categories may be different for each of the construction activities outlined by the IAQM (construction, demolition, earthworks and trackout).
11.43 Step three of the assessment identifies appropriate site-specific mitigation. These measures will be related to whether the site is a low, medium or high risk site.
11.44 At step four the significance of residual effects is assessed. The aim is to prevent significant effects on receptors through the use of effective mitigation.
11.45 The risk category is determined by combining a number of criteria including dust emission magnitude, sensitivity of receptors, sensitivity of the area to dust soiling, sensitivity of the area to human health effects which are described below.
11.46 Table 11.1 provides the criteria used in the determination of dust emission magnitude.
Table 11.1: Dust Emission Magnitude
Criteria used to Determine Dust Emission Magnitude Activity Small Medium Large Total building volume Total building volume Total building volume <20,000 m3, 20,000 m3 – 50,000 m3, >50,000 m3, potentially Demolition construction materials potential dusty dusty construction with low potential for construction material. material. dust release.
Total site area <2,500 Total site area 2,500 – Total site area >10,000 Earthworks m2, soil type with 10,000 m2, moderately m2, potentially dusty soil large grain dusty soil type type
Total building volume Total building volume Total building volume Construction <25,000 m3. 25,000 – 100,000 m3. >100,000 m3.
<10 outward HDV 10-50 outward HDV >50 outward HDV trips Trackout trips in any one day. trips in any one day. in any one day.
237
Criteria used to Determine Dust Emission Magnitude Activity Small Medium Large Unpaved road length Unpaved road length Unpaved road length <50 m. 50-100 m. >100 m.
11.47 Criteria to identify the sensitivity of receptors and the surrounding area are provided in the IAQM guidance (Ref 11.10), as shown in Table 11.2, and have been used within the assessment.
Table 11.2: Sensitivity of Receptors
Sensitivity Criteria for Determining Sensitivity of Receptor Dust Soiling Effects Health Effects of PM10 Ecological Sites
Dwellings, museums and other culturally International or national Residential properties, important collections, designation and the High hospitals, schools and medium and long-term features may be residential care homes car parks and car affected by dust soiling showrooms
Presence of an important plant species where dust sensitivity Office and shop is uncertain or locations workers not Medium Parks, places of work with a national occupationally exposed designation with to PM 10 features that may be affected by dust deposition
Local designation Playing fields, farmland, Public footpaths, where features may be Low footpaths, short-term playing fields, parks and affected by dust car parks and roads shopping streets deposition
11.48 Table 11.1 and Table 11.2 were then used to define the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and human health effects. This was derived for construction, demolition, earthworks and trackout as appropriate. Table 11.3 and Table 11.4 provide the criteria used to define the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and human health impacts.
238
Table 11.3: Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property
Number of Distance from Source (m)* Receptor Sensitivity Receptors <20 <50 <100 <350
>100 High High Medium Low
High 10-100 High Medium Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low
Medium >1 Medium Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low *distances considered are to the dust source
239
Table 11.4: Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts
Receptor Sensitivity Annual Mean PM10 Number of Distance from the Source (m) Concentrations Receptors <20 <50 <100 <200 <350
High >32 µg/m3 >100 High High High Medium Low
10-100 High High Medium Low Low
1-10 High Medium Low Low Low
28-32 µg/m3 >100 High High Medium Low Low
10-100 High Medium Low Low Low
1-10 High Medium Low Low Low
24-28 µg/m3 >100 High Medium Low Low Low
10-100 High Medium Low Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low Low
<24 µg/m3 >100 Medium Low Low Low Low
10-100 Low Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low Low
Medium >32 µg/m3 >10 High Medium Low Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low Low
>10 Medium Low Low Low Low 28-32 µg/m3 1-10 Low Low Low Low Low
240
24-28 µg/m3 >10 Low Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low Low
<24 µg/m3 >10 Low Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low Low
Low - >1 Low Low Low Low Low
241
11.49 The dust emission magnitude from Table 11.1 and sensitivity of the area and receptors (shown in Tables 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4) were combined, and the risk of impacts from each activity (demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout) before mitigation applied, determined using the criteria detailed in Tables 11.5 to 11.8.
Table 11.5: Risk of Dust Impacts- Demolition
Potential Impact Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of the Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk
Medium High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 11.6: Risk of Dust Impacts- Earthworks
Potential Impact Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of the Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 11.7: Risk of Dust Impacts- Construction
Potential Impact Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of the Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 11.8: Risk of Dust Impacts- Trackout
Potential Impact Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of the Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Low Risk Low Risk
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
242
11.50 The overall risk of dust impacts has then been summarised in a table. Medium and High risk activities are defined as significant impacts within this assessment.
Significance Criteria - Road Traffic Emissions 11.51 The changes in airborne concentrations of road traffic emissions associated with the Proposed Development have been assessed using the desk based computer model Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling System for Roads (ADMS-Roads) v4.0.1.0. The
model is used as part of the calculation process for assessing concentrations of NO2
and PM10, at existing receptors located adjacent to the assessed road network. The location of selected receptors is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.3.
11.52 ADMS-Roads is a comprehensive tool for investigating air pollution in relation to road networks. The model uses algorithms for the height-dependence of wind speed, turbulence and stability to produce improved predictions. It can predict long-term and short-term concentrations, as well as calculations of percentile concentrations.
11.53 ADMS-Roads has been comprehensively validated in a large number of studies by the software manufacturer CERC (Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants). This includes comparisons with data from the UK's Automatic Urban Network (AUN) and specific validation exercises using standard field, laboratory and numerical data sets. CERC (Ref 11.20) is also involved in European programmes on model harmonisation, and their models have been compared favourably against other EU and US EPA systems.
11.54 The technical approach to the air quality assessment was in accordance with the DEFRA publication LAQMTG16 (Ref 11.6). The technical inputs into the model are described in ES Volume 4: Appendix 11.3.
11.55 The magnitude of effect has been defined at individual receptor locations according to the criteria within the IAQM guidance Land Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (Ref 11.11) as shown in Table 11.9 which bands the change in concentration of the pollutant to the Air Quality Assessment Level into the following bands; ≤ 1; 2-5; 6-10 and >10 %.
Table 11.9: Magnitude of Effect
Level of Magnitude - % change in Definition of Magnitude concentration relative to the air quality assessment level
≤1 Negligible
2-5 Low
6-10 Moderate
>10 High
11.56 The sensitivity of individual receptors is reflected in Table 11.10 below where impact descriptors increase or decrease in magnitude when compared to long term average concentrations in the assessment year.
243
Table 11.10: Defining Sensitivity of Receptor
Long term average Concentration at receptor Sensitivity of Receptor in assessment year
75% or less of AQAL Negligible
76-94% of AQAL Low
95-102% of AQAL Moderate
103-109% of AQAL High
110% or more of AQAL High
11.57 The IAQM guidance (Ref 11.11) provides impact descriptors for individual receptors which take into account the impact magnitude (Table 11.9) and the sensitivity of the receiving environment and receptors (Table 11.10). The impact descriptors are shown in Table 11.11. These impact descriptors will inform the assessment of the overall significance of effect as shown.
Table 11.11: Impact descriptors for individual receptors
Long term average % Change in concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level Concentration at (AQAL)* (Magnitude of effect) receptor in assessment year (Sensitivity of Receptor) 1 2-5 6-10 >10
75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate
76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
95-102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial
103-109% of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial
110% or more of Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial AQAL *AQAL = Air Quality Assessment Level, which may be an air quality objective, EU limit or target value, or an Environment Agency ‘Environmental Assessment Level (EAL)’
11.58 The IAQM guidance (Ref 11.11) advises that the overall assessment of significance is to be based on professional judgement. Overall significance of impacts has been determined using professional judgement taking into account such factors as:
• impact descriptors for individual receptors; • the existing and future air quality in the absence of the development; • the extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts; and • the influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impacts.
244
11.59 In this case, after considering the individual receptors, and following IAQM guidance (Ref 11.11), professional judgement has been used to assess the overall air quality impact of the scheme which has been described as either insignificant, minor, moderate or major. Any effect described as moderate or major will be considered a “significant” effect.
Duration of Effect 11.60 The duration of effects are reported as short term (0-5 years), medium term (5-15 years) or long term (over 15 years).
Mitigation Measures Methodology 11.61 The identification of mitigation measures has been undertaken having regard to;
• typical construction dust mitigation measures as detailed in IAQM guidance (Ref 11.10); • mitigation measures set out in IAQM guidance for development (Ref 11.11); • SHC Air Quality Action Plan 2013 (Ref 11.13); • GMCA (2004) Air Quality Action Plan (Ref 11.15); and • GMCA (2016) Greater Manchester Low Emission Strategy and Air Quality Action Plan Public Consultation (Ref 11.17).
Residual Effects Methodology 11.62 Residual effects of the Proposed Development have been identified and assessed using the methodologies identified above and professional judgment taking into account factors such as;
• the existing and future air quality in the absence of the development; • the extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts; and • the influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impacts.
Limitations and assumptions
11.63 The assessment is based on the description of the Proposed Development presented in Chapter 3 and the Parameter Plans presented at Appendix 3.1.
11.64 There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with modelling of air quality:
• Modelling simplifies real-world processes into a series of algorithms. For example, it has been assumed that wind conditions measured at Rostherne in 2015 were representative of wind conditions at the site, as this meteorological station is the only station nearby where the required meteorological data for predicting air quality impacts of the proposed development are measured on routine basis. Furthermore, it has been assumed that the subsequent dispersion of emitted pollutants will conform to a Gaussian distribution over flat terrain in order to simplify the real-world dilution and dispersion conditions;
• There is an element of uncertainty in all measured and modelled data used within ADMS.
245
• Regarding the aspects of the assessment which do not rely on detailed dispersion modelling, the conclusions of the assessment are reliant on the professional judgement of the consultants involved and the validity of the guidance and tools utilised.
11.65 All values presented in this chapter are the most accurate possible estimates. To minimise uncertainty a worst case approach has been taken assuming:
• On construction sites the activities which create dust move as the development progresses and so the distance from source to receiver will vary. In relation to the construction phase dust assessments all activities were considered to be located close to the boundary of the Proposed Development. In reality there will be long periods of time when activities are in excess of 350 m from sensitive receptors.
• In relation to the assessment of road traffic emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Development the first year of construction has been considered. This is the year when most earthworks will take place and HGV movements will be at their peak.
• Also, in relation to the assessment of road traffic emissions associated with construction of the Proposed Development a worst case AADT has been used in respect of HGV movements associated with topsoil removal and ground works.
Baseline Conditions
11.66 This section of the ES describes the baseline conditions which were obtained at the time of assessment (2016). It then goes onto describe the baseline conditions predicted to exist at the commencement of construction of the development (2017) and at the time that the Proposed Development is expected to be completed and fully occupied (2022).
Baseline Conditions 2016
11.67 The Proposed Development is not located within an AQMA but there are AQMAs located along roads along which traffic associated with the development will be expected to travel. These roads include sections of the M6 north of J23, the M6 south of J23, areas of the A580 East Lancashire Rd to the east of Newton Lane and A49 High Street. The location of these AQMAs are shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.4
Local Authority NO2 Monitoring
11.68 The locations of diffusion tubes used by SHC and WMBC to monitor NO2 are shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.5. The results are shown below in Table 11.12. The greyed out boxes indicate where the diffusion tube results are not available or the diffusion tube was not operational.
246
Table 11.12: Relevant Local Authority Diffusion Tube Results
Level of nitrogen dioxide (µg/m3) Site ID Local Authority OS Grid reference 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
AN2 Southworth Road SHC 360045, 395643 56.0 52.7 47.5 47 53
AN3 High Street SHC 358975,395804 35.4 41.97 34.4 33 33
T8 157 High Street SHC 358774,395880 36.54 30.26 29.74 28.5 26.5
T25 Co Located with AN3 SHC 358975,395804 32.5
T32 Co Located with AN3 SHC 358975,395804 32.0
T23 19 High Street SHC 359147,395705 50.45 39.41 36.15 34.4 34.1
T14 19 High Street SHC 359147,395705 49.48 36.85 37.6 36.7 34.9
T1 170 Southworth Road SHC 360109, 395661 46.2 35.5 31.4 32.8 32.3
T7 (T31) 160 Southworth Road SHC 360055, 395638 58.7 43.4 38.4 41.4 40.3
T10 160 Southworth Road SHC 360055, 395638 56.8 41.8 40.9 40.1 41.7
T15 (T34) Parkside Cottages SHC 358220, 397077 45.2 36.1 34.7 33.9 32.8
T16 (T26) 297 Liverpool Road SHC 354377, 397475 32.7 33.6 26.4 24.3 24.5
T17 (T27) 446 Liverpool Road SHC 354403, 397561 42.3 31.2 33.6 30.8 28.9
Site 35 Woodfield Crescent WMBC 357134, 398671 54.1 49.7 41.7 41.2 38.9 3 *the annual air quality objective for NO2 is 40 µg/m
3 Monitoring results show that the annual mean NO2 objective of 40 µg/m has regularly been exceeded at a number of locations around the PDS since 2010.
247
Defra Background Maps 11.69 The background maps provided by DEFRA (Ref 11.7) provide the predicted background
concentrations for NO2 and PM10 shown in Table 11.13.
Table 11.13: Defra Background Levels of Pollutants
2015 OS grid Reference NOx 3 ) 3 NO2 (µg/m ) PM10 (µg/m ) (µg/m3)
358500,397500 29.4 20.1 17.5
356500,398500 25.6 17.7 15.2
357500,398500 32.1 21.7 16.6
356500,397500 27.4 18.8 15.5
357500,397500 32.4 21.8 17.2
358500,398500 24.8 17.2 14.4
11.70 Visual presentation of the location of these grid references is shown in ES Volume 3b: Appendix 11.6.
Future Baseline Conditions 11.71 The ADMS model has been used to estimate contributions of vehicle exhaust emissions
to annual and short term NO2 and PM10 concentrations for baseline conditions at the commencement of development (2017) and in 2022. ES Volume 4: Appendix 11.3 describes the technical inputs used within the model including background concentrations used.
Future Baseline Conditions – Commencement of Development (2017)
11.72 The results of the modelling of annual average NO2 concentrations for the first year of construction, 2017, are shown in the contour plot in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.7. Table
11.14 below shows the results of modelling of annual average NO2 and PM10 concentrations at selected sensitive receptors for the baseline conditions in 2017. The location of selected receptors is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.3.
248
Table 11.14: Predicted Baseline NO2 and PM10 Annual Mean Concentrations (μg/m3) in 2017 at Selected Sensitive Receptor Locations
Receptor Height 2017
Receptor above Ground Level NO2 PM10 (m) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
R1 1.5 27.6 18.5
R2 1.5 46.9 20.7
R3 1.5 37.1 17.1
R4 1.5 38.7 18.5
R5 1.5 38.2 18.5
R6 1.5 39.1 18.6
R7 1.5 29.6 18.0
R8 1.5 27.7 17.8
R9 1.5 27.3 17.0
R10 1.5 25.8 18.4
R11 1.5 26.5 18.5
R12 1.5 25.1 17.9
R13 1.5 32.2 16.0
R14 1.5 36.6 16.4
R15 1.5 33.9 16.1
R16 1.5 24.9 18.7
Site 35 2 37.2 18.4
AN3 2 32.7 17.0
Annual Mean NO & PM Air Quality 2 10 40 (µg/m3) Objective
11.73 The baseline air quality assessment for the baseline year (2017) indicates that the
annual average air quality objective for NO2 will be met for all modelled receptors except for R2. The results for R2 (located at Parkside Cottages) show an exceedance of the
annual air quality objective for NO2.
11.74 The annual average air quality objective for PM10 will be met for all modelled receptors.
11.75 In accordance with Defra guidance (Ref 11.6), it may be assumed that exceedances of
the 1-hour mean objective for NO2 are unlikely as the predicted annual mean 3 3 concentrations are less than 60 μg/m . The 24 hour PM10 objective of 50 μg/m is predicted to be met at all modelled locations.
249
Future Baseline Conditions – Full Operation of Development (2022)
11.76 The results of the modelling of NO2 concentrations for 2022 are shown in the contour plot in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.8. Table 11.15 below shows the results of modelling of
NO2 and PM10 concentrations at selected sensitive receptors for the baseline conditions in 2022. The location of selected receptors is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.3.
Table 11.15: Predicted Baseline NO2 and PM10 Annual Mean Concentrations (μg/m3) in 2022 at Selected Sensitive Receptor Locations
Receptor Height 2022
Receptor above Ground Level NO2 PM10 (m) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
R1 1.5 22.3 18.1
R2 1.5 37.3 20.3
R3 1.5 29.5 16.5
R4 1.5 30.8 18.0
R5 1.5 30.4 17.9
R6 1.5 31.1 18.0
R7 1.5 24.3 17.6
R8 1.5 22.7 17.3
R9 1.5 22.7 16.7
R10 1.5 21.4 18.0
R11 1.5 21.9 18.1
R12 1.5 21.3 17.4
R13 1.5 28.0 15.7
R14 1.5 31.2 16.1
R15 1.5 28.5 15.7
R16 1.5 20.8 18.4
Site 35 2 29.6 17.8
AN3 2 27.8 16.7
Annual Mean NO & PM Air Quality 2 10 40 (µg/m3) Objective
11.77 The baseline air quality assessment for 2022 scenario indicates that the annual average
air quality objective for NO2 and PM10 will be met for all modelled receptors. The contour plot in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.8 shows that no residential properties within the study 3 area are expected to experience NO2 concentrations greater than 40 μg/m .
250
11.78 In accordance with Defra guidance (Ref 11.6), it may be assumed that exceedances of
the 1-hour mean objective for NO2 are unlikely as the predicted annual mean 3 3 concentrations are less than 60 μg/m . The 24 hour PM10 objective of 50 μg/m is predicted to be met at all modelled locations.
Assessment of Effects
11.79 This section of the ES presents the likely significant environmental effects that are likely to occur during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development and draws a conclusion that uses the significance criteria set out within the methodology. It presents where assessments have been ‘scoped out’ as it is considered that an environmental effect is likely to be less than significant. It also presents the ‘embedded mitigation’ which describes how the Proposed Development has been specifically designed to avoid or to minimise the occurrence of adverse environmental impacts and, where appropriate, to deliver a net benefit.
Air Quality Effects Scoped Out 11.80 Effects on ecology are scoped out of this assessment. The IAQM guidance (Ref 11.10) advises that an ‘ecological receptor’ refers to any sensitive habitat affected by dust soiling. This includes the direct impacts on vegetation or aquatic ecosystems of dust deposition, and the indirect impacts on fauna (e.g. on foraging habitats). For locations with a statutory designation, e.g. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), consideration should be given as to whether the particular site is sensitive to dust and this will depend on why it has been designated. Some non-statutory sites (i.e. local wildlife sites) and/or locations with very specific sensitivities may also be considered if appropriate.
11.81 There are no statutorily protected sites within 50m of the site boundary or within 50m of the routes used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrances. Additionally, there are no habitats within these distances that are considered to be vulnerable to air pollution e.g. ancient woodland, fen or lowland raised bog. The IAQM guidance advises that this indicates that no significant effect on ecological receptors is likely, the level of risk is negligible and any effects will be Not Significant. Thus no assessment has been completed.
Embedded Mitigation 11.82 This section of the Chapter sets out the measures which have been included as integral parts of the implementation of the Proposed Development to avoid or minimise the occurrence of adverse impacts on air quality during the construction, and operational parts of the project.
Full Operation 11.83 A travel plan has been produced by Vectos, the transport consultants. A range of measures aimed at promoting sustainable travel to staff are proposed including; appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator; site design, cycle and walking measures and promotion of car sharing to staff.
11.84 In particular, the proposed development will introduce a 3 metre shared footway and cycle path located on the northern side of the A580 along the majority of the site frontage. The pedestrian/ cycleway will connect to a new controlled crossing provision
251
which will be provided at the A580 junction with the site access. This controlled crossing provision will allow pedestrians and cyclists to connect with the existing footway/ cycleway which is provided along the southern side of the A580.
11.85 The internal layout will be designed to ensure the safe movements of vulnerable road users through the site, including ensuring that the key desire lines to building access points, areas of cycle parking and any public transport infrastructure should this be provided, suitably connect with the infrastructure provided at the site access junctions. Cycle parking provision will be agreed with SHC officers.
11.86 The measures provided as part of the Travel Plan will be regularly monitored and annual progress reports are proposed.
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects (Dust)
11.87 The site boundary is within 350m of human receptors. In addition there are human receptors within 50 m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance. Therefore, a detailed assessment of the construction phase of the development has been undertaken. Full details of the assessment are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 11.4, a summary is provided below.
11.88 The scale and nature of works onsite were considered to determine the potential dust emission magnitude for demolition, earthworks and trackout activities as outlined in Table 11.16.
Table 11.16: Dust Emission Magnitudes for Each Activity
Dust Emission Activity Justification Magnitudes
Demolition N/A Not applicable
Total building volume to be constructed Construction Large >100,000m3
Earthworks Large The total site area is >10,000m2
There will be more than 50 HDV movements in Trackout Large any one day. The unpaved road length will be greater than 100m
11.89 The sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and human health in each activity is summarised in Table 11.17
.
252
Table 11.17: Outcome of Defining the Sensitivity of the Area
Sensitivity of the Surrounding Area Potential Impact Demolition Earthworks Construction Trackout
Dust Soiling N/A Low Low Low
Human Health N/A Low Low Low
11.90 A summary of the risks, before mitigation measures are applied, for dust soiling and human health are shown in Table 11.18.
Table 11.18: Risk of Dust Impacts
Dust Risk Potential Impact Demolition Earthworks Construction Trackout
Dust Soiling N/A Low risk Low risk Low risk
Human Health N/A Low risk Low risk Low risk
11.91 High and medium impacts are assessed to be significant, therefore, the impacts of construction dust are Not Significant in terms of dust soiling or human health.
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects - Road Traffic
11.92 The results of the modelling of NO2 concentrations associated with construction traffic in the year 2017 are shown in the contour plot in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.9.
11.93 Predicted NO2 and PM10 concentrations for road traffic associated with construction (2017) ‘with development’ scenario are detailed in Table 11.19. The location of selected receptors is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.3. Predicted concentrations for ‘without
development’ scenario and the predicted change in NO2, and PM10 concentrations, as a result of the Proposed Development, are also shown for comparison purposes.
11.94 Changes in predicted pollutant concentrations between the without development scenario and the with development scenario were compared to the impact descriptor detailed in EPUK and IAQM guidance contained within Table 11.11 above.
253
Table 11.19: Dispersion Modelling Results and Impact Descriptors for the Construction Year (2017)
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
Without Development 27.55 18.47
With Development 27.64 18.48 R1 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.09) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 69 46
Without Development 46.72 20.71
With Development 46.86 20.73 R2 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.14) 0 (+0.02)
% of AQAL with Development 117 52
Without Development 37.07 17.09
With Development 37.10 17.09 R3 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 93 43
Without Development 38.62 18.51
With Development 38.65 18.51 R4 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 97 46
254
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
Without Development 38.21 18.47
With Development 38.24 18.47 R5 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 96 46
Without Development 39.05 18.57
With Development 39.08 18.57 R6 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 98 46
Without Development 29.58 17.98
With Development 29.62 17.99 R7 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.04) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 74 45
Without Development 27.68 17.75
With Development 27.71 17.75 R8 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 69 44
Without Development 27.31 16.99 R9 Negligible Negligible With Development 27.32 16.99
255
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
% Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.01) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 68 42
Without Development 25.81 18.39
With Development 25.82 18.39 R10 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.01) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 65 46
Without Development 26.49 18.48
With Development 26.51 18.48 R11 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.02) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 66 46
Without Development 25.06 17.90
With Development 25.07 17.90 R12 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.01) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 63 45
Without Development 32.19 16.02
With Development 32.19 16.02 R13 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.00) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 80 40
256
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
Without Development 36.62 16.42
With Development 36.62 16.42 R14 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.00) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 92 41
Without Development 33.88 16.06
With Development 33.88 16.06 R15 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.00) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 85 40
Without Development 24.89 18.72
With Development 24.90 18.72 R16 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.01) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 62 47
Without Development 37.17 18.36
With Development 37.20 18.37 Site 35 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 93 46
Without Development 32.71 16.98 AN3 Negligible Negligible With Development 32.71 16.98
257
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
% Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.00) 0 (+0.00)
% of AQAL with Development 82 42
3 AQAL: Annual Mean NO2 & PM10 Air Quality Objective (μg/m ) 40
258
11.95 The results of the ADMS modelling assessment for 2017 indicate that annual mean
concentrations of NO2 and PM10 would be below the respective annual objectives in 2017, at all existing sensitive receptor locations within the study area, both ‘with’ and ‘without’ the development with the exception of R2 (Parkside Cottages). Annual
average levels of NO2 at R2 exceed the annual objective both with and without construction traffic associated with the Proposed Development. However, all receptors 3 are expected to have an increase of less than 0.14 μg/m for both NO2 and PM10 and thus the increases are all negligible.
11.96 In accordance with Defra guidance (Ref 11.6), it can be assumed that exceedances of
the 1-hour mean objective for NO2 are unlikely as the predicted annual mean 3 3 concentrations are less than 60 μg/m . The 24 hour PM10 objective of 50 μg/m is predicted to be met at all modelled locations.
11.97 When considering the predicted levels of NO2 and PM10 and the impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the overall impact of road traffic emissions associated with construction traffic associated with the Proposed Development is considered to be Not Significant.
Assessment of Operational Phase Effects - Road Traffic
11.98 The results of the modelling of NO2 concentrations associated with operation of the Proposed Development in the year of opening (2022) are shown in the contour plot in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.10.
11.99 Predicted NO2 and PM10 concentrations for the opening year (2022) ‘with development’ scenario are detailed in Table 11.20. The location of selected receptors is shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 11.3. Predicted concentrations for ‘without development’ scenario and
the predicted change in NO2, and PM10 concentrations, as a result of the Proposed Development, are also shown for comparison purposes.
11.100 Changes in predicted pollutant concentrations between the without development scenario and the with development scenario were compared to the impact descriptor detailed in EPUK and IAQM guidance contained within Table 11.11 above.
259
Table 11.20: Dispersion Modelling Results and Impact Descriptors for the Opening Year (2022)
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
Without Development 22.32 18.13
With Development 22.68 18.18 R1 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 1 (+0.36) 0 (+0.05)
% of AQAL with Development 57 45
Without Development 37.26 20.29
With Development 37.61 20.35 R2 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 1 (+0.35) 0 (+0.06)
% of AQAL with Development 94 51
Without Development 29.49 16.55
With Development 29.58 16.56 R3 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.09) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 74 41
Without Development 30.77 17.96
R4 With Development 30.87 Negligible 17.97 Negligible
% Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.10) 0 (+0.01)
260
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
% of AQAL with Development 77 45
Without Development 30.45 17.93
With Development 30.55 17.94 R5 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.10) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 76 45
Without Development 31.14 18.02
With Development 31.24 18.04 R6 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.10) 0 (+0.02)
% of AQAL with Development 78 45
Without Development 24.26 17.57
With Development 24.45 17.60 R7 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.19) 0 (+0.03)
% of AQAL with Development 61 44
Without Development 22.69 17.34
With Development 22.87 17.37 R8 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.18) 0 (+0.03)
% of AQAL with Development 57 43
R9 Without Development 22.69 Negligible 16.69 Negligible
261
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
With Development 22.96 16.74
% Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 1 (+0.27) 0 (+0.05)
% of AQAL with Development 57 42
Without Development 21.38 17.98
With Development 21.62 18.02 R10 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 1 (+0.24) 0 (+0.04)
% of AQAL with Development 54 45
Without Development 21.93 18.06
With Development 22.18 18.11 R11 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 1 (+0.25) 0 (+0.05)
% of AQAL with Development 55 45
Without Development 21.29 17.42
With Development 21.34 17.43 R12 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.05) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 53 44
Without Development 28.03 15.71
R13 With Development 28.06 Negligible 15.72 Negligible
% Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.01)
262
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
% of AQAL with Development 70 39
Without Development 31.18 16.05
With Development 31.21 16.07 R14 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.03) 0 (+0.02)
% of AQAL with Development 78 40
Without Development 28.53 15.70
With Development 28.57 15.71 R15 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.04) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 71 39
Without Development 20.79 18.41
With Development 20.90 18.42 R16 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.11) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 52 46
Without Development 29.61 17.82
With Development 29.70 17.84 Site 35 Negligible Negligible % Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 0 (+0.09) 0 (+0.02)
% of AQAL with Development 74 45
AN3 Without Development 27.75 Negligible 16.70 Negligible
263
Annual average Annual average Difference in opening year without and with Receptor name NO2 Impact Descriptor PM10 Impact Descriptor development (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
With Development 27.98 16.71
% Change relative to AQAL & (Impact) 1 (+0.23) 0 (+0.01)
% of AQAL with Development 70 42
3 AQAL: Annual Mean NO2 & PM10 Air Quality Objective (μg/m ) 40
264
11.101 The results of the ADMS modelling assessment for 2022 indicate that annual mean
concentrations of NO2 and PM10 would be below the respective annual objectives in 2022, at all existing sensitive receptor locations within the study area, both ‘with’ and ‘without’ the development. All receptors are expected to have an increase of less than 0.37 μg/m3 for both
NO2 and PM10 and thus the increases are all negligible.
11.102 In accordance with Defra guidance (Ref 11.6), it can be assumed that exceedances of the 1-
hour mean objective for NO2 are unlikely as the predicted annual mean concentrations are 3 3 less than 60 μg/m . The 24 hour PM10 objective of 50 μg/m is predicted to be met at all modelled locations.
11.103 When considering the predicted levels of NO2 and PM10 and the impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the overall impact of the Proposed Development is considered to be Not Significant.
Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects
Intra- project cumulative effects 11.104 No intra-project effects have been identified in this assessment. There are no statutorily protected sites within 50m of the site boundary or within 50m of the routes used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrances. Additionally, there are no habitats within these distances that are considered to be vulnerable to air pollution e.g. ancient woodland, fen or lowland raised bog. The IAQM guidance advises that this indicates that no significant effect on ecological receptors is likely, the level of risk is negligible and any effects will be Not Significant. Thus there will be no intra-project cumulative effect in relation to construction dust and ecological receptors.
Inter-project cumulative effects 11.105 With regard to the consideration of inter-project cumulative effects, regard has been had within all of the assessments above to the potential for the Proposed Development to give rise to likely effects in combination with the committed developments shown in Table 11.21
Table 11.21: Developments Considered within Assessment
Scheme Planning Description Status Application Reference
Land to the North 2015/0571 Hybrid planning permission including full Approved of Penny Lane permission for the erection of B8 23/9/16 and West of M6 warehouse (c.100,000 sq ft) and outline Motorway, planning permission for erection of B8 Haydock warehousing (c.300,000 sq ft).
Land at Florida 2016/0608 Hybrid planning permission including Awaiting Farm North, outline planning permission for the determination Haydock erection of 2no. commercial/industrial buildings providing up to 135,000 square metres of employment floorspace (B2/B8 uses with up to
265
Scheme Planning Description Status Application Reference 10,000 square metres of office accommodation).
Canmoor site, n/a c.300,000 sq ft of employment Pre- adjacent to floorspace across four units, accessed application Haydock via the existing Haydock Industrial Industrial Estate, Estate. Haydock
Parkside n/a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange with Allocated site Development an operational area of approximately 85 hectares.
Proposed c. 4.5 m sq ft of logistics floorspace.
11.106 The cumulative effects of construction dust associated with these projects have been considered. IAQM guidance (Ref 11.10) recommends that regular meetings be held with other high risk construction sites within 500m of the site boundary to ensure plans are co-ordinated and dust and particulate matter emissions are minimised. In particular, the guidance advises that it is important to understand the interactions of the off-site transport/deliveries which might be using the same strategic road network routes. The development at Land to the North of Penny Lane lies within 500m of the Proposed Development Site and thus this will be addressed within the proposed CEMP. Guidance from the IAQM (Ref 11.10) states that with appropriate mitigation in place, the impacts of construction dust will not be significant, therefore the cumulative effect of construction dust is Not Significant.
11.107 The traffic data used within the road traffic assessments includes traffic flows associated with these developments where data is available thus already providing an assessment of intra- project cumulative effects.
Mitigation of Effects
Construction Phase 11.108 No significant effects associated with construction dust have been identified, nevertheless IAQM guidance (Ref 11.10) indicates that mitigation is still appropriate to reduce effects to the lowest possible levels.
11.109 Using the methodology described in the IAQM Guidance (Ref 11.10), appropriate site specific mitigation measures associated with the determined level of risk can be defined. Mitigation measures are divided into general measures applicable to all sites and measures applicable specifically to demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout. They are categorised into “highly recommended” and “desirable” measures and are a combination of physical and management measures.
266
11.110 The dust risk categories for each of the activities assessed have been used to define the appropriate, site-specific, mitigation measures to be adopted. These are all measures which can, and in this case will, be included within a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) for the Proposed Development. CEMPs are often used as an effective and proven form of mitigation for dust effects.
11.111 The construction dust mitigation measures arising out of this assessment are detailed in Table 11.22 and 11.23 below.
Table 11.22: Highly Recommended Construction Phase Mitigation Measures
Communications Display the name and contact details of person(s) accountable for air quality and dust issues on the site boundary. This may be the environment manager/engineer or the site manager; and Display the head or regional office contact information.
Dust Management Hold regular liaison meetings with other high risk construction sites within 500m of the site boundary, to ensure plans are co-ordinated and dust and particulate matter emissions are minimised. It is important to understand the interactions of the off-site transport/ deliveries which might be using the same strategic road network routes. Record all dust and air quality complaints, identify cause(s), take appropriate measures to reduce emissions in a timely manner, and record the measures taken; Make the complaints log available to the local authority when asked; Record any exceptional incidents that cause dust and/or emissions, either on- or off- site, and the action taken to resolve the situation in the log book; Carry out regular site inspections to monitor compliance with the Dust Management Plan (DMP), record inspection results, and make the inspection log available to the local authority when asked; Increase the frequency of site inspections by the person accountable for air quality and dust issues on site when activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and during prolonged dry or windy conditions; Plan site layout so that machinery and dust causing activities are located away from receptors, as far as is possible; Erect solid screens or barriers around dusty activities or the site boundary that are at least as high as any stockpiles on site; Avoid site runoff of water or mud; Ensure all vehicles switch off engines when stationary - no idling vehicles; Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators and use mains electricity or battery powered equipment where practicable; Only use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted or in conjunction with suitable dust suppression techniques such as water sprays or local extraction, e.g. suitable local exhaust ventilation systems; Ensure an adequate water supply on the site for effective dust/particulate matter
267
suppression/mitigation, using non-potable water where possible and appropriate; Use enclosed chutes and conveyors and covered skips; Minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading or handling equipment and use fine water sprays on such equipment wherever appropriate; and Avoid bonfires and burning of waste materials.
Demolition • No demolition is occurring on site Earthworks • No ‘highly recommended’ measures
Construction • No ‘highly recommended’ measures Trackout • No ‘highly recommended’ measures
Table 11.23: Additional Desirable Construction Phase Mitigation Measures
Communications All ‘highly recommended’ measures
Dust Management Develop and implement a DMP, which may include measures to control other emissions, approved by the Local Authority; Undertake daily on-site and off-site inspection, where receptors (including roads) are nearby, to monitor dust, record inspection results, and make the log available to the local authority when asked. This should include regular dust soiling checks of surfaces such as street furniture, cars and window sills within 100 m of site boundary, with cleaning to be provided if necessary; Fully enclose site or specific operations where there is a high potential for dust production and the site is actives for an extensive period; Keep site fencing, barriers and scaffolding clean using wet methods; Remove materials that have a potential to produce dust from site as soon as possible, unless being re-used on site. If they are being re-used on-site cover as described below; Cover, seed or fence stockpiles to prevent wind whipping; Impose and signpost a maximum-speed-limit of 15 mph on surfaced and 10 mph on unsurfaced haul roads and work areas (if long haul routes are required these speeds may be increased with suitable additional control measures provided, subject to the approval of the nominated undertaker and with the agreement of the local authority, where appropriate); Ensure equipment is readily available on site to clean any dry spillages, and clean up spillages as soon as reasonably practicable after the event using wet cleaning methods.
Demolition • No demolition occurring on site
268
Earthworks No ‘desirable’ measures
Construction • Avoid scabbling (roughening of concrete surfaces) if possible; • Ensure sand and other aggregates are stored in bunded areas and are not allowed to dry out, unless this is required for a particular process, in which case ensure that appropriate additional control measures are in place. Trackout • Use water-assisted dust sweeper(s) on the access and local roads, to remove, as necessary, any material tracked out of the site. This may require the sweeper being continuously in use; • Avoid dry sweeping of large areas; • Ensure vehicles entering and leaving sites are covered to prevent escape of materials during transport; • Record all inspections of haul routes and any subsequent action in a site log book; • Implement a wheel washing system (with rumble grids to dislodge accumulated dust and mud prior to leaving the site where reasonably practicable).
Operational Phase 11.112 Although the assessment of the impact of emissions from road traffic associated with the Proposed Development predicts no significant impacts on local air quality. In addition extensive travel plan measures are proposed. However, national guidance and local authority policies adopted by both SHC and WMBC indicates that mitigation in respect of air quality is required (Refs 11.12, 11.13, 11.15, 11.16). In accordance with this guidance the following is, therefore proposed, in addition to the embedded mitigation already identified;
• Provision of electric charging points in accordance with guidance i.e. Provision of at least 1 Electric Vehicle (EV) “rapid charge” point and one priority parking space for hybrid and electric vehicles for every 2000m2 of commercial floor space.
Residual Impacts
11.113 This section of the ES chapter is a second stage assessment and takes the assessment conclusions of the predicted likely significant environmental effects, applies the mitigation described above, and draws the final conclusion.
11.114 In this instance the likely environmental effects of the Proposed Development on air quality pre-mitigation are Not Significant and therefore they will remain Not Significant with mitigation in place.
Monitoring
11.115 Monitoring of construction dust is not considered necessary in light of the assessment in accordance with the IAQM guidance (Ref 11.10)
11.116 Monitoring of the impacts of road traffic emission on local air quality is also not considered necessary in light of the extent of the monitoring networks operated by SBC and WMBC.
269
References
Ref 11.1 European Parliament (1996), Council Directive 96/62/EC on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management
Ref 11.2 European Parliament (2008), Council Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe
Ref 11.3 HMSO, (2010) Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010
Ref 11.4 DCLG, (March 2012) National Planning Policy Framework
Ref 11.5 DCLG, (Updated March 2014) Planning Practice Guidance – Air Quality see: http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/air-quality/
Ref 11.6 DEFRA, (2016) Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance TG(16)
Ref 11.7 DEFRA (2013) online support tool Background pollution concentrations see: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html
Ref 11.8 Defar online tool Air Quality Management Areas interactive map see: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/maps
Ref 11.9 Defra online support tool NOx to NO2 Calculator see: http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background- maps.html#NOxsector Ref 11.10 IAQM, (2014) Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction
Ref 11.11 IAQM, (May 2015) Land Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality
Ref 11.12 SHC Air Quality Annual Status Report 2016
Ref 11.13 SHC Air Quality Action Plan 2013 Ref 11.14 Greater Manchester Combined Authority, (GMCA) (2015) Updating and Screening assessment for Greater Manchester 2015 Ref 11.15 GMCA (2004) Air Quality Action Plan
Ref 11.16 Greater Manchester Combined Authority, (GMCA) (2016) 2015 Air Quality Annual Status Report (ASR) for Greater Manchester Ref 11.17 GMCA (2016) Greater Manchester Low Emission Strategy and Air Quality Action Plan Public Consultation
Ref 11.18 Excel spreadsheets provided by SHC Ref 11.19 Excel spreadsheets provided by Wigan - Wigan NOx Data 2004 onwards Clean for Web
Ref 11.20 CERC website See http://www.cerc.co.uk/
270
12. Noise and Vibration
Introduction
12.1 This chapter has been prepared by Resound Acoustics Limited. It assesses the likely significant environmental effects of potential noise and vibration emissions from the Proposed Development on nearby noise-sensitive receptors from both its construction and operational use.
12.2 The chapter describes the methods used to assess the impacts, the baseline conditions that currently exist at and around the site, the potential direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Development arising from noise and vibration, and the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce, or offset the impacts and the residual impacts.
12.3 Whilst reasonable efforts have been made to produce a chapter that is easy to understand, it is technical in nature. To assist the reader, an introduction to noise and an explanation of the terminology used in this report is contained in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.1.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework 12.4 The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 12.1) on 27th March 2012 and upon its publication, the majority of planning policy statements and guidance notes were withdrawn, including Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise (PPG24) (Ref 12.2), which until the emergence of the NPPF, set out the Government’s position on how noise should be dealt with in the planning system.
12.5 The general guiding principle in the NPPF is contained in Section 11 under the heading Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 109 states:
“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
• preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability;”
12.6 The guidance set out in PPG24 has been replaced in the NPPF by four aims, which are set out at paragraph 123 in Section 11 of the document, titled Conserving and enhancing the natural environment:
“Planning policies and decisions should aim to: • avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; • mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;
271
• recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and • identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”
12.7 There are two footnotes to the above guidance. The first footnote refers to the Explanatory Note of the Noise Policy Statement for England (Ref 12.3), which defines both “significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life” and “adverse impacts on health and quality of life” as described in the first two bullet points.
12.8 The second footnote indicates that the third bullet point is “subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other relevant law”.
Noise Policy Statement for England 12.9 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) in March 2010. The explanatory note of NPSE defines the terms used in the NPPF:
“2.20 There are two established concepts from toxicology that are currently being applied to noise impacts, for example, by the World Health Organisation. They are:
• NOEL – No Observed Effect Level
This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise.
• LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected.
2.21 Extending these concepts for the purpose of this NPSE leads to the concept of a significant observed adverse effect level.
• SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level
This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.”
The NPSE does not define the SOAEL numerically, stating at paragraph 2.22:
“2.22 It is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available.”
There is no local or national guidance on how the three terms should be defined numerically.
272
There are three aims in the NPSE, which match, and expand upon, the first two bullet points in paragraph 123 of the NPPF and add a third aim that relates to a wider improvement in health and quality of life (the bold text is in the NPSE):
“The first aim of the Noise Policy Statement for England
Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”.
2.23 The first aim of the NPSE states that significant adverse effects on health and quality of life should be avoided while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development (paragraph 1.8).
“The second aim of the Noise Policy Statement for England
Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”.
2.24 The second aim of the NPSE refers to the situation where the impact lies somewhere between LOAEL and SOAEL. It requires that all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development (paragraph 1.8). This does not mean that such adverse effects cannot occur.
“The third aim of the Noise Policy Statement for England
Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”.
2.25 This aim seeks, where possible, positively to improve health and quality of life through the pro-active management of noise while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development (paragraph 1.8), recognising that there will be opportunities for such measures to be taken and that they will deliver potential benefits to society. The protection of quiet places and quiet times as well as the enhancement of the acoustic environment will assist with delivering this aim.”
Planning Practice Guidance 12.10 In March 2014, the Government released Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref 12.4) on noise, titled Noise. This document sets out a number of principles in the form of questions and answers, and reinforces the guidance set out in the NPPF and the NPSE. The PPG on noise was most recently updated in December 2014.
12.11 The noise PPG notes in paragraph 001 that:
12.12 “Noise needs to be considered when new development may create additional noise and when new developments would be sensitive to the prevailing acoustic environment.”
273
12.13 It goes on to note in paragraph 003 that:
“Local planning authorities’ plan-making and decision taking should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider:
• whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; • whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and • whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.”
12.14 The noise PPG broadly repeats the NPSE definitions of the NOEL, LOAEL and SOAEL and it provides a summary table to explain how the terms relate to each other and to typical human reactions to sound. The table is replicated below in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1: Planning Practice Guidance summary of noise exposure hierarchy
Perception Examples of Outcome Increasing Action Effect Level
Not noticeable No effect No observed No specific effect measures required
Noticeable and Noise can be heard, but does not No observed No specific not intrusive cause any change in behaviour or adverse effect measures attitude. Can slightly affect the required acoustic character of the area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
Lowest observed adverse effect level
Noticeable and Noise can be heard and causes Observed Mitigate and intrusive small changes in behaviour and/or adverse effect reduce to a attitude, e.g. turning up volume of minimum television; speaking more loudly; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. Potential for some reported sleep disturbance. Affects the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
Significant observed adverse effect
274
Perception Examples of Outcome Increasing Action Effect Level level
Noticeable and The noise causes a material Significant Avoid disruptive change in behaviour and/or observed attitude, e.g. avoiding certain adverse effect activities during periods of intrusion; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to keep windows closed most of the time because of the noise. Potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting back to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty getting back to sleep. Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area.
Noticeable and Extensive and regular changes in Unacceptable Prevent very disruptive behaviour and/or an inability to adverse effect mitigate effect of noise leading to psychological stress or physiological effects, e.g. regular sleep deprivation/awakening; loss of appetite, significant, medically definable harm, e.g. auditory and non-auditory
12.15 The noise PPG provides advice on how to mitigate the effects of noise, noting that there are options to reduce noise at source, to optimise site layouts, to use planning conditions, and providing insulation within affected properties.
Local Planning Policy
12.16 The St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy sets out the council’s planning policies. Policy CP1 Ensuring Quality Development in St. Helens references noise, stating:
“All proposals for development within the Borough will be expected, where appropriate, to meet the following standards as a minimum:
3. Environmental Quality
i. Minimise and mitigate against the effects of air, light and water pollution (including contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater resources) and noise, vibration, smells, dust and electromagnetic fields caused by the development;”
12.17 The policy provides no guidance as to how noise should be assessed in the context of providing environmental quality.
275
12.18 The St Helens Local Plan Preferred Options is currently being consulted upon by the St Helens Council and although it is only at a very initial stage and carries limited weight, the following policies are relevant to this assessment:
12.19 Policy LPA07 Transport and Travel, which states:
“The Council will seek to minimise the negative impacts of transport including air and noise pollution through requiring developers to implement Travel Plans in accordance with the requirements of the Ensuring a Choice of Travel SPD”
12.20 Policy LPD01 Ensuring Quality Developments in St Helens states:
“All proposals for development within the Borough will be expected to meet the following standards, where appropriate, as a minimum:
2. Environmental Quality
iii. Minimise and mitigate to acceptable levels against the effects of air, light and water pollution (including contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater resources) and noise, vibration, smells, dust and electromagnetic fields caused by the development;”
Guidance / Standards 12.21 There are a number of guidance documents and relevant standards that are relevant to the assessment of noise and vibration, and to which regard has been had in the completion of the assessment. These are:
• BS5228:2009+A1(2014) (for assessing the impact of noise and vibration levels likely to be generated during construction (Ref 12.5); • BS 4142:2014 (for assessing the impact of noise and vibration from the development during operation including from potential fixed plant (Ref 12.6); • Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) when assessing the potential impact of development generated road traffic (Ref 12.7); • ISO9613 - Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2 General method of calculation (Ref 12.8); • World Health Organisation’s Guidelines for Community Noise (Ref 12.9); and • The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (Ref 12.10).
12.22 Summaries of these documents are included within ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.2.
Assessment Methodology
The Study Area 12.23 The study area for the assessment of operational noise is geographically defined by the Proposed Development Site (PDS) and the area surrounding it, up to a distance of approximately 1km. Beyond a distance of 1km, the calculation methods, principally contained in ISO9613, do not state an accuracy for the calculated values.
12.24 Not all receptors within 1km of the Proposed Development Site are considered in the assessment; in many instances it is considered sufficient to assess either the closest or most exposed receptors as being indicative of the worst-case impacts.
276
12.25 The assessment of road traffic noise covers those roads most-affected by development- generated traffic, without regard to a 1km cut-off threshold.
Baseline Surveys
Desk Based Research 12.26 The area surrounding the Proposed Development Site has been reviewed using Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial photography to identify the key features relating to noise and vibration, such as the locations of noise-sensitive receptors, types of ground cover, the presence and size of buildings and other obstructions, and the presence of other noise- generating premises.
Field Surveys 12.27 Baseline noise survey of the existing background and ambient noise levels at key locations around the Proposed Development Site was undertaken by Miller Goodall Limited in October 2016. The results of this survey have been used in the assessment of both construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
12.28 The measurements were undertaken at two locations, as follows:
• Position 1: to the north of the Proposed Development Site, at a position considered representative of the receptors to the north; • Position 2: to the south of the Proposed Development Site, at a position considered representative of the receptors to the south and west.
12.29 The measurement locations are shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 12.1.
12.30 Details of the equipment used during the baseline survey, the dates and times of the measurements, and a summary of the prevailing weather conditions are set out in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.3.
Consultation 12.31 The scope of methodology for the assessment was presented to St Helens Borough Council (SHBC) in the Environmental Statement Scoping Report (ESSR) submitted in the November 2016. A summary of SHBC’s Scoping Opinion (issued on the 10 January 2017) as relevant to noise and vibration is presented in ES Volume 4: Appendix 4.1.
12.32 No response has yet been received on the noise and vibration elements of the ESSR from St Helens Borough Council.
Assessment of Effects
Assessment Standards and Criteria 12.33 As noted above, the assessment has been completed in accordance with the following published standards and criteria.
• British Standard 5228 (Ref 12.5) • British Standard 4142 (Ref 12.6) • Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Ref 12.7) • ISO9613 (Ref 12.8)
277
• World Health Organisation Guidelines (Ref 12.9) • Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), Department of Transport and The Welsh Office (Ref 12.10)
12.34 The detailed provisions of these documents are presented in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.2.
12.35 It is to be noted that:
• The predicted construction noise levels have been assessed against criteria derived using the “ABC Method” as described in Section E.3.2 of BS5228: 2009”A1 (2014). • BS4142: 2014 allows the internal environment to be considered as part of the contextual part of the assessment. • BS4142 requires uncertainties in the assessment to be considered, and where the uncertainty is likely to affect the outcome of the assessment, steps should be taken to reduce the uncertainty.
12.36 The noise levels generated by the operation of the commercial uses at the site have been calculated using the proprietary noise modelling software CADNA, which implements the common European methods of noise prediction. In this instance, the noise predictions have been undertaken in general accordance with the noise prediction framework set out in ISO9613-2 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2 General method of calculation.
12.37 The noise calculations are based on individual noise sources acting as either point sources, where the noise level reduces by 6dB for every doubling of distance, as line sources, where the noise level reduces by 3dB for every doubling of distance or plane sources, where the noise level reduces by between 0 and 6dB for every doubling of distance, depending on the dimensions of the plane source and the proximity of the receptor.
12.38 The model takes into account the distance between the sources and the receptors and the amount of attenuation due to atmospheric absorption. The model assumes downwind propagation, i.e. a wind direction that assists the propagation of noise from the source to all receptors.
12.39 The inherent uncertainty in ISO9613 is stated in the standard as being accurate to ±1dB for distances of up to 100 metres, or ±3dB for distances of between 100 metres and 1km, with an average height of propagation of up to 30 metres.
12.40 Potential impacts associated with off-site operational traffic have been considered against the guidance set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques, Part 7 Noise and Vibration (Ref 12.7).
12.41 The short term criteria specified in Table A12.2.2 of ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.2 have been used to assess the potential impacts from both construction and operational traffic associated with the Proposed Development.
Magnitude of Impact 12.42 The magnitudes of potential construction impact will be defined according to the descriptions set out in Table 12.2, which were set out in the ESSR.
278
Table 12.2: Determination of magnitude of construction impact – subjective responses
Magnitude of Definition of magnitude impact
High The noise/vibration causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude. Potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep. Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area.
Moderate Noise/vibration can be heard/felt and causes small changes in behaviour and/or attitude. Affects the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
Low A minor adverse change from baseline conditions. Noise/vibration can be heard/felt, but does not cause any change in behaviour or attitude. Can slightly affect the acoustic character of the area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
Negligible Very little change from baseline conditions. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to a 'no change' situation.
12.43 These descriptions of subjective human response have been translated to construction noise impacts determined in the following way, with reference to the criteria set out in Table A12.2.1 in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.2:
• exceeding the adopted criteria by more than 10dB will constitute a high adverse impact, irrespective of the duration; • exceeding the adopted criteria by less than 10dB for a period of more than one month will constitute a moderate adverse impact; • exceeding the adopted criteria by less than 10dB for a period of less than one month will constitute a low adverse impact; and • compliance with the adopted criteria will constitute a negligible impact.
12.44 It is noted that the duration of construction vibration impacts is of less significance since all of the construction works generating vibration will be of relatively short duration. The significance of potential construction vibration impacts are categorised according to the vibration magnitude only, as follows:
• any works causing a vibration level greater than 10mm/s (measured as a peak particle velocity) will constitute a high adverse impact; • any works causing a vibration level between 1mm/s and 10mm/s will constitute a moderate adverse impact; • any works causing a vibration level between 0.3mm/s and 1mm/s will constitute a low adverse impact; and • any works causing a vibration level less than 0.3mm/s will constitute a neutral or negligible impact.
279
12.45 The magnitude of impact of operational noise generated by the Proposed Development will be determined largely in relation to the guidance in BS4142: 2014 (Ref 12.6). It is possible to equate the outcomes in the standard to an impact magnitude, as shown in Table 12.3, which is taken from the ESSR.
Table 12.3: Determination of BS4142: 2014 impact (Operational Phase)
Level of Definition of magnitude magnitude BS4142: 2014 Description provided in BS4142: 2014 for likely assessment level impact
High > +10dB “A difference of around +10 dB or more is likely to be an indication of a significant adverse impact, depending on the context.”
Moderate +5dB to +10dB No BS 4142: 2014 description but the greater the difference, the greater the magnitude of the impact.
Moderate +5dB “A difference of around +5 dB is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact, depending on the context.”
Low 0dB to +5dB No BS 4142: 2014 description but the lower the rating level is relative to the measured background sound level, the less likely it is that the specific sound source will have an adverse impact or a significant adverse impact.
Negligible < 0dB BS4142: 2014 states that where the rating level does not exceed the background sound level, this is an indication of the specific sound source having a low impact, depending on the context.
12.46 It is important to note that the standard itself clearly states that contextual considerations should be factored into the overall judgment of significance; a direct correlation between the assessment outcomes and the significance of potential impacts should not be assumed.
12.47 It is also important to note that BS4142: 2014 does not describe the thresholds set out in Table 12.3 in definitive terms. The standard refers to outcomes ‘around’ the values stated, for example, “A difference of around +5dB is likely to be an indication of an adverse impact, depending on context”. (emphasis added).
12.48 The word ‘around’ is important as it illustrates that there is not a rigid threshold of adverse impact that is reached when the rating level exceeds the background sound level by 5dB, that would disappear when the rating drops by 0.55dB, where the rating level, rounded to a whole number, would exceed the background sound level by 4dB.
12.49 For the purposes of this assessment, the numerical BS4142: 2014 assessment is taken to be indicative of the broad impact significance, as set out in Table 12.3, with contextual factors set out that may modify the stated outcome.
280
12.50 The significance of off-site road traffic noise impacts, during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development, will be determined according to the thresholds set out in Table A12.2.2 in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.2.
12.51 The likelihood of the defined outcomes occurring is assessed against the relevant standards and guidelines for the particular source under consideration.
Sensitivity of Receptor 12.52 The sensitivity of the various receptors assessed in this chapter will be determined according to the scale set out in Table 12.4, which is largely replicated from the ESSR, with one clarification that hotels are classed as temporary holiday accommodation.
Table 12.4: Determination of receptor sensitivity
Magnitude of Definition of sensitivity impact
High Hospitals (e.g. operating theatres or high dependency units), residential accommodation, private gardens, hospital wards, care homes, care homes at night, research facilities
Medium Schools, universities, national parks, during the day; and temporary holiday accommodation at all times including hotels
Low Offices, shops, outdoor amenity areas, long distance footpaths, doctors surgeries, sports facilities and places of worship
Negligible Warehouses, light industry, car parks, agricultural land
12.53 These receptor sensitivity categories apply to receptors for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
Duration of Effect 12.54 The duration of any identified impacts will be considered as short term, medium term or long term, according to Table 12.5, which is replicated from the ESSR.
Table 12.5: Duration of effects
Timescale Definition
Short term 0 to 5 years
Medium term 5 to 15 years
Long term 15 + years
Assessing Significance of Effect 12.55 The impact magnitude will be related to the receptor sensitivity to determine the overall significance of the effect, in accordance with Table 12.6. An effect of moderate or major significance can be considered to be significant in EIA terms.
281
Table 12.6: Significance of Effect
Sensitivity of receptor
High Medium Low Negligible High Major Major Moderate None
Moderate Major Moderate Minor None
Low Moderate Minor None None
Negligible Minor None None None
Magnitude of impact
Limitations and Assumptions 12.56 No details of fixed plant likely to be installed as part of the Proposed Development are currently available, so it is not possible to quantify the potential impact of fixed plant noise.
12.57 However, specifying and installing plant that meets the criteria identified later in this chapter is considered to constitute a negligible impact.
12.58 The assessment is underpinned by various assumptions relating to both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development, and these are identified within the assessment of effects.
12.59 Where a range of operational parameters are available, for example where operations may include certain items of machinery for some operators, but not others, these have been included to provide a robust, worst-case assessment.
12.60 It is assumed that the site will operate 24 hours a day, seven days week. It is assumed that construction activities will be undertaken during the daytime hours only, likely to be between 07:00 hours and 19:00 hours Monday to Friday and 07:00 hours to 13:00 on Saturdays.
Baseline Conditions 12.61 The baseline sound survey results are summarised in Table 12.7 (Position 1) and Table 12.8 (Position 2) and set out in full in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.3.
12.62 The results summarised below have been averaged over the daytime (07:00 to 23:00 hours), and night-time (23:00 to 07:00 hours) periods, as described in BS4142: 2014.
Table 12.7: Summary of measured sound levels at Position 1, free-field dB
(1) (1) Day Period LAeq,T LA90 LA10 LAFmax Day 52.0 48.4 52.2 50.2 to 76.4 Weekday Night 48.7 45.1 49.2 43.7 to 62.7
Day 55.6 53.8 56.5 52.7 to 77.6 Weekend Night 50.7 47.2 51.9 51.7 to 67.0
(1) Note: The LA90 and LA10 values presented were calculated from the arithmetic mean of the
LA90,15min and LA10,15min measurements for each period.
282
Table 12.8: Summary of measured sound levels at Position 2, free-field dB
(1) (1) Day Period LAeq,T LA90 LA10 LAFmax Day 61.4 59.0 61.9 61.1 to 93.2 Weekday Night 58.4 54.9 59.7 60.1 to 80.8
Day 63.5 61.3 63.9 61.7 to 101.0 Weekend Night 57.2 53.4 58.2 58.4 to 69.4
(1) Note: The LA90 and LA10 values presented were calculated from the arithmetic mean of the
LA90,15min and LA10,15min measurements for each period.
12.63 British Standard 4142: 2014 (Ref 12.6) indicates that a representative background sound level should be adopted for use in an assessment, which should not automatically be assumed to
be the lowest or most common value. For this assessment, the distribution of LA90 values in the measurement data has been analysed and representative values determined.
12.64 To aid in determining the representative value, the cumulative percentage of the dataset set has also been analysed, and the 25% point has been determined, i.e. the value above which 75% of the data lies.
12.65 The representative LA90 values are shown in Table 12.9. The representative values have been rounded to the nearest whole number as required by BS4142: 2014. The distribution analysis of the daytime and night-time background sound levels are contained in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.3.
Table 12.9: Representative background sound levels used in assessment, free-field dB
Background sound levels, LA90 dB Position Period Range Adopted Representative Values
Day 42 to 59 51 1 Night 35 to 57 42
Day 54 to 66 57 2 Night 46 to 65 49
Assessment of Effects
Matters That Have Been Scoped Out 12.66 Vibration from operations at the site is unlikely to be perceptible beyond a distance measured in tens of metres. Since there are no receptors within 100 metres of the Proposed Development, operational vibration is not considered further.
Embedded Mitigation 12.67 No mitigation has been embedded into the Proposed Development to control noise and vibration. Although the Proposed Development will include landscape boundaries that will be
283
planted, these will offer minimal noise attenuation. Such effects have not been included in the assessment.
Assessment of Construction Phase Effects
Construction Noise 12.68 An assessment of the likely construction noise emissions has been undertaken.
12.69 Detailed information is not available at this stage on the proposed construction methods, nor on the construction phasing. These would be defined within a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) which is to be secured by planning condition. Notwithstanding this, the works are anticipated to involve the following elements:
• site preparation works, involving excavators, dump trucks, loaders and lorries; • foundation works, involving concreting plant, trucks and lorries; • building erection works, involving lorries, tracked cranes, manual tasks such as hammering, nail guns and erection of scaffolding, generators and compressors; • road surfacing, including asphalt paving equipment and lorries; and • landscaping works, involving dump trucks, lorries, compaction plant, excavators and asphalting plant.
12.70 It is understood that piling is unlikely to be required at the site, but some of vibratory treatment may be required to consolidate the ground in places. To allow for this possibility in the assessment, vibro displacement has been included as an activity as part of the foundation works.
12.71 The items of plant assumed to be used during each phase of works are set out in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.4.
12.72 The calculations have been undertaken for two situations; an ‘average’ case where the construction plant are assumed to be at the approximate centre of the site, and a ‘worst-case’ where the construction plant are assumed to be at the part of the site closest to the receptor under consideration. This gives a range of values representing the average and worst-case noise levels likely to be generated during the works.
12.73 Construction noise has been predicted at the receptor locations listed in Table 12.10, and shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 12.2.
Table 12.10: Receptors for construction noise assessment
Receptor Distance to site Distance to Distance to centre boundary closest proposed of site (metres) (metres) building (metres)
Hotel – north of site 255 330 600
Haydock Park Gardens 330 405 745
Park House Farm 575 620 1,000
Park Road 695 990 1,200
284
Receptor Distance to site Distance to Distance to centre boundary closest proposed of site (metres) (metres) building (metres)
Dean Dam Farm 575 975 940
Care Home 215 245 530
Park Cottages 280 315 700
Hotel – west of site 240 420 350
12.74 The assessment criteria for each of the receptor groups are as determined in accordance with Table A12.2.1 in ES Volume 4: Appendix 12.2, whereby the ambient noise level, rounded to the nearest 5dB, defines the assessment level. The existing noise levels at each of these assessment positions are taken to be as measured during the daytime noise measurements, as the construction works will be limited to this period. To ensure a robust assessment, the lowest 15 minute value measured at each position has been used.
12.75 In this instance, the lowest existing ambient noise levels were all below 65dB, so the most stringent daytime criterion of 65dB applies at all locations.
12.76 Table 12.11 sets out the predicted unmitigated construction noise levels for each assessment location. Where the construction noise levels are predicted to exceed the 65dB criterion, the cells are highlighted blue.
Table 12.11: Predicted construction noise levels, free-field dB
Receptor Phase of Construction Works(1)
1 2 3 4 5
Hotel – north of site 54.9 - 62.3 53.4 - 59.3 55.8 - 61.6 47.9 - 53.6 54.4 - 61.9
Haydock Park 53.0 – 60.0 52.1 - 57.6 54.4 - 59.9 46.6 - 52.2 52.6 - 59.6 Gardens
Park House Farm 50.4 - 55.2 49.5 - 53.9 51.8 - 56.2 44.0 - 48.7 50.0 - 54.8
Park Road 48.8 - 53.6 47.6 - 49.8 49.9 - 52.1 42.4 - 47.1 48.4 - 53.2
Dean Dam Farm 51.0 - 55.2 50.2 - 53.1 52.5 - 55.4 45.0 - 48.3 50.5 - 54.8
Care Home 55.9 - 63.8 55.5 – 62.0 57.9 - 64.3 49.7 – 57.0 55.5 - 63.4
Park Cottages 53.5 - 61.5 53.4 - 59.7 55.8 – 62.0 47.6 - 54.7 53.1 - 61.1
Hotel – west of site 52.9 - 62.8 53.4 - 57.2 55.8 - 59.5 46.4 - 53.3 52.5 - 62.4
Note:
(1) Phases of work as follows: Phase 1 = Site preparation works; Phase 2 = Foundation works; Phase 3 = Building erection works; Phase 4 = Road construction works; and Phase 5 = Landscaping works
12.77 It can be seen from Table 12.11 that the 65dB criterion is unlikely to be exceeded at any of the closest receptors, even when construction activities are undertaken close to the site boundary without mitigation. The construction phase is considered likely to lead to a negligible
285
magnitude of impact upon receptors of medium to high sensitivity. The overall significance of effect would therefore be minor to no adverse effect and not significant in EIA terms. The impact of the construction phase would be temporary and short term.
12.78 Notwithstanding this outcome, a number of mitigation measures are set out later in this chapter to reduce the likely noise levels during construction still further.
Construction Vibration 12.79 British Standard 5228 Part 2 contains a number of formulae that may be used to estimate vibration levels for specific types of activity, such as the use of a vibratory roller or a rotary piling rig.
12.80 Irrespective of the nature of the works undertaken at the Proposed Development Site, perceptible levels of vibration are unlikely at distances in excess of 200 metres even where piling is undertaken. It is considered that construction vibration is likely to lead to a negligible magnitude of impact on the receptors identified in Table 12.10 above (high sensitivity) and a minor to no adverse effect. These effects are anticipated to be short term and are not considered to be significant in EIA terms.
Construction Traffic 12.81 Data on likely levels of construction have been provided by the traffic consultants for the project, Vectos. The supplied construction traffic data shows a total of 150 vehicles per day, which are understood to be split 50/50 from the site access east and west along the A580 East Lancs Road. So that a worst-case assessment is undertaken, it is assumed that all of the construction traffic are heavy goods vehicles.
12.82 The existing baseline traffic flows along the East Lancs Road have also been provided. It is understood that the existing flow along this road is 35,532 vehicles per 18 hour day, of which 4% are understood to be HGVs to the east of the site access, and 35,553 with 3.9% HGVs to the west of the site access.
12.83 Traffic noise predictions have been carried out at a notional receptor location 10 metres from the edge of the carriageway and 1.5 metres above ground level. A notional receptor has been used because it is the change in traffic noise level that is of interest, not the absolute noise levels at any given receptor. The predicted changes in noise level will occur at noise-sensitive receptors along the road considered.
12.84 The likely changes in road traffic noise levels as a result of the construction traffic are shown in Table 12.12.
Table 12.12: Predicted construction traffic noise levels, free-field dB
Road 2016 base with construction traffic
A580 East Lancs Road, west of site access 77.6 77.7 (0.1)
A580 East Lancs Road, east of site access 77.7 77.7 (0)
Notes
(1) Figure in brackets is the change from the 2016 base to the ‘with construction traffic’ scenario.
286
12.85 It can be seen from Table 12.12 that a negligible change in road traffic noise of 0.1dB is predicted. It is therefore concluded that there will be negligible impact as a result of construction traffic on any receptors along the route, including receptors that would be regarded as having high sensitivity. The overall significance of effect would therefore be minor to no adverse effect. These effects are anticipated to be short term and not significant in EIA terms.
Decommissioning Works 12.86 At this stage, the range and extent of work required to decommission the Proposed Development are not known. However, the impacts are likely to be similar to those identified for the construction phase of work.
Assessment of Operational Phase Effects
Operational Noise Emissions 12.87 Developments that fall into a distribution use class (B8) are, to a large degree, predictable in terms of their likely noise emissions. Noise from heavy goods vehicles is generally similar and provided the traffic volumes are known, the overall noise emissions can be calculated and assessed.
12.88 Developments that fall into a general industrial (B2) use class are less predictable, as the use class encompasses a vast range of potential activities, and consequently noise emissions. It is possible to assess B2 activities where they are similar to those undertaken for a B8 site, such as loading and unloading activities, and the assumptions detailed below for B8 sites will represent a large proportion of B2 sites. For the remainder, a number of general guidelines are set out later in this chapter to control potential noise emissions from B2 uses at the Proposed Development Site.
12.89 The operation of the Proposed Development is likely to involve a number of heavy goods vehicle movements in the service yard area, heavy and light vehicles on the access road to the site and movements around the staff car parking area. With each movement of each vehicle around the site, a number of sources are likely to give rise to noise that has the potential to propagate off-site. These sources could include airbrake noise (generated by the release of air pressure from heavy goods vehicle brake systems), revving engines, and reversing alarms.
12.90 A database of typical noise emission levels is shown in Table 12.13. These values have been taken from similar but unrelated developments.
Table 12.13: Typical source noise levels for vehicles at industrial sites, free-field dB
Source Distance (metres) LAE LAFmax HGV air brakes 10 77 81
HGV start up and pull away 10 76 74
HGV reversing alarm 10 82 73
HGV dropping off trailer 10 79 85
HGV picking up trailer 10 84 86
287
Source Distance (metres) LAE LAFmax HGV pass-by 10 89 -
Shunter pass-by with trailer 10 85 81
Shunter pass-by without trailer 10 82 77
Shunter dropping off trailer 10 75 77
Shunter picking up trailer 10 87 92
Car door slam 10 65 72
Car engine starting 10 62 66
Car pulling away 10 67 64
Car pass-by 10 80 -
Forklift pass-by forwards 10 69 -
Forklift pass-by reversing 10 75 76
Forklift loading 10 65 66
Forklift unloading 10 68 -
Diesel-powered refrigerated trailer - 96(1) -
Notes:
(1) – Sound level stated as a sound power level, not an LAE value.
12.91 The likely operational traffic movements for the site have been confirmed by the traffic consultant for the project, Vectos. The peak traffic values in each of the daytime, evening and night-time periods are shown in Table 12.14.
Table 12.14: Peak Hourly Vehicle Movements
Period Cars Heavy Goods Vehicles
Daytime (07:00-23:00) 533 87
Night-time (23:00-07:00) 356 58
Note: The peak car and heavy goods vehicle movements are not necessarily predicted to occur in the same one hour period. However, for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that they do.
12.92 Each of the vehicle movements in Table 12.14 is assumed to give rise to each of the relevant noise generating events set out in Table 12.13, to derive the overall vehicle noise emissions for the proposed development.
12.93 The assessment periods are taken as one hour for the daytime and evening periods and fifteen minutes for the night-time period, consistent with the approach recommended in BS4142: 2014. Since the vehicle movements into and out of the site had been derived in terms of hourly totals, it has been assumed that the night-time fifteen minute period includes one quarter of all car and heavy goods vehicle movements.
288
12.94 It is assumed that shunters will operate at the site to move trailers between loading docks and trailer parking areas. The number of shunter movements is assumed to equal the peak hourly HGV movements.
12.95 In the absence of known operators for the Proposed Development, it is possible that refrigerated trailers may be used. So that a worst-case is assessed, it is assumed that all of the HGVs visiting the site have diesel-powered refrigerated trailers, which run when stationary at the site.
12.96 Forklifts are likely to operate at the Proposed Development, principally within buildings. However, it is also likely that they will operate outside buildings loading or unloading HGVs at level access doors. It has been assumed that 20 forklift loads are required per HGV at a level access door to either load it or unload it, based on observations at other sites. This equates to 40 forklift movements per HGV at a level access door.
12.97 Each forklift movement is assumed to give rise to each of the relevant noise-generating events set out in Table 12.13, to derive the overall forklift noise emissions for the site. The source noise levels for forklifts set out in Table 12.13 are based on measurements of diesel- powered forklifts.
12.98 In addition to the vehicle movements, it has been assumed that activities within the buildings generate reverberant noise levels of 80dB(A), which is the lower exposure action value set out in the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (Ref 12.11) and considered to be representative of a generic B2 use. Based on measurements made at existing storage and distribution facilities, typical B8 uses generate reverberant noise levels in the region of 75dB(A). Therefore a figure of 80dB(A) is considered reasonable and robust.
12.99 The external building fabric of all buildings is assumed to provide a sound reduction of 25dB
Rw, which is considered to be typical for the composite panels typically used for the types of building proposed at the Proposed Development.
12.100 It is noted that some of these operational assumptions are, in practice, mutually exclusive. For example, there are very few, if any, B2 operators that use chilled vehicle fleet, so it is unlikely that the assumption that internal sound levels that represent B2 uses would ever occur at the same time as widespread use of refrigerated trailers. If refrigerated trailers are used, the internal sound levels in the buildings are likely to be around 75dB(A) rather than 80dB(A).
12.101 Similarly, it is considered unlikely that the entire Proposed Development Site would be used by three occupiers, all of whom operate a fully-chilled vehicle fleet. Typically, operators that use chilled goods have much lower numbers of refrigerated trailers, perhaps 25 to 35% of the HGV fleet.
12.102 However, while these operational assumptions may not occur in practice, they allow for a worst-case assessment of the Proposed Development.
12.103 The likely noise emissions have been calculated on the basis of the proposed site layouts shown in the following Michael Sparks Associates’ drawings:
• Haydock Point, Haydock – Illustrative Site Layout Plan Option – Cross Docking Option (drawing reference 30926-FE-042A, dated February 2017);
289
• Haydock Point, Haydock – Illustrative Site Layout Plan Option – Southern Service Yard to Unit 3 (drawing reference 30926-FE-043A, dated February 2017); • Haydock Point, Haydock – Illustrative Site Layout Plan Option – Northern Service Yard to Unit 3 (drawing reference 30926-FE-044, dated February 2017);
12.104 As the planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved and supported by a development Parameter Plan (Michael Sparks Associates drawing Haydock Point, Haydock – Parameters Plan (drawing reference 30926-FE-008H Revision H, dated January 2017), more general conclusions and mitigation measures are set out, where appropriate. These more general recommendations should be factored into any detailed layouts that emerge at reserved matters stage.
12.105 It is considered that by assessing the three illustrative masterplans, the worst-case interpretation of the parameters plan for each receptor will be considered.
12.106 The effect of opening doors in the proposed buildings has also been considered, to test the sensitivity of the assessment outcome to the status of the doors. The doors that are modelled as open are the level access doors; the doors on the dock levellers will only open when a trailer is docked. Open level access doors are assumed to have a sound reduction of 0dB. Where appropriate, commentary is given as to the effect of keeping level access doors closed. Closed level access doors are assumed to have a sound reduction performance of 20dB.
12.107 The noise levels generated by the activities have been calculated using the prediction framework set out in ISO9613 as implemented by the noise modelling software CADNA/A.
12.108 The vehicle activities in and around the site have been modelled as acoustic point or line sources. Noise breaking out from the building has been modelled using acoustic area sources, with the dimensions set to match the façade being modelled. The self-screening that would occur as a result of the occupation of the site has been ignored to present a worst-case. The acoustic screening effects of garden fences have also been ignored.
12.109 The topography on and around the site has been modelled using OS mapping information and on-site observations. The acoustic absorbency of the ground around the site is assumed to be acoustically soft ground. All buildings have been modelled as approximately 70% acoustically reflective.
12.110 One hour and fifteen minute LAeq values have been calculated as appropriate for the assessment period for each noise-generating event. The predicted noise levels from each event have been logarithmically summed to derive the overall noise levels from the proposed development.
12.111 The assessment of operational noise levels has been undertaken at the following locations, as shown in ES Volume 3b: Plan 12.3:
• Hotel to the north of the Proposed Development Site; • Haydock Park Gardens; • Park House Farm; • Park Road; • Dean Dam Farm; • Care Home;
290
• Park Cottages; and • Hotel to the west of the Proposed Development Site..
12.112 To allow a direct comparison with the measured noise levels, the noise predictions are free- field values at the position of the property façade closest to, and facing, the site. The predictions have been undertaken at 4 metres above ground level to represent the noise level at either the bedroom windows or simply an upper storey.
12.113 The noise levels predicted at the above receptors are shown in Table 12.15 for each of the three site layouts considered. The predictions have been rounded to the nearest whole number to obtain specific sound levels.
Table 12.15: Predicted specific sound levels, free-field LAeq,T dB
Receptor Period Predicted Specific Sound Levels, LAeq,T 30926-FE- 30926-FE- 30926-FE- 042A 043A 044A
Hotel, north of site Day 45 43 47
Night 44 42 45
Haydock Park Gardens Day 43 43 45
Night 42 41 43
Park House Farm Day 39 37 38
Night 37 36 37
Park Road Day 38 37 36
Night 36 35 35
Dean Dam Farm Day 42 41 38
Night 40 39 37
Care Home Day 47 50 47
Night 46 49 46
Park Cottages Day 47 49 42
Night 45 48 41
Hotel, west of site Day 41 40 42
Night 39 38 40
12.114 To determine whether an impact is likely, the predicted specific sound levels from the site have been assessed using the method set out in BS4142: 2014. The specific sound levels shown in Table 12.15 have been converted to rating levels by the addition of +8dB. This includes +2dB to account for tonal elements such as reversing alarms that are likely to be just perceptible at times, +3dB to account for impulsive elements such as heavy goods vehicles connecting to trailers, and a further +3dB to account for the intermittent nature of activities at the site.
291
12.115 The predicted rating levels have compared with the background sound levels, as shown in Table 12.16. The background sound levels are the representative values for each position set out in Table 12.9.
12.116 The highest rating levels predicted at each receptor for the three illustrative layouts considered have been used in the assessment. This ensures that each receptor has been assessed on a worst-case basis.
Table 12.16: BS4142 Assessment, free-field dB
Receptor Period Background Sound Predicted Rating Difference
Level LA90 Level LAr,T Hotel, north of site Day 51 55 +4
Night 42 53 +11
Haydock Park Day 51 53 +2 Gardens Night 42 51 +9
Park House Farm Day 51 47 -4
Night 42 45 +3
Park Road Day 57 46 -11
Night 49 44 -5
Dean Dam Farm Day 57 50 -7
Night 49 48 -1
Care Home Day 57 58 +1
Night 49 57 +8
Park Cottages Day 57 57 0
Night 49 56 +7
Hotel, west of site Day 57 50 -7
Night 49 48 -1
Note: Time period T is 1 hour for daytime and evening periods, and 15 minutes for the night-time
12.117 It can be seen from Table 12.16 that, at the hotel to the north of the Proposed Development Site, the rating level is predicted to be 11dB above the background sound level at night, which BS4142: 2014 suggests is a significant adverse impact. Even though a hotel is regarded as having medium sensitivity, the high magnitude of impact would result in a major adverse effect, which is considered to be significant in EIA terms.
12.118 At Haydock Park Gardens, the rating level at night is predicted to exceed the background sound level by 9dB, which would be a moderate magnitude of impact. Again, the high sensitivity of the receptor would result in a major adverse effect, which is again to be considered significant in EIA terms.
292
12.119 At the care home to the south of the Proposed Development Site, the rating level is predicted to exceed the background sound level by 8dB at night, which would be a moderate impact. Again, the high sensitivity of the receptor would result in a major adverse effect, which is again to be considered significant in EIA terms.
12.120 Low impacts are predicted during the night-time at Park House Farm. Due to the high sensitivity of this receptor, the overall significance of the effect would be moderate, which is still considered to be significant in EIA terms.
12.121 At Park Road, Dean Dam Farm and the hotel to the west of the site, negligible impacts are predicted, which due to their high sensitivity, would be of minor significance, which is not considered to be significant in EIA terms.
12.122 All of the identified impacts and effects from operational noise are anticipated to be long term effects.
12.123 The uncertainty has been reduced as far as considered practicable through the implementation of high quality source data and a robust calculation process.
12.124 Uncertainty has also been reduced by undertaking the baseline sound measurements in accordance with recommended good practice, for example, measuring in suitable weather conditions and using laboratory-calibrated measurement equipment.
12.125 The measurements cover both a weekday and weekend, and include measurements made of the typical quietest periods i.e. in the middle of the night-time. This should result in measurements that capture the lowest typical background sound levels in the areas, enabling a more robust assessment.
12.126 Furthermore, the assessment considered the operation of a number of sources at the site, such as refrigerated trailers and shunters, that many operators will not use, and those that do are unlikely to use at the intensity of activity assumed. These assumptions are considered to be robust leading to a worst-case assessment.
12.127 Mitigation to address these potential impacts is set out later in this chapter.
12.128 The maximum noise levels associated with the use of the Proposed Development are likely to relate to a HGV tractor unit or shunter picking up a trailer, or slamming car doors. The highest maximum noise levels associated with these events are likely to be in the region of 92dB for a shunter picking up a trailer, 86dB for an HGV tractor unit picking up a trailer, and 72dB for a car door slam, all at a distance of 10 metres.
12.129 Taking account of the distance between the development parcels shown on the Parameters Plan and the surrounding receptors, maximum noise levels due to shunters picking up trailers are likely to exceed the 60dB criterion set out in the WHO Guidelines at Park Cottage and the care home to the south of the Proposed Development site . The levels are calculated to be 64dB at the care home and 62dB at Park Cottages.
12.130 Mitigation therefore may be required to control maximum noise events for these two locations, should shunters be used at the site.
293
Off-Site Road Traffic Noise Impacts 12.131 Road traffic data for roads around the site have been supplied by the traffic consultant for the project. The data has been supplied with and without traffic generated by the proposed development so that its effect on existing road traffic noise levels can be determined.
12.132 Traffic noise predictions have been carried out at a notional receptor location 10 metres from the edge of the carriageway and 1.5 metres above ground level. A notional receptor has been used because it is the change in traffic noise level that is of interest, not the absolute noise levels at any given receptor. The predicted changes in noise level will occur at noise-sensitive receptors along the road considered.
12.133 The supplied traffic flows are set out in Table 12.17. It is understood that the traffic flows for the year 2027 include traffic from other committed developments in the area.
Table 12.17: Traffic flows
Road Traffic Flow(1)
2016 Base 2027 Without 2027 With Development Development
Lodge Lane, at Penny Lane junction 12,416 (2.6%) 14,947 (4.6%) 15,753 (4.4%)
Lodge Lane, at Junction 23 11,796 (4.0%) 15,363 (6.0%) 16,171 (5.8%)
A580 East Lancs Road, west of site access 35,533 (3.9%) 41,403 (5.7%) 45,145 (7.2%)
A580 East Lancs Road, east of site access 35,532 (4.0%) 41,402 (6.7%) 42,033 (6.9%)
A580 East Lancs Road, west of Junction 23 34,406 (5.5%) 39,523 (6.3%) 40,701 (6.4%)
Lodge Lane, south of Junction 23 8,995 (3.0%) 11,779 (3.5%) 11,856 (3.5%)
Ashton Road 10,166 (1.1%) 11,364 (2.4%) 11,441 (2.4%)
Crow Lane East 13,100 (3.1%) 14,460 (3.4%) 14,459 (3.4%)
Note:
(1) Traffic flow in terms of vehicle movements, with percentage of heavy goods vehicles in brackets
12.134 The vehicle speeds have been modelled in accordance with the guidance in CRTN, according to the class of road. Low flow corrections have been applied to all routes with a flow less than 4,000 as required in CRTN.
294
12.135 The predicted changes in road traffic noise levels as a result of the use of the proposed development are shown in Table 12.18.
Table 12.18: Calculated changes in road traffic noise, free-field LA10,18hrs dB
Road Scenario
2016 Base 2027 Without 2027 With Development(1) Development(2)
Lodge Lane, at Penny Lane 67.2 68.7 (+1.5) 68.9 (+0.2) junction
Lodge Lane, at Junction 23 67.4 69.2 (+1.8) 69.4 (+0.2)
A580 East Lancs Road, west 77.6 78.6 (+1.0) 79.3 (+0.7) of site access
A580 East Lancs Road, east 77.7 78.8 (+1.1) 78.9 (+0.1) of site access
A580 East Lancs Road, west 77.8 78.5 (+0.7) 78.7 (+0.2) of Junction 23
Lodge Lane, south of 66.0 67.3 (+1.3) 67.3 (0) Junction 23
Ashton Road 65.8 66.8 (+1.0) 66.8 (0)
Crow Lane East 67.6 68.2 (+0.6) 68.2 (0)
Notes
(1) Figure in brackets is the change from the 2016 base to the 2027 without development scenario. The change is due to natural traffic growth.
(2) Figure in brackets is the change from the 2027 without development scenario to the 2027 with development scenario. The change is due to the development.
12.136 It can be seen from Table 12.18 that the changes in road traffic noise as a result of the development are predicted to be no higher than 1dB, and as such would be classed as a negligible impact. Even if the receptor is assumed to be of high sensitivity the overall significance of effect would be minor and not significant in EIA terms. These effects are anticipated to be long term.
12.137 No mitigation is considered necessary to address changes in off-site road traffic noise levels. Greater changes of up to 1.8dB are predicted to result from natural traffic growth.
Fixed Plant Noise 12.138 The proposed development may include plant to control the climate within the building, although at this stage no details are available as to what plant is to be included, if any.
12.139 Recommended plant noise limits are shown in Table 12.19. It is suggested that, where possible, the plant be designed to a lower limit to ensure that there is ‘headroom’ for the other noise sources at the site. The background sound levels are the representative values for each position, as set out in Table 12.9.
295
Table 12.19: Recommended noise limits for fixed plant, free-field dB
Locations Period Measured Existing LA90,T Proposed Noise Limit, LAr,Tr Residential Daytime 51 51 receptors to the Night-time 42 42 north
Residential Daytime 57 57 receptors to the Night-time 49 49 south and west
Note:
(1) - The proposed noise limits are applicable at a point close to, but at least 4 metres in front of, the relevant façade
12.140 Note that the limits suggested above are rating levels and as such any design should take into account the acoustic characteristics of the plant. The limits are deemed to apply to the total fixed plant noise emission level from the whole site, so individual plant items may need to be designed to a lower limit to take into account the cumulative effects of noise.
12.141 Designing fixed plant at the site to comply with the stated limits is considered likely to result in a minor to no adverse effect, which for receptors for high sensitivity would be classed as a minor effect. These effects are anticipated to be long term. This is not considered significant in EIA terms.
Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects 12.142 Other schemes, both permitted and potential, have been considered to determine whether there is likely to be a cumulative effect. The specific schemes that have been considered are:
• Land To North Of Penny Lane And West Of M6 Motorway, Haydock, which has a hybrid planning permission (reference 2015/0571) including full permission for the erection of B8 warehouse (c.100,000 sq ft) and outline planning permission for erection of B8 warehousing (c.300,000 sq ft); • Land at Florida Farm North, Haydock, for which an application has been submitted to St Helens Council (reference 2016/0608) for a hybrid planning permission including outline planning permission for the erection of two commercial/industrial buildings providing up to 135,000 square metres of employment floorspace (B2/B8 uses with up to 10,000 square metres of office accommodation); • Canmoor Site, adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock, for which pre- application publicity confirmed that an application for planning permission is to be submitted for c.300,000 sq ft of employment floorspace across four units, accessed via the existing Haydock Industrial Estate; and • Parkside development, which is allocated for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in the adopted St Helens Core Strategy Local Plan.
12.143 Of these four schemes, only the site north of Penny Lane and west of the M6 motorway is likely to result in a cumulative effect, as the others are located some distance from the Proposed Development:
296
• Land at Florida Farm North is approximately 2.3km to the west of the Proposed Development; • The Canmoor site is approximately 2.2km to the west of the Proposed Development; and • Parkside development is approximately 2.2km to the south of the Proposed Development.
12.144 The separation distances between these three schemes and the Proposed Development Site are sufficiently large that no additive noise effects are likely to occur.
12.145 The development north of Penny Lane, west of the M6 motorway is approximately 135 metres from the edge of the Proposed Development Site, and it is possible that noise generated by the two schemes may coincide, leading to a greater noise level.
12.146 The noise impact assessment submitted with the planning application for the north of Penny Lane, west of the M6 motorway scheme, as set out in Chapter 5 of the Wardell Armstrong Environmental Statement dated July 2015 (Ref 12.12), does not identify any noise emission levels for the operation of that scheme. Instead the noise assessment identifies noise limits for the scheme, and states that complying with those limits will result in a low impact.
12.147 To allow the cumulative effect of the two schemes to be assessed, the likely noise levels from the Proposed Development have been calculated at the same receptor locations as considered by Wardell Armstrong in their Environmental Statement.
12.148 It has been determined that the rating levels from the Proposed Development Site would be at least 10dB below the limits suggested by Wardell Armstrong, at all locations except at the hotel to the west of the Proposed Development, where at night, the rating level from the Proposed Development would be 6dB below the limit identified by Wardell Armstrong.
12.149 In all instances, there would be no effective contribution from the Proposed Development to the potential emissions from the site north of Penny Lane, west of the M6 motorway, and a cumulative operational impact is unlikely.
12.150 The cumulative effect of noise from development-generated traffic was considered earlier in this chapter, as the traffic data provided by Vectos included traffic from the four identified cumulative schemes.
12.151 The net result of the assessment of cumulative noise is that a negligible impact is likely, which for high sensitivity receptors is considered to be a minor effect. This is not considered significant in EIA terms.
Mitigation of Effects
Construction Phase 12.152 The assessment of potential noise and vibration from the construction phase of the Proposed Development did not identify any likely significant adverse impacts.
12.153 Notwithstanding this measures to control construction activities to further minimize the potential construction noise and vibration impacts will be presented within a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). Such measures may include:
297
• phasing the development of the site to minimise the period where noisy works are undertaken close to the site boundaries; • ensuring that the works adhere to agreed working hours; • controlling off-site parking of construction traffic on the public highway; • implementing a traffic management system at site entrances at all times to control the traffic into the site and the discharge of trucks from the site to avoid congestion; • minimising disturbance from reversing alarms through measures such as site layout, provision of screening, or use of broadband sound emitting reversing alarms; • using ‘silenced’ plant and equipment wherever possible; • switching off vehicle engines where vehicles are standing for a significant period of time; • operating plant at low speeds where possible and incorporating automatic low speed idling; • selecting electrically driven equipment where possible in preference to internal combustion powered, hydraulic power in preference to pneumatic, and wheeled in lieu of tracked plant; • maintaining all plant properly (greased, blown silencers replaced, saws kept sharpened, teeth set and blades flat, worn bearings replaced, etc); • giving consideration to temporary screening or enclosures for static noisy plant to reduce noise emissions, and certifying plant to meet any relevant EC Directive standards; and • making all contractors familiar with the guidance in BS5228 (Parts 1 and 2) which should form a pre-requisite of their appointment.
12.154 Implementing the above measures will reduce noise from the construction works, even though minor to no adverse effects were anticipated.
12.155 Despite this, the nature of construction works is likely to result in minor adverse effects at times. These effects are anticipated to be short term. This is not considered to be significant in EIA terms.
Operational Phase
On-site Operational Noise 12.156 The assessment of noise from on-site activities suggested that long term major adverse effects were possible at night at the Haydock Park Gardens and the hotel to the north of the Proposed Development Site and at Park Cottages and the care home to the south of the Proposed Development site, with long term moderate adverse effects at Park House Farm. These effects were considered to be significant in EIA terms.
12.157 The following mitigation measures have been assessed and are considered to be effective at reducing the noise emissions from the Proposed Development:
• at reserved matters stage, buildings could be oriented (where possible) so that they screen the service yard activities from the closest receptors to the Proposed Development Site; • where internal sound levels are in the region of 80dB(A), the building fabric material
could have a sound reduction performance of no less than 35dB Rw. An insulated built- up system would typically provide this level of reduction;
298
• level access doors could either not open onto noisy spaces, i.e. internal sound levels no higher than 60dB, or the doors could be kept closed at night; • if refrigerated trailers are used at the site, electrical hook-up points could be installed, allowing the use of quieter electrically-powered units rather than diesel-powered units; • where receptors are within 400 metres of, and have a direct line of sight to, HGV trailer parking spaces or loading docks, an acoustic barrier may be required to reduce maximum noise levels from short duration events, such as shunters picking up trailers.
12.158 With respect to potential B2 uses at the Proposed Development Site, particular attenuation should be paid to the building envelope at Reserved Matters stage in terms of:
• minimising penetrations though the building fabric; • minimising the number and sizes of doors and windows opening onto noisy areas to the practical minimums; • the use of building materials that have sufficient mass to contain the noise generated by any plant or machines that generate low frequency noise; and • fitting all personnel openings with self-closing doors.
12.159 In addition a number of noise control and management measures could be specified within the leases of individual operators as follows:
• vehicle engines should be switched off during loading, unloading or waiting; • drivers should be instructed to not unnecessarily rev vehicle engines; • broadband or white noise reversing alarms should be used in preference to tonal reversing alarms; • the use of vehicle horns should be prohibited unless in an emergency; and • personnel should be instructed to not shout outside the building or create any noise nuisance, for example, the use of radios.
12.160 It is important to note that all of the measures identified above are necessarily broad in nature as the planning application is for an outline development with defined parameters. The final form of development will be defined through a reserved matters application the detail of which will determine precise mitigation requirements following the completion of a further noise assessment which is specific to the details presented within the reserved matters application. The measures described above relate to the operational assumptions described in the assessment, which were considered to be worst-case, and in some instances mutually exclusive.
12.161 If the Proposed Development were operated as assessed in this chapter, increasing the
sound reduction performance of the buildings to 35dB Rw, using electrically-powered refrigerated trailers, and either keeping level access doors closed at night, or ensuring they do not open onto noisy spaces, i.e. noise levels in the spaces immediately behind the doors are no more than 60dB, is predicted to result in rating levels that do not exceed the background sound level by more than 3dB at the hotel to the north and by 1dB at Haydock Park Gardens.
12.162 It is noted that if the final site layout was as shown in the proposed site layout drawings 30926-FE-42 or 30926-FE-43, the rating level at the hotel to the north would be no more than 2dB above the background sound level.
299
12.163 These rating levels include an 8dB character correction, so the actual specific sound levels would be 5dB or more below the background sound levels. It is therefore suggested that an 8dB character correction would no longer be appropriate as the various characteristics would no longer be as audible when sound from the Proposed Development Site is suppressed with mitigation. Retaining an 8dB character correction in the ‘with mitigation’ calculations may overestimate the impact.
12.164 The combined effect of the mitigation described above, and the application of a reduced character correction warranted by the less audible characteristics, the rating level will not exceed the background sound level at any receptor other than at the hotel to the north of the Proposed Development Site, where it will exceed the background sound level by no more than 1dB.
12.165 A rating level 1dB above the background sound level would be regarded as a low impact, which when combined with the medium sensitivity of the hotel would result in a minor adverse effect, which is not considered significant in EIA terms.
12.166 The rating levels would be equal to or below the background sound levels at all of the other residential and hotel receptors, suggesting a negligible impact, or a minor to no adverse effect, which would not be considered significant in EIA terms.
12.167 Providing suitable mitigation is employed, which will need to be determined at the Reserved Matters stage, a minor effect should result, which would not be considered significant in EIA terms.
Off-site Road Traffic Noise 12.168 The assessment of off-site road traffic noise suggests that there would be negligible impacts and minor to no adverse effects in the long term, which is not considered significant in EIA terms. No mitigation measures are considered necessary.
Fixed Plant Noise 12.169 Providing fixed plant at the Proposed Development Site is designed to achieve the noise limits set out in Table 12.19, then a negligible impact is likely, leading to minor or no adverse long term effects. This is not considered significant in EIA terms. Other than complying with the stated limits, no further mitigation measures are considered likely.
Decommissioning Phase 12.170 Potential noise and vibration impacts from decommissioning works at the Proposed Development Site are likely to be similar to those predicted for the construction works. Similar mitigation measures are recommended.
Residual Impacts 12.171 The assessment of the construction phase suggests that minor to no adverse effects are likely. These will remain in the short term.
12.172 As noted previously, a number of mitigation measures are available that would address the potential noise generated by the operational use of the Proposed Development. While a number of measures have been identified, these are general measures to address the impacts identified in this assessment, which was based on parameters defined in an outline
300
planning application and worst-case operational practices, some of which are considered to be mutually exclusive.
12.173 If the Proposed Development were operated as described in this chapter, and the mitigation measures implemented, a minor adverse effect may result at some locations in the long-term. However, this is not considered to be significant in EIA terms. As noted previously, the mitigation measures were designed to address the impacts generated by the assumed operations at the Proposed Development, which reflected worst-case operations. Other mitigation measures may be appropriate, depending on the final site layout and operations, however, a similar outcome is considered achievable.
12.174 The assessment of off-site road traffic noise suggests minor to no adverse effects in the long term.
12.175 The assessment of fixed plant noise has set out limits against which any plant installed at the Proposed Development Site should be designed. Compliance with the stated limits should result in minor to no adverse effects in the long term.
301
13. Geology, Soils and Contamination
Introduction
13.1 An assessment of the likely significant effects on ground conditions from or associated with the Proposed Development has been undertaken by Shepherd Gilmour Infrastructure (SGI).
13.2 This chapter of the EIA describes the existing soil and geological conditions and development constraints of the Proposed Development Site (PDS) (the baseline conditions). It goes onto describe the proposed method of assessment of likely significant environmental effects to or from ground conditions during both the construction and operational phase.
13.3 Where appropriate mitigation measures necessary to reduce or remove likely significant effects are described, together with an assessment of the residual impact.
Policy, Legislation, and Good Practice
Policy 13.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 120 (Ref 13.1) indicates that principal planning objective when considering development on land affected by contamination is to ensure that any unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property, and the natural and historical environment from the contaminated condition of land are identified, so that appropriate action can be considered and then taken to address those risks
13.5 To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
13.6 The NPPF planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:
• the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation; • after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Legislation and Good Practice 13.7 The assessment completed by SGI has been guided by the following legislation and good practice with due regard to the NPPF:
• Part 2A Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Ref 13.2). • Environment Agency (2004) Contaminated Land Report 11 (CLR11), Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (Ref 13.3). • Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (Ref 13.4).
302
• Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) 2008 (Ref 13.5). • BSI 10175 (Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Land) (Ref 13.6).
13.8 Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (Ref 13.1), introduced by s57 of the Environment Act 1995 (Ref 13.2), came into force in England on 1 April 2000. The main objective of introducing the Part 2A regime is to provide an improved system for the identification and remediation of land where contamination is causing unacceptable risks to human health or the wider environment given the current use and circumstances of the land.
13.9 The main documents that set out procedures for the conduct of technical processes or activities which may be relevant or partially relevant to Part 2A includes The Environment Agency / Department of Environment Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11) and this document recommends a phased or tiered approach to risk assessment.
13.10 The Tier I assessment that is reported within the SGI Phase 1 Ground Conditions desk study (ES Volume 4: Appendix 13.1) encompasses a review of the available historical and geo- environmental information. The data collection exercise has been undertaken following the guidelines outlined for ‘Preliminary Investigations’ in Section 6 of BS10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of Practice (Ref 13.6).
Assessment Methodology
Study Area 13.11 The study area comprises the Proposed Development Site: an irregularly shaped parcel of agricultural land that is divided into four fields by a north to south trending track and a west to east flowing stream and track. All four fields are currently used for arable farming.
Baseline Surveys
Desk Based Research 13.12 A desk based assessment of ground conditions has been undertaken. No intrusive investigation works have been completed and no previous site investigation reports have been provided or reviewed. A summary of this research is set out below together with a description of baseline conditions.
13.13 The information obtained and considered in the desk study includes historical Ordnance Survey maps, geological maps and memoirs, hydrological and hydrogeological records, environmental databases, coal mining and mineral extraction records and the results of the site investigations carried out previously near the site. The purpose of the desk study was:
• to establish the environmental setting of the site, particularly with regards to ground conditions including local geology, hydrology and hydrogeology; • to identify historic use or current potential sources of contamination and how these may affect the proposed scheme or indeed the wider environment;
303
• to develop a Conceptual Site Model [CSM] of the site. This would be carried out in line with requirements of the Environmental Protection Act Part 2A (Ref 13.1) source- pathway-receptor ‘pollutant linkage’ methodology; • to undertake a geotechnical appraisal of the site and identify any site constraints and potential risks; • to characterise, where possible, constraints and development considerations, including recommendations for further investigations, assessments and mitigation.
13.14 Ordnance survey maps, historical maps and environmental data have been obtained from a commercially available data provider (Landmark) (Ref 13.6)
13.15 The environmental data obtained contains regulatory information from the following authorities:
• St Helens Council – air pollution controls, waste, contaminated land • Wigan Borough Council - air pollution controls, waste, contaminated land • Warrington Borough Council - air pollution controls, waste, contaminated land • Environment Agency – waste, hydrogeological, hydrological, pollution • Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority - waste • Coal Authority – coal mining • Natural England – sensitive sites, nature reserves • Public Health England - radon • Health & Safety Executive – COMAH permitted facilities
Field Surveys 13.16 No field surveys have been completed as part of this phase of works as the works but will be required prior to development commencing.
13.17 Intrusive site investigation to confirm the findings of the desk based Tier I assessment and to provide geotechnical parameters for the constructions of buildings, highways and infrastructure will be undertaken. All site investigation work will be completed in accordance with BS10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code of Practice Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 (Ref 13.5)
Consultations 13.18 An Environmental Statement Scoping Report [ESSR] was submitted to SHBC in November 2016 together with a request that they adopt a Scoping Opinion [SO]. The SO was received in January 2017. Chapter 4 provides a summary of responses received in relation to ground conditions and how the ES responds.
13.19 A written information request has been made to St Helens Council Environment Protection Team to obtain additional information regarding ground conditions and specifically records of any pollution or contaminated land. A formal response has not yet been received.
Assessment of Effects
13.20 Based on the findings of the Phase I Ground Conditions desk study (ES Volume 4: Appendix 13.1) the potential effects during the construction stage and the operational development have been evaluated using the method set out below and appropriate mitigation measures identified as necessary.
304
13.21 The assessment includes consideration of any proposed earth works and the potential effects of the development activities on sensitive receptors such as groundwater, site workers and future commercial end-users.
Magnitude of Impact 13.22 Table 13.1 provides a framework within which the magnitudes of impact will be assessed during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. This part of the assessment will be based on professional judgements.
Table 13.1: Significance Criteria
Magnitude of Effect Definition of Magnitude Activities are likely to increase long-term contaminant release over and above the baseline conditions with significantly increased risks to human health and the wider environment. Effects are likely to be important High considerations at a regional or district scale. Remedial work may mitigate such effects to some degree but is unlikely to remove all of the effects upon the affected receptors.
Activities are likely to result in significant contaminant release, or cause degradation of other soil quality parameters, over and above the baseline conditions, with significantly increased risks to human health or controlled Medium waters. Effects could be permanent on a local scale or have wider, temporary impact. Remediation measures are likely to be largely effective although some residual effects may still arise.
Activities may result in some contaminant release or cause degradation of other soil quality parameters over and above the baseline conditions with Low significant increased risks to human health or controlled waters. Effects are likely to be both temporary and local in nature and can be successfully addressed by remediation to leave minimal residual risk.
No effect or effect where risks to human health or the wider environment are Negligible not significantly increased.
Sensitivity of Receptor 13.23 Table 13.2 provides a framework within which the sensitivity of receptors will be assessed. This part of the assessment will be based on professional judgement following a review of mapping and environmental data.
305
Table 13.2: Defining the Sensitivity of Receptor
Sensitivity Definition High quality watercourse, unprotected Principal Aquifer, potable High groundwater abstraction, on-site operatives, residential properties, schools and hospitals within the site or within 250m of the site boundary.
Low quality watercourses, Secondary A Aquifer and residential properties, Medium schools within 250m of the site boundary.
Absence of surface watercourse, Unclassified Aquifer or low permeability Low drift and no sensitive land uses within 250m of the site boundary.
Duration of Effect 13.24 Table 13.3 provides a framework within which the duration of effects will be determined.
Table 13.3: Duration of Effect
Sensitivity Definition Short Term 0 to 5 years including the construction period and on completion
Medium Term 5 to 15 years including mitigation establishment
Long Term 15 + years including long term operation of the development
Significance of Effect 13.25 Table 13.4 provides a framework which allows for the magnitude of the likely impact to be combined with sensitivity of the receptor to determine the overall significance of the environmental effect. As much of the assessment is based on professional judgement following detailed review of published data this assessment will also be based on professional judgement. Effects considered to have Major Significance will be considered significant in EIA terms.
Table 13.4: Matrix for Assessing Significance of Effect
Sensitivity of Receptors Magnitude of Effect High Medium Low
High Major Moderate Moderate
Medium Major Moderate Minor
Low Minor Minor None
Negligible None None None
306
Limitations and Assumptions
13.26 The ground conditions chapter is based on desk study information and assumes that the PDS will comprise predominantly buildings, hard standings and limited landscaping. No intrusive ground investigation has been completed at this stage, and as such it has been necessary to assume worst case conditions with respect to the presence of possibly contaminated material within localised deposits of Made Ground that may be present within this predominantly agricultural area. The completion of intrusive works will provide site specific data on potential contaminated land sources and would therefore allow a more detailed assessment of the potential risks.
Baseline Conditions
13.27 The geological strata beneath the Proposed Development Site (PDS) comprises Glacial Till drift through the centre of the site overlying solid strata of the Chester Pebble Beds. There are no drift strata mapped in the north and southwest of the subject site.
13.28 The Glacial Till is classified by the Environment Agency as an Unproductive Aquifer and the Chester Pebble Beds as a Principal Aquifer. Environment Agency Groundwater Sensitivity Data as presented within the Landmark Report (Ref 13.7) indicates that the PDS is located within a Zone 3 Groundwater Source Protection Zone associated within a potable groundwater abstraction located approximately 1.2km to the southeast. The classification of aquifers and definition of groundwater source protection zones is presented in the Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) 2008 (Ref 13.5).
13.29 The PDS is indicated as being located within a Coal Mine Reporting Area (Ref 13.10)
13.30 A west to east flowing stream broadly bisects the PDS. The stream is shown to originate from the Old Boston Trading Estate to the west and eventually flows into Dean Dam approximately 570m to the south, beyond the A580. The dam discharges into Ellam’s Brook further to the south. The stream does not appear to have a name but historical Ordnance Survey maps indicate that Dean Brook previously crossed the site from north to south across the southern site sector while a further channel flowed east in approximately the position of the current stream. The southern channel ceases to be mapped from 1938 indicating that it has been infilled.
13.31 A review of historical Ordnance Survey maps dating from 1849 (ES Volume 4: Appendix 13.2) shows that the PDS has not been subject to significant development. A filter bed is recorded at the north-western site boundary from 1938 until 1975 and a gravel pit is recorded 90m to the south from 1849 to 1894. A further gravel pit is recorded 30m to the north of the subject from 1849 and is subsequently recorded as a pond up to 2016 map edition.
13.32 There are no landfills or hazardous industrial facilities (COMAH sites) recorded within influencing distance of the site.
13.33 The site is in a lower probability area for radon (Ref 13.9).
307
Embedded Mitigation
13.34 As the PDS will comprise buildings, hard standings and limited areas of landscaping, the likelihood of exposure by site operatives to potentially contaminated material is significantly reduced as the building foundations and hardstanding will provide a cover over below ground contamination. Furthermore, depending on the nature of the underlying ground conditions of the PDS it is considered that a foundation solution can be developed that would prevent any vertical migration of potentially contaminated material to the underlying Principal Aquifer.
Assessment of Effects
Impacts During Construction Phase 13.35 The construction process with respect to ground conditions includes two elements:
• site enabling works; and • provision of foundation structures.
13.36 These construction activities interact with the underlying strata and once these activities are progressed to the stage that they are above ground level that interaction ceases and are therefore no longer relevant to this section and are therefore scoped out.
Enabling Works
Ground Improvement Works
Receptors 13.37 During ground improvement works, there will be a requirement for construction workers to be present on-site, therefore, human health is of high sensitivity.
Description of Activity 13.38 During the enabling works process, there will be a requirement to prepare the ground for subsequent development. This will include the excavation of any Made Ground strata to remove any obstructions and to remove any geotechnically unsuitable material such as timber or organic soils. Concrete obstructions that are excavated will be processed on-site under a WRAP (Waste Recycling Action Plan) Protocol and turned into construction aggregate for subsequent re-use on-site as part of the development. Any remaining material will likely require off-site disposal. These works are likely to be completed as part of the initial phase of construction only and any potential effects are likely to be short term.
Significance of Effect 13.39 Desk based research to date, has not identified any significant on-site sources of contamination associated with historical site activities that may pose a risk to human health, groundwater or surface water. Therefore, based on a negligible magnitude of effect and high sensitivity of the receptor, completion of the ground improvement works is considered to have No Effect.
308
Fuel Storage
Receptors 13.40 The geological strata beneath the Proposed Development Site (PDS) comprises Glacial Till drift through the centre of the site overlying solid strata of the Chester Pebble Beds. There are no drift strata mapped in the north and southwest of the subject site.
13.41 The Glacial Till is classified by the Environment Agency as an Unproductive Aquifer and is therefore considered of a low sensitivity. The Chester Pebble Beds are classified as a Principal Aquifer with the PDS located within a Zone 3 Groundwater Source Protection Zone associated within a potable groundwater abstraction located approximately 1.2km to the southeast. Therefore, groundwater is considered to be of medium to high sensitivity for areas of the site where no drift strata are present.
13.42 The on-site surface watercourse is high sensitivity.
Description of Activity 13.43 During the enabling works it is likely that excavators, crushers and tipper trucks will be required to move and process arisings and subsequently replace arisings with recycled engineering aggregates. The use of plant is likely to require the storage and use of fuel. The storage of fuel is likely to be a requirement of the constructions works and therefore any potential effects are likely to be short term.
Significance of Effect 13.44 Based on the nature of activity, the storage of fuel is considered to have a medium magnitude of effect and given the sensitivity of the receptors, spillage of fuel could have a short term Major Effect on baseline conditions.
Storage of Soils
Receptors 13.45 During the enabling works there will be a requirement for construction workers to be present on-site, therefore at this time human health is considered to be of high sensitivity. Residential properties are present approximately 500m to the northwest at the closest point to the site and these are considered to be a low sensitivity.
13.46 With respect to this activity, the on-site surface watercourse is high sensitivity.
Description of Activity 13.47 Exposed soils or stockpiles of material awaiting processing or disposal may be exposed to wind and this could generate dust. The generation of construction derived dust is considered in more detail within the Air Quality section (Chapter 11). Although considered unlikely based on historical site activities, the dust could be impacted with heavy metals and possibly asbestos containing material and could therefore be blown over adjacent land uses which include residential and commercial properties. The storage of soils is likely to be undertaken during the initial phases of construction only and is therefore any effects are likely to be short term.
309
Significance of Effect 13.48 The generation of dust during enabling works is considered to have a medium magnitude of effect. This would result in a Major Effect upon human health associated with site construction workers (a high sensitivity receptor) in the short term. The effect on residential properties located off site would be of minor significance, again in the short term. Additionally, stockpiles that are exposed to precipitation could generate run-off which contain a high suspended solids content. Should run-off therefore be uncontained this would also have a medium magnitude of effect as run-off could wash into the on-site stream, affecting water quality. This is therefore this activity is also likely to have a short term Major Effect.
Foundation Structures
Receptors 13.49 As discussed previously, the geological strata beneath the Proposed Development Site (PDS) comprises Glacial Till drift through the centre of the site overlying solid strata of the Chester Pebble Beds. There are no drift strata mapped in the north and southwest of the subject site.
13.50 The Glacial Till is classified by the Environment Agency as an Unproductive Aquifer and is therefore considered of a low sensitivity. The Chester Pebble Beds are classified as a Principal Aquifer with the PDS located within a Zone 3 Groundwater Source Protection Zone associated within a potable groundwater abstraction located approximately 1.2km to the southeast. As foundation structures may penetrate any confining layers of Glacial Till, groundwater in the underlying Principal Aquifer is considered to be of medium to high sensitivity.
Description of Activity 13.51 No site specific geotechnical assessment of the site has been completed but given that high loadings may be required it may be necessary to utilise piled foundations onto the underlying Sandstone bedrock. The formation of piles through any Made Ground and drift strata may result in the creation of preferential pathways. However, based on desk study research no potentially significant on-site sources of contamination are anticipated.
Significance of Effect 13.52 As no significant sources of on-site contamination have been identified, the provision of a piled foundation, if required, is considered to have a low magnitude of effect as it is unlikely to pose a significant risk to controlled waters receptors. Therefore, the provision of foundation structures are likely to have a minor significance of effect on identified receptors, at the most.
Impacts During Operational Phase
Receptors 13.53 During operation, human health is considered to be of low to medium sensitivity due to a possible ground gas inhalation pathway. No dermal contact or ingestion pathways are considered likely to be present. Controlled water receptors at the Principal Aquifer and the on-site watercourse remain moderate to high and high sensitivity receptors respectively.
Description of Activity 13.54 No significant on-site sources of contamination have been identified based on desk based research and given that the site will largely comprise hard standings and building there are unlikely to be contaminant pathways to the surface with infiltration and subsequent leachate to
310
controlled waters similarly reduced. Should a ground gas source be identified this may migrate through the sub-surface and accumulate within foundation structures and buildings.
13.55 Given the predominantly storage and distribution use of the site, significant on-site storage of potentially hazardous material is not anticipated. Notwithstanding this, should any spillages occur, these will be to areas of hardstanding and controlled via the site drainage networks and would therefore not impact upon existing ground conditions or controlled waters receptors. The duration of effects for the operation phase is long term.
Significance of Effect 13.56 As no potentially significant sources of contamination have been identified and only a low possibly of ground gas identified, the magnitude of effect associated with the operation phase is considered to be low. Therefore, given the sensitivity of the identified receptors, potential effects during operation are considered to be of Minor significance, at the most.
Assessment of likely Significant Cumulative Effects
Impact Interactions 13.57 The enabling works will require the wholesale lifting, sorting and processing of the site soils. If there are any ecologically sensitive areas on the site, then mitigation measures will need to have been initiated prior to these works commencing. These matters are considered further in Chapter 8.
13.58 The generation of dust during the construction phase may also impact upon air quality while works will also generate noise and vibration. These aspects are considered further in Chapter 11.
Inter-Project Cumulative Effects 13.59 There is limited potential for the Proposed Development to give rise to likely significant cumulative effects in combination with other committed developments. This is because, following the implementation of the mitigation measures set out below there will no residual effects attributable to the Proposed Development on ground conditions such that a ‘contribution’ to cumulative effects cannot occur.
Mitigation of Predicted Effects 13.60 The Proposed Development will be constructed in accordance with a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will be prepared and submitted to SHBC for their approval prior to development/decommissioning commencing.
13.61 The CEMP would specify a range of measures to prevent the generation of dust or run-off during the enabling works. Such measures will include the location of and protection of stockpiles, setting of speed limits for construction traffic and the damping down of haul roads and stockpiles during dry weather.
13.62 Where soils are exposed at the surface and if contaminated soils are encountered (albeit unlikely) then it may be necessary for site operatives to utilise personal protection equipment should as gloves and overall to prevent dermal contact. It is likely that any enabling and construction works will be of a sufficient duration to necessitate the provision of adequate welfare facilities with washing and a clean eating environment in order to prevent any ingestion of impacted soils.
311
13.63 If asbestos fibres are identified within any Made Ground deposits then additional dust control measures, such as burying impacted soil at depth, may be required to prevent asbestos fibres being generated. These type of control measures as specified within CIRIA 733 Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing risks (Ref 13.11). Additional measures such as boundary dust monitoring may be completed to demonstrate that dust/fibres have not been released or that additional dust suppression is required.
13.64 Fuel storage requirements would also be addressed within the CEMP. The storage of fuels is controlled by the Control of. Pollution (Oil Storage). (England) Regulations 2001 (Ref 13.12) which requires all fuel storage facilities over 250ltrs to be provided with adequate bunding in order to prevent spillages. Furthermore, it will be necessary to ensure that all fuel storage facilities are located away from the on-site watercourse.
13.65 The CEMP would also specify the circumstances in which it would be necessary to employ the use of an on-site wheel cleaner or off-site road sweeper to remove debris.
13.66 The likely hardcover commercial development will provide sufficient mitigation against direct dermal contact or ingestion of impacted soils without the need for additional mitigation. Within the landscaped areas a cover system to prevent exposure that is designed in accordance with the requirements of BRE 465 Cover systems for land regeneration - thickness of cover systems for contaminated land (Ref 13.13) would be implemented as necessary.
13.67 The desk study report has identified that ground gas may be present and that this may pose a risk to the proposed development. If a risk is identified through further investigations, additional mitigation measures will be defined to prevent to prevent gas migration as specified within BS 8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings (Ref 13.14).
Residual Impacts 13.68 Upon completion of the enabling works and with the implementation of the mitigation measures (if required) with respect to ground gas and the provision of a cover system within areas of landscaping, there will be no residual effects with respect to the ground conditions identified at the subject site. A summary of residual impacts is presented in the table below.
312
Summary of Residual Effects Summary description Sensitivity Impact Nature Residual Residual Significan of the identified of Magnitud of the Mitigation Impact Significance of ce impact Receptor e impact Magnitude Effects
Construction Works Phase
Enabling Works Negligibl Short High None None Required Negligible None Ground Improvement e Term
Short Moderate Assessed in CEMP and Fully OSR 2001compliant Fuel Storage & Use Med - High Medium Negligible None Term -Major fuel storage equipment
Assessed in CEMP with construction controls Construction worker Short Minor - Low-High Medium including use of PPE and provision of adequate Negligible None contact with dust/soil Term Major welfare facilities
Dust generation from Short Minor – Assessed in CEMP with construction controls material stockpiles Low-High Medium Negligible None Term Major including speed limits and dust suppression and haul roads
Addressed in CEMP. Stockpiles to be carefully Run-off from Short located away from the on-site watercourse and if High Medium Major Negligible None stockpiles Term necessary bunded to prevent run-off of suspended solids
Provision of Long Low-High Low Minor None Required Negligible None foundation structures Term
Building will be designed according to CIRIA 665 Operational Phase- Long Med-High Low Minor and BS8486 which will prevent ingress of ground Negligible None Ground Gas Term gas
313
Monitoring
13.69 It is likely that detailed intrusive ground investigation will be required prior to the construction of the proposed development. As part of these works there will likely be a required for a period of extended ground gas monitoring of between one and three months. Once completed and the ground gas assessment completed, no further monitoring is considered likely to be required within respect to ground conditions.
References
13.1 National Planning Policy Framework 13.2 Part IIA Environmental Protection Act 1990
13.3 Environment Agency Contaminated Land Report 11 (CLR11), Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination 2004 13.4 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines
13.5 Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) 2008 13.6 BSI 10175 (Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Land) 2011
13.7 Envirocheck Search, Site at Haydock, Ref 103884012 published by Landmark Information Group 2016
13.8 Historical Ordnance Survey mapping dated 1848 to 2016 published by Landmark Information Group 2016.
13.9 Radon: Guidance on protective measures for new buildings, BRE Document BR 211, 2007.
13.10 Coal Authority Interactive Mapping Service 13.11 CIRIA 733 Asbestos in soil and made ground: a guide to understanding and managing risks. 2015.
13.12 Control of. Pollution (Oil Storage). (England) Regulations 2001 13.13 BRE 465 Cover systems for land regeneration - thickness of cover systems for contaminated land, 2004
13.14 BS 8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings
314
14. Water Environment
Introduction
14.1 An assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the Water Environment (water quality, hydrology, flood risk and drainage) has been undertaken by Shepherd Gilmour Infrastructure Ltd. [SGi]
14.2 This chapter considers the relevant assessment framework (in terms of legislation, policy and guidance) and outlines the methodology for assessment. It establishes the baseline conditions both at the start of the construction period and at the commencement of the operational period.
14.3 The main phases of the development (construction and operation) are then individually assessed. The potential effects associated with the issues covered in this chapter may interact with other technical areas and these interactions are considered (intra-project cumulative effects), together with those arising from other major development proposals in the local area (inter project cumulative effects).
14.4 Where it has not been possible to avoid the occurrence of likely significant environmental effects through the design of the Proposed Development or embedded mitigation, additional mitigation measures are identified. This is followed by a summary of the remaining residual effects and an assessment of potential cumulative effects.
Legislation, Policy and Guidance
14.5 This assessment of the likely significant effects on the surface water environment has been prepared with reference to and in accordance with the following legislative, regulatory and best practice documents.
Legislation
14.6 The following European Directives and National Legislation is relevant to this Chapter:
• 'The EU Water Framework Directive' (Ref 14.1). This directive commits all EU member states to achieving a good ecological and chemical status for all waterbodies. • The Floods and Water Management Act 2010 (Ref 14.2) • The Water Act 2003 (as amended) (Ref 14.3); • The Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended) (Ref 14.4); • The Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended) (Ref 14.5); • The Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended) (Ref 14.6); • The Reservoirs Act 1975 (Ref 14.7); • The Environmental (England and Wales) Permitting Regulations 2010 (as amended 2012) (Ref 14.8); • The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (Ref 14.9); • The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 (Ref 14.10);
315
• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) (Ref 14.11); • The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 (Ref 14.12). • Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Ref 14.13); • Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended) (Ref 14.14); • The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (Ref 14.15) • Groundwater Regulations 1998 (Ref 14.16);
Policy
14.7 National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] Chapter 10: Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. (Ref 14.17);
14.8 Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site- specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:
• within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location • development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems
14.9 Other policy documents of relevance include:
• Written Statements on Sustainable Drainage Systems (HCWS161) (Ref 14.18) • Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (Ref 14.19)
Guidance Documents
National Planning Practice Guidance [NPPG] (Ref 14.20) 14.10 Flood Risk and Coastal Change, paragraphs: 001-005 Reference ID: 7-001-20140306- 7-005-20140306 Revision date: 06 03 2014). This guidance sets out the steps that need to be followed in order to assess, avoid, mitigate and manage flood risk in new developments.
St Helens Borough Council [SHBC] Strategic Flood Risk Assessment [SFRA] (Ref 14.21) 14.11 As outlined in the NPPF, Local Planning Authorities are required to produce SFRAs to support Local Plans to manage flood risk from all potential sources, taking the impacts of climate change into account. The primary objective of the SFRA is to enable St Helens Council to apply the Sequential Test and, if required, the Exception Test in the development allocation and development management process set out in the NPPF.
316
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Guidance 14.12 Developers are encouraged to use Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) where practicable in their drainage designs. SuDS not only lessen flood risk by attenuating surface water runoff from a site, but also diffuse pollutants out of the runoff. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have published guidance on the use, design and construction of SuDS (Ref 14.22), and The SuDS Manual published by CIRIA also offers guidance on surface water management and the use of SuDS (Ref 14.23).
Sewers for Adoption 14.13 Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition (Ref 14.24) offers guidance for developers when planning, designing and constructing foul and surface water sewers and pumping stations for adoption by the sewerage undertaker in accordance with Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended).
14.14 Other guidance of relevance includes:
• Environment Agency [EA] Flood Risk Standing Advice (Ref 14.26); • Building Regulations Approved Document H; (Ref 14.27) • CIRA C532-Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites 2001: (Ref 14.28) • Government’s water strategy for England, Future Water published in June 2011 (Ref 14.29)
Assessment Methodology
Study Area 14.15 The primary study area is the Proposed Development Site (PDS) which extends to approximately 42.3ha. It is an irregularly shaped parcel of agricultural land that is divided into four fields by a north to south trending track and a west to east flowing unnamed watercourse and track. All four fields are currently used for arable farming. To the West of the PDS there is a foul water pump station, which is owned and maintained by United Utilities.
14.16 For the purposes of determining the importance of the watercourse on site in terms of the potential effect of the Proposed Development on the water environment it is necessary to also consider a secondary study area extending from the PDS. This is because there is the potential for effects to watercourses on site to propagate downstream, thus it is important to consider other attributes of these watercourses beyond the PDS when determining their importance. Taking into account the type of development and the size of watercourses present, this secondary study area will be a length of the unnamed watercourse 0.5km downstream of the PDS. As all flood risk mitigation will be provided onsite ensuring that the impact downstream is negligible, based on professional judgement, it is not necessary to extend the study area beyond 0.5km.
317
Baseline Surveys
Desk Based Research 14.17 A review of the policy documents and data gathered from the consultees has been undertaken to inform the water quality, flood risk and drainage assessments included in this chapter.
14.18 Desk based research has been undertaken to: establish the Lead Local Flood Authority [LLFA] for the study area; identify the watercourses within and adjacent the site; to review the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) main rivers and flood maps, to review existing data on water quality and WFD [Water Framework Directive] classifications (Table 14.5) and to review existing sewer records and data from UU and other sources.
14.19 A Flood Risk Assessment (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1) has also been prepared in line with the requirements of the NPPF. The scope of this FRA was defined following receipt of the consultation response from the EA and SHBC as the LLFA. Fluvial flood flows were developed using hydrological modelling techniques. These models were used to assess baseline flood risk, to quantify the effects of the Proposed Development on this baseline and to devise a suitable mitigation strategy.
14.20 The EA flood mapping has been reviewed to identify zones of flood risk in, and adjacent to, the study area in respect of fluvial, surface water and ground water sources. The contents of these maps are summarised below and in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1) referenced above.
14.21 The PDS was covered in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for SHBC prepared by JBA Consulting Ltd. 2014 (Ref 14.21). This provided an overview of flood risk from all sources for the area. The SFRA designated the site to be wholly within Flood Zone 1.
Walkover Survey 14.22 Upon completion of the detailed data and policy review and consultation with the statutory consultees, a number of walkover surveys have been undertaken to verify the study findings and determine data gaps and additional data requirements.
14.23 A walkover survey of parts of the PDS and secondary Study Area was undertaken on 10 November 2016, 6 January 2017 and on 17 January 2017. This was focused on identifying the watercourse on the PDS, establishing the nature of the existing land use and identifying any additional drainage and water features within the site.
Topographical Survey 14.24 A topographical survey of the site and the Unnamed watercourse that runs through it has been undertaken which provides detailed topographical levels throughout the site and provides details of invert and top of bank levels for the watercourse.
Consultation
14.25 An Environmental Statement Scoping Report (ESSR) was submitted to SHBC in November 2016.
318
14.26 A summary of SHBC’s Scoping Opinion (received in January 2017) is presented (as relevant to the Water Environment) is included within ES Volume 4: Appendix 5.1. Briefly, the Council confirmed that they accepted the proposed approach and methodology, including the range of environmental issues against which the proposals should be assessed as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.
14.27 With regard to the surface water environment the EA and SHBC (as LLFA) are the key consultees. A consultation was held with the EA in January 2017 to assess the fluvial flood risk from the unnamed watercourse in the PDS. They responded that the watercourse was designated an ‘Ordinary Watercourse’ as opposed to a ‘Main River’, and as such the fluvial flood risk was unknown and required assessment. This assessment was undertaken and is included as an appendix to the FRA (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1)
14.28 As the local water supplier and sewerage undertaker, with regard to foul water provision United Utilities (UU) are the principal consultees. Discussions were held with UU in December 2016 to address the impact the Proposed Development may have on the existing sewage pump station and the sewer network. Subsequently a developer’s enquiry was issued to UU in January 2017 with a response received in January 2017. UU stated that “the estimated foul flows that would be generated by the proposed development can be accommodated in the nearby sewer’
14.29 The Landowner Peel Investments (North) Limited were consulted in relation to any historic evidence of flooding on the site. No information was held of any flooding events
14.30 A review of the sites desk study based on Landmark Envirocheck has been undertaken
Assessment of Effects
Assessing Significance of Effect 14.31 There is no standard guidance in place for the assessment of the likely significant effects on the water environment from developments of this type. Based on professional judgement and experience of other similar schemes a qualitative assessment of the likely significant effects on surface water quality and water resources has been undertaken.
14.32 The significance of effects will be determined using the guidance and criteria set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD45/09), Road Drainage and the Water Environment (Highways Agency, 2009) (henceforth referred to as HD45/09) (Ref 14.25). Although developed for road infrastructure projects, this method is suitable for use on any development project and provides a robust and well tested method by which to predict the significance of effects.
14.33 Under this approach, the importance of the receptor (Table 14.1) and the magnitude of effect (Table 14.2) are determined independently from each other and are then used to determine the overall significance of effects (see Table 14.3).
14.34 Where likely significant adverse effects are predicted, options for mitigation have been presented. The residual effects of the Proposed Development with identified mitigation in place is also assessed.
319
14.35 Any effects identified through the FRA, during either the construction or operation phases, is evaluated and a significance value attributed to each effect in accordance with the methodology outlined in this chapter.
14.36 Whilst other disciplines may consider ‘receptor sensitivity’, ‘receptor importance’ is considered here. This is because when considering the water environment, the availability of dilution means that there can be a difference in the sensitivity and importance of a water body. For example, a small drainage ditch of low conservation value and biodiversity with limited other socio-economic attributes, is very sensitive to impacts, whereas an important regional scale watercourse, that may have conservation interest of international and national significance and support a wider range of important socio-economic uses, is less sensitive by virtue of its ability to assimilate discharges and physical effects. Irrespective of importance, all controlled waters in England are protected by law from being polluted.
Importance of the Receptor
14.37 Table 14.1 outlines the mechanism by which importance is determined:
Table 14.1: Criteria to determine receptor importance
Importance Criteria Selected Examples
Very High Attribute has a high Site protected under EU or UK wildlife quality and rarity on a legislation (SAC, SPA, SSSI, Ramsar site); regional or national WFD Class1 ‘High’; scale Critical social or economic uses (e.g. water supply and navigation); and Floodplain or defence protecting more than 100 residential properties from flooding.
High Attribute has a high European Designated Cyprinid quality and rarity on a Fishery; local scale Aquatic species protected under EU or UK wildlife legislation (e.g. Great Created Newt); WFD Class1 ‘Good; Important social or economic uses such as water supply, navigation or mineral extraction; and Flood plain or defence protecting between 1 and 100 residential premises from flooding.
Medium Attribute has a medium May be designated as a local wildlife site; quality and rarity on a May support a small limited population of local scale protected species; WFD Class1 ‘Moderate’ or undesignated; and limited social or economic uses;
320
Importance Criteria Selected Examples Flood plain or defence protection 10 or fewer industrial properties from flooding
Low Attribute has a low No nature conservation designations; quality and rarity on a Low aquatic fauna and flora biodiversity and local scale no protected species; WFD Class1 ‘Poor’ or undesignated; Minimal economic or social uses; and Flood plain with limited constraints and a low probability of flooding of residential properties Source: Adapted from HD45/09 (Highways Agency, 2009) (Ref 14.25)
Note 1: Professional judgement is applied when assigning an importance category to all water features. The WFD [Water Framework Directive] status of a watercourse is not an overriding factor and in many instances it may be appropriate to upgrade a watercourse which is currently at poor or moderate status to a category of higher importance to reflect its overall value in terms of other attributes and WFD targets for the watercourse. Likewise, just because a watercourse may currently be below Good Ecological Status (GES), this does not mean that a poorer quality discharge can be emitted. All controlled waters are protected from pollution under the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended) and future WFD targets also need to be considered.
Magnitude of Effect
14.38 The magnitude of effect will be determined based on the criteria in Table 14.2 taking into account the likelihood of the effect occurring. The likelihood of an effect occurring is based on a scale of certain, likely or unlikely. Likelihood has been considered in the case of water resources only, as likelihood is inherently included within the flood risk assessment.
Table 14.2: Criteria to determine magnitude of effect
Magnitude of Criteria Examples Effect
Major Adverse Results in loss of Loss of EC designated salmonid / cyprinid fishery attribute and/ or Pollution of portable source of abstraction quality and Deterioration of a water body leading to a failure to integrity of the meet Good Ecological attribute Status / Potential (GES I GEP) and reduction in Class Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >100 millimetres (mm)
Moderate Results in effect Loss in production of fishery Adverse on integrity of Contribution of a significant proportion in the
321
Magnitude of Criteria Examples Effect attribute, or loss effluent in the receiving river but insufficient to of part of attribute change its water quality status Deterioration of a water body leading to failure to meet GES/GEP Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability) >50 mm
Minor Adverse Results in some Measurable changes in attribute but of limited size measurable and / or proportion change in Effect on water body which may prevent attributes quality achievement of GES I GEP or other WFD target or vulnerability Increase in peak flood level (1% annual probability)>10 mm
Negligible Results in effect Discharges to watercourse but no significant loss on attribute, but in quality, fishery productivity or biodiversity of insufficient No effect on WFD classification magnitude to effect the use or integrity
Minor Results in some Where the proposal provides an opportunity to Beneficial beneficial effect enhance the water environment on attribute or a Reduction in peak flood level (1% annual reduced risk of probability)>10mm negative effect occurring Source: Adapted from HD45/09 (Highways Agency, 2009) (Ref 14.25)
Significance of Effect
14.39 The significance of effects has been determined using the Matrix presented in Table 14.3.
322
Table 14.3: Matrix to determine significance of effect.
Importance of Magnitude of Effect Receptor
Major Moderate Minor Negligible
Very High Very large Large/ very Moderate/ large Neutral large
High Large/ very Moderate/ large Slight/ Neutral large moderate
Medium Large Moderate Slight Neutral
Low Slight/ Slight Neutral Neutral moderate
Source: Adapted from HD 45/09 (Highways Agency, 2009)
14.40 Effects that have a significance of moderate or greater are considered significant in EIA terms.
Duration of Effect
14.41 The duration of effect will be qualitatively assessed based on the following criteria:
• Short term - 0 to 5 years including the construction period and on completion; • Medium term - 5 to 15 years including mitigation establishment; and • Long term - 15 + years including long term operation of the development.
Limitations and Assumptions
14.42 The assessment that follows has been prepared with reference to the development Parameter Plans presented at ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1.
14.43 This assessment is based on a reasonable worst case scenario approach.
• The fluvial flood risk has been assessed without taking account of any potential attenuation systems within the developed areas. • Whilst the proposed development will consist of hard and soft landscaping, as there is not yet a detailed assessment of the areas and their porosity, for the purpose of assessing surface water runoff, all urban areas have been treated as hard. • Topographical survey data rather than watercourse cross sectional surveys have been used which again provides a reasonably worst case scenario.
323
• In calculating impermeable runoff from the development, a 100% impermeable factor has been used for all hardstanding areas.
Baseline Conditions
Existing Site Conditions 14.44 The PDS is undeveloped in its current form, and is underlain by Glacial Till drift through the centre of the site overlying solid strata of the Chester Pebble Beds. There are no drift strata mapped in the north and southwest of the subject site.
14.45 The Glacial Till is classified by the EA as an Unproductive Aquifer and the Chester Pebble Beds as a Principal Aquifer. EA Groundwater Sensitivity Data as presented within Chapter 13 indicates that the PDS is located within a Zone 3 Groundwater Source Protection Zone associated within a potable groundwater abstraction located approximately 1.2km to the southeast.
14.46 A single surface water feature is located within the site boundary and others are located within the wider area.
14.47 The water feature is illustrated in Figure 2.1 of the appended FRA report (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1) and the existing water quality, flooding and hydrological attributes are described below. Further information about the geology and hydrogeology of the study area is provided in Chapter 13.
Existing Water Quality
14.48 The EA monitor the water quality of designated ‘Main Rivers’ in line with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which is currently in its second cycle (Cycle 2) covering the period 2015 - 2021.
14.49 The unnamed Ordinary Watercourse within the PDS is a tributary to the White Door Covert, and flows directly into the said Covert.
14.50 White Door Covert is designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) designation for Millingford (Newton) Brook (ID GB 112069061220). Millingford (Newton) Brook is a 15.864 km heavily modified water body that is currently only meeting Moderate Ecological Potential (due to Poor Biological Standards, all mitigation measures being in place). Additional information on water quality, resources, biological diversity and WFD classifications has been obtained from the EA to supplement this baseline.
14.51 Milligford (Newton) Brook is designated as ‘Heavily Modified’ and its WFD classification is currently ‘moderate’, with a target to achieve good ecological status by 2027. Ecological potential is measured on the scale High, Good, Moderate, Poor and Bad, and the overall classification is assigned to a waterbody following consideration of a suite of ‘supporting elements’. Table 14.4 provides a summary of the data available for the Millingford (Newton) Brook.
324
Table 14.4: WFD Data Summary
WFD Parameter Milligford (Newton Brook (GB112069061220)
Overall Water Body Moderate
Current Ecological Status Moderate
Biological Quality Elements Poor
Hydro-morphological Supporting Elements Supports Good
Physico-chemical quality elements Good
Specific pollutants High
Supporting Elements (Surface Water) Moderate
Current Chemical Status Good
14.52 The available data indicate that the waterbody has moderate to good existing water quality. The biological quality elements are classified as ‘poor’, based on the Invertebrates. The central watercourse is not monitored, therefore there is no site- specific data to define its baseline quality.
14.53 Nine pollution incidents have been reported to the EA, the closest being 20m to the west of the PDS. This was classified as a Category 3 incident.
Existing Flood Risk
14.54 Baseline flood risk has been defined with reference to the EA flood map, in addition to results from detailed modelling of the unnamed watercourse.
14.55 The Environment Agency flood map places the PDS entirely within Flood Zone 1 meaning it is at very low risk of fluvial flooding. This zone encompasses land defined as have a less than 1 in 1000(<0.1%) annual probability of flooding in any given year.
14.56 As detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1), baseline flood risk from the central watercourse during the 1% plus climate change (CC) (1 in 100 year) fluvial flood event has been quantitatively assessed. The results of the modelling studies demonstrate that the unnamed watercourse may experience ‘out of bank flooding’ during the 1% (1 in 100 year) fluvial flood event.
14.57 The flooding history of the PDS has been researched with reference to the land owner, the LLFA and the EA. No records of flooding on the development site from any source were identified.
Surface Water Abstractions and Discharges
14.58 As discussed in Chapter 13, consultations with EA and the results of a Landmark Envirocheck search have confirmed that there is a potable groundwater abstraction located approximately 1.2km to the southeast of the PDS.
325
14.59 With regard to consented discharges to surface waters a total of 3 active consents both identified within 250m of the PDS. These consents are held by St Agnes School for the purpose of sewerage discharge.
Existing Drainage (Surface Water and Foul)
14.60 As the PDS is largely greenfield it is served by no existing drainage infrastructure.
14.61 With regard to foul drainage, there is a foul drainage pump station located to the west of the site (see ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1 for location) which serves the nearby industrial development. There are no generators of foul water currently onsite. The age, condition and maintenance regime of the existing pumped system are unknown and as such the existing Combined Sewer Overflow discharge from this pump station has an unknown potential to affect water quality.
14.62 With regard to surface water drainage, in its current form, soil permeability and topography govern existing runoff patterns over the majority of the development site, with rainfall either soaking away to ground or draining to the central watercourse. The site is therefore considered to be Greenfield for the purposes of assessing existing rates of surface water runoff.
14.63 Surface water runoff rates have been calculated in accordance with EA/DEFRA guidance. Full details are provided in the Flood Risk Assessment in ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1.
Receptor Importance Summary
14.64 Based upon the baseline information gathered, the determined importance of the receptors potentially affected by the proposed development is summarised in Table 14.5
Table 14.5: Summary of Receptors and Assigned Importance
Attribute Receptor(s) Assigned Justification Importanc e
Central People and Low This is an ordinary watercourse which Watercourse property meanders through agricultural land prior to its entering White door Covert
Dean Brook People and Medium Designated in an area of Flood Zone 1. (Downstream property of PDS)
Water quality Central Low Ordinary watercourse, Watercourse
Dean Brook Medium Main River < 10m wide, WFD status ’Moderate’
326
Attribute Receptor(s) Assigned Justification Importanc e
Foul Drainage Central Medium Receives foul drainage from existing Watercourse sewer system, environmentally sensitive but potential for dilution
Surface Water Central Medium Receives local land drainage Drainage Watercourse
Dean Brook Medium Receives local land drainage
Consented People and Low Proposed Development expected to Discharges Property have no impact. and Licenced Abstractions
Matters Which Have Been Scoped Out
14.65 The following impact assessment is a full assessment of potential effects on the surface water environment from the proposed development, and as such, no matters have been scoped out.
Embedded Mitigation
14.66 There are a number of potential impacts on the water environment from the Proposed Development that could occur from the development, with mitigation however, the potential effects can be avoided or minimised. There are also opportunities reduce flood risk overall to neighbouring existing communities and infrastructure through the improvement of the river corridor of the central watercourse. These mitigation measures have been designed into the Proposed Development from the outset, and are considered as ‘embedded mitigation’.
Surface Water Runoff/Drainage
14.67 As is specified within the Drainage Statement (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1) surface water runoff rates will be restricted to ensure that there is no increase in discharge from the site up to the design event. The drainage system will be designed to ensure that developments are safe from surface water and sewer flooding to the 1 in 30-year standard. This is in accordance with the guidance set out in Sewers for Adoption 7th edition (Ref 14.25)
14.68 Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) will be utilised to attenuate and treat surface water runoff. This will ensure that discharge rates and water quality standards can be achieved. Full details of the SuDS proposed are provided in ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1.
14.69 The following measures are also specified in the Drainage Statement (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1) and will be incorporated into the detailed design.
327
• Property floor levels will be set above external ground levels (300 mm above the 1 in 100 year +35% level (which is 36.72 AOD); • Overland flow paths will be incorporated into the layout of the development; • Surface water drainage systems will be designed such that any groundwater issuing above ground can be safely collected and discharged. • Location of land use zones within the site boundary such that the lower vulnerability development is located in the areas at highest risk of flooding • Optimisation of ground levels to create floodable areas to fluvial floodwater storage and development platforms, ensuring compliance with the requirements of the NPPF • Provision of SUDS features to improve the water quality of runoff • Changes to the existing watercourses reducing the length of existing culverts and maximising open channel reaches. • Incorporation of development free corridors along the central watercourse (minimum 8m wide buffer zone).
Foul Drainage
14.70 The proposed foul drainage system being constructed as part of the development will comprise a sealed underground gravity system designed to transport the foul water to a foul water pumping system designed in accordance with Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition. From this location the Foul Water will be pumped off the site and into the nearby adopted foul drainage system. UU have confirmed the discharge location and rate and that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the Proposed Development.
14.71 During the construction phase suitable facilities will be provided for the operatives use. Such facilities will be regularly maintained and all foul generated will be transported offsite for treatment.
Assessment of Effects
14.72 The Proposed Development has the potential to result in a number of effects on the surface water environment, in addition to people and property within the existing community and future residents and employees at the development site, including:
• Degradation of the water quality of local waterbodies associated with construction phase activities e.g. earthworks, excavation, and operational phase waste water or materials; • Increases in rates and volumes of surface water runoff, with implications for localised changes to catchment hydrology and increased surface water flood risk; and • Increased loading on foul drainage infrastructure, with greater volumes of effluent discharged to receiving waterbodies and increased risk of sewer flooding incidents (on and off site); • Loss of floodplain storage, resulting in an increase in fluvial flood risk on third party lands
14.73 These effects are discussed in the following sections. Their significance has initially been assessed in accordance with the methodology outlined in Tables 14.1 to 14.4,
328
accounting for measures embedded within the Drainage Strategy and scheme design. Additional mitigation techniques and residual effects post mitigation are then presented in subsequent sections
Impact During Construction Phase
Water Quality 14.74 A number of construction activities have the potential to result in contamination of waterbodies located in the vicinity of the works. Construction activities which may give rise to such pollution include:
• Earthworks (cut and fill) to create development platforms, creation of temporary stockpiles of soils and construction materials, deposition of mud and dust by construction machinery and delivery vehicles along site access roads, with increased risk of the generation of runoff with elevated concentrations of sediment which may enter surface waterbodies. ‒ Excavation for the construction of foundations and trenching to accommodate utilities infrastructure, with the associated need for dewatering works, generating silt laden wastewater. ‒ Transportation, storage and use of oils and fuels for construction plant and handling of wet cement and/or concrete, with increased risk of surface water contamination. ‒ In-stream works associated with watercourse diversions and de-culverting. ‒ Handling of construction waste materials and wastewater.
Surface Water Drainage
14.75 Construction of built development typically results in the replacement of permeable surfaces, such as vegetation and soil, with surfaces that are impervious (e.g. tarmac, paving and roofs). This can cause increases in the volumes and rates of rainfall run-off that are generated, with implications including increased water levels and flows in the watercourses that receive the runoff, resulting in increased flood risk. Inadequate surface water drainage arrangements could therefore impact the development site itself and increase the risk of flooding in other areas of the catchment.
Foul Drainage
14.76 During the construction phase temporary sanitary facilities will be provided for construction site staff. The waste water generated from these facilities could introduce an additional source of pollution that is not currently present, with the potential for nutrient enrichment of receiving waterbodies.
Water Resources
14.77 The construction phase of the Proposed Development is anticipated to have no effects on the integrity of existing consented discharges and licensed abstractions This is because the construction management mitigation and the embedded mitigation will ensure that no additional surface water run-off will be discharged into the existing
329
watercourse and as such there will be no significant effects on the existing consented discharges.
Flood Risk
14.78 Construction of the Proposed Development has the potential for a number of effects relating to fluvial flood risk. Namely, there is potential for loss of fluvial floodplain storage associated with built development in proximity to the central (unnamed) watercourse.
14.79 As the proposed development is of a large scale and would have the potential to increase flood risk to a large number of existing residential and industrial properties, flood risk was recognised as a key issue in the earliest stages of the project. As a result, a number of measures, as set out above, have been embedded within the development design and layout that act to mitigate the potential for fluvial flood risk impacts. The flood mitigation strategy, which has been formulated through hydraulic modelling assessments, is detailed in the FRA (Appendix 14.1) with key elements highlighted under the embedded mitigation section above.
14.80 The Proposed Development would therefore result in beneficial effects with regard to a reduction in flood risk to existing communities and infrastructure. Opening up sections of additional watercourses through the development site will reduce flood risk associated with blockages, in addition to enhancing the environmental characteristics of the watercourses.
Summary of Construction Phase Effects
14.81 A summary of construction phase effects is provided in Table 14.6.
Table 14.6: Summary of Construction Phase Effects
Receptor Environmental Significance of Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Effect Magnitude
Water quality – Central Low Moderate pollution with silt, oils, Watercours Slight adverse hydrocarbons, e concrete, cement Medium residues and other Dean Brook Moderate Moderate construction adverse materials/wastes
Central Low Increased Moderate Watercours Slight rates/volumes of adverse rainfall runoff from e additional Dean Brook Medium Moderate Moderate impermeable areas adverse
330
Receptor Environmental Significance of Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Effect Magnitude
Pollution from Central Medium Moderate temporary sanitary Watercours Slight adverse facilities e
Increase of fluvial Medium People and Moderate flood risk Slight Property adverse downstream.
Impact on existing Low consented discharges People and Moderate Slight and licenced Property adverse abstractions
Impact During Operational Phase
Water Quality 14.82 Once the construction phase of the Proposed Development is complete, the risk of pollution of watercourses local to the site with silt and construction materials such as concrete and cements will markedly reduce.
14.83 However, prior to mitigation, some potential for water quality impacts remains associated with:
• Runoff from access roads and parking areas within the new development with elevated concentrations of particulates, salts, heavy metals, oils and hydrocarbons; and • Disposal of solid and liquid wastes from the proposed business uses.
Surface Water Drainage 14.84 During the operational phase of the development currently greenfield land will be covered by a mixture of built development and landscaping, with implications for rainfall runoff rates and flow paths.
Foul Drainage 14.85 The development will generate additional volumes of grey and foul water, which would ultimately discharge to the existing UU sewer network. UU have confirmed that capacity is available in the Pump Station located on the Western Boundary of the PDS.
Water Resources 14.86 In common with the construction phase, during operation of the Proposed Development no effects on the integrity of existing consented discharges and licensed abstractions are anticipated. This is because the construction management mitigation and the embedded mitigation will ensure that no additional surface water run-off will be discharged into the existing watercourse and as such there will be no significant effects on the existing consented discharges.
331
Fluvial Flood Risk 14.87 Detailed modelling has been undertaken to investigate fluvial flood risk to the Proposed Development during the operational phase. Modelling has also allowed the effects of the Proposed Development on flood risk in the wider catchment to be quantified and has informed the design of a suite of flood risk mitigation measures which are embedded into the Drainage Strategy / scheme design. As a result, losses of floodplain storage will be compensated and development platforms will be set in order to comply with NPPF requirements.
Summary of Operational Phase Effects
14.88 A summary of operational phase effects is provided in Table 14.7.
Table 14.7: Summary of Operational Phase Effects
Receptor Environmental Significance of Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Effect Magnitude
Water quality – Central Low Moderate Slight pollution from runoff Watercourse adverse generated from roads Medium and car parking Dean Brook Moderate areas and Moderate employment adverse processes/wastes
Low Increased Central Moderate Slight rates/volumes of Watercourse adverse rainfall runoff from
additional impermeable areas Dean Brook Medium Moderate Moderate adverse
Low Foul Drainage – Central increased loading of Moderate Watercourse Slight sewerage adverse infrastructure causing water quality detriment and Medium Moderate increased flood risk Dean Brook Moderate adverse
Impact on existing Low consented People and Moderate Slight discharges and Property adverse licenced abstractions
332
Increase in fluvial Medium People and Moderate flood risk due to loss Slight Property adverse of floodplain storage
Mitigation of Predicted Effects
14.89 In addition to those measures that have been embedded into the design of the scheme to address the potential for increases in flood risk, further mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the risk of effects of the Proposed Development on the surface water environment. These measures are described in the following sections.
Construction Phase
14.90 The principal means of mitigating the effects of the Proposed Development on the water quality attributes of the watercourses within the study area will be through implementation of good working practices and pollution prevention techniques that are routinely adopted at construction sites.
14.91 A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared and submitted to SHBC prior to development commencing. This will incorporate environmental management measures and procedures such as Pollution Prevention Plans and Method Statements to cover surface water protection. The CEMP will take cognisance of the Water Resources Act (Ref 14.4), Environment Agency guidance and CIRIA guidance (Ref 14.28).
14.92 Production of the CEMP and its subsequent implementation can be secured by planning condition.
14.93 To minimise the risk of pollutants entering surface or culverted waterbodies during the construction phase examples of the measures that will be implemented are included below:
• A Drainage Management Plan (DMP) will be produced to ensure that potential silted or otherwise contaminated water is appropriately managed and treated prior to entering into any waterbody or drainage system.
• No water from foundation excavations will be discharged directly into a watercourse. Any dewatering works will take place prior to the placement of concrete and no subsequent dewatering will occur until any concrete has sufficiently cured to prevent runoff of cement grout, unless the discharge is appropriately treated.
• If samples of water from excavations are unnaturally discoloured or have an unusual odour the water will be pumped to suitable containers, or removed by vacuum tanker, and then taken to a licensed waste disposal site.
• Refuelling, repair and maintenance of plant and vehicles will be carried out within a bunded area with drip trays placed under standing machinery whilst refuelling to avoid pollution from spillages and leaks.
333
• Machinery will be refuelled using a transfer hose and will be locked when unattended. A suitable supply of spill absorbent material will be retained on site as part of an emergency spillage control kit.
• A designated area will be used for any washing down or equipment cleaning, away from the surface water drainage system.
• Any temporary storage facilities for wastewater will comply with best practice guidelines and will be provided to suit the scale of construction and the construction phasing. Options to be considered, subject to agreement with UU and the EA are a temporary connection to the existing sewer network, provision of standalone facilities that will be removed from site to a treatment works subject to UU agreement, or onsite treatment.
• A full time wheel wash will be constructed in order to mitigate transport of mud from the site during deliveries and removal of materials. This will use recycled water collected from surface run-off in a sustainable manner.
• During prolonged periods of dry weather, damping-down will be undertaken using recycled site run-off water to prevent excess generation of dust.
• Stores of construction materials will be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound will be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. The drainage system of the bund will be sealed with no discharge to any waterbody, land or underground strata.
• Excavated materials will be stored in association with DEFRA Good Practice Guidance for Handling Soils to prevent the generation of silty runoff. Where possible material on site will be reused to minimise the volume of imported fill material required.
• Coffer dams will be installed to keep water out of the working area when works in the river channels are required.
14.94 The earliest phase of construction will incorporate enabling works, including laying of the surface and foul water drainage systems. A surface water drainage strategy, maximising the use of Sustainable Drainage techniques (SUDs) is proposed (ES Volume 4: Appendix 14.1). Runoff from the employment areas will be directed to the nearest available floodable area within the individual plot areas or watercourse. Appropriate means of treatment would be provided to the surface water discharges to the watercourses to ensure no detrimental effect on their water quality. Within the floodable area a network of swales and ponds will provide for treatment of surface water flows for water quality benefit and also encourage infiltration to ground.
14.95 Foul water from temporary sanitary facilities will be disposed of via appropriate means so as to have no impact.
334
Operational Phase
14.96 During the operational phase of the Proposed Development, fluvial and surface water flood risk effects will be mitigated through measures embedded within the scheme design and the SUDs based surface water drainage system.
14.97 Predicted non-significant impacts on water quality during the operational phase will be mitigated by incorporating features within the surface water drainage design that facilitate a degree of treatment of runoff prior to discharge to the central watercourse. Provision of appropriate facilities for the disposal of liquid and solid waste generated from the proposed business premises on site will also mitigate the associated pollution risk.
14.98 With regard to foul drainage the conclusion of UU is that capacity is available in the pump station located on western boundary of the site. To minimise the potential effects of the development on flood risk and drainage all foul drainage systems will be subject to maintenance, either by UU (for adopted sewerage) or by a management company (for private sewerage). It is intended that the development foul drainage system is adopted or will benefit from an on-going maintenance agreement were not adopted.
Residual Impacts
14.99 The potential for residual water quality effects are restricted to the possibility of localised, contained spills and/or silt releases during the construction phase or typically small scale accidental spills on roads or in parking/storage areas in the employment zone during the operational phase of the development. The procedures in place, to be documented in the CEMP, will limit the consequences of construction phase incidents such that they would be minor and rapidly cleaned up, with no impact to the wider area. Similarly, during the operational phase any accidental spills would be contained and runoff would receive treatment prior to discharge to any watercourse.
14.100 Overall, the residual effect on both construction and operational phase water quality is therefore classified as Neutral.
14.101 With regard to construction and operational drainage effects (surface water and foul), assuming the full application and effectiveness of the measures both incorporated into the site’s design and those detailed and controlled through the CEMP, it is considered that the residual effects on the surface water environment will be Neutral.
14.102 A summary of construction and operational phase residual impacts is presented in Tables 14.8 and 14.9.
335
Table 14.8: Summary of Construction Phase Residual Effects
Receptor Mitigation Residual Environmental Impact Significance of Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Magnitude Effect Significance
Low
Water quality – pollution with silt, oils, Good working hydrocarbons, Central practices and concrete, cement Neutral Watercourse pollution prevention residues and other Moderate Adverse Neutral techniques, CEMP construction materials/wastes
Increased Low Surface water rates/volumes of Central Moderate Adverse Neutral drainage strategy rainfall runoff from Neutral Watercourse additional impermeable areas
336
Receptor Mitigation Residual Environmental Impact Significance of Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Magnitude Effect Significance
Medium Temporary treatment Pollution from Central facilities to be temporary sanitary Watercourse Moderate adverse Neutral provided to meet Neutral facilities current legislation and consents.
Impact on existing Low None needed consented discharges People and Moderate adverse Slight Neutral and licenced Property abstractions
Medium Mitigation measures are embedded into Increase in fluvial the Drainage flood risk downstream People and Moderate Adverse Slight Strategy / scheme Neutral due to loss of Property design. Losses of floodplain storage floodplain storage will be compensated
337
Table 14.9: Summary of Operational Phase Residual Effects
Receptor Environmental Mitigation Significance of Residual Impact Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Effect Significance Magnitude
Low Surface water drainage including Water quality – treatment Moderate Slight pollution from measures runoff generated Central adverse Neutral from roads and car Watercourse parks and employment area wastes
Increased Low Surface water rates/volumes of Moderate drainage strategy rainfall runoff from Central adverse Slight Neutral additional Watercourse impermeable areas
338
Receptor Environmental Mitigation Significance of Residual Impact Nature of Impact Receptor Importance Impact Effect Significance Magnitude
Foul Drainage – Medium Existing sewer increased loading network has of sewerage sufficient capacity. Slight Neutral infrastructure Sewers to be People and Moderate causing water maintained under quality detriment Property adverse adopting authority and increased flood or private risk agreements
Impact on existing People and Low Moderate Slight None needed. Neutral consented Property adverse discharges and licenced abstractions
People and Medium Moderate Slight Mitigation Neutral Property adverse measures are Increase in fluvial embedded into the flood risk Drainage Strategy / downstream due to scheme design. loss of floodplain Losses of floodplain storage storage will be compensated
339
Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects
Intra-Project Effects 14.103 Ecology (Chapter 8)
• The creation of the SUDs basins and swales are likely to provide new and enhanced habitats for wildlife.
• There is potential for the water quality of the onsite watercourse to be negatively affected during construction and operation. The implementation of best practice construction methods and pollution prevention techniques as outlined in the CEMP will mitigate this risk.
14.104 Landscape and Views (Chapter 10)
• There will be restrictions on planting within the wet ditch, landscape corridor and other potential water catchment areas.
14.105 There have been no other potential interactions with other topic areas in the Environmental Statement identified.
14.106 Overall, it is assessed that the identified intra-project cumulative effects will not affect the assessment of the residual impact of the proposed development on the surface water environment.
Inter-Project Effects
14.107 ‘The EIA Regulations’ require the assessment of the effects of Development within a wider context of approved or foreseeable future development. With regard to this chapter, an assessment of the potential cumulative effects of the following proposed future developments both upstream and downstream has been undertaken:
• Land to North of Penny Lane and West of M6 Motorway Haydock ‒ This site is upstream of the PDS and due to the neutral effect of the development there will be no significant cumulative effects. • Land at Florida Farm North Haydock ‒ This site is located to the West of the PDS and drains into an unnamed watercourse which runs within the ‘Land at Florida Farm site.’ The said unnamed watercourse runs in a southerly direction and does not converge with the unnamed watercourse from the PDS until some kilometres downstream. Therefore, there will be no significant cumulative effect. • Canmoor Site adjacent to Haydock Industrial Estate, Haydock ‒ This site is upstream of our site and due to the neutral effect of the development there will be no significant cumulative effects. • Parkside Developments. ‒ The Parkside development is located on the same catchment as the PDS however it is some kilometres downstream and due to the neutral effect of the development there will be no significant cumulative effect.
340
14.108 Therefore, due to the neutral effect of the development, no significant cumulative effects on these schemes have been identified.
Monitoring
Construction Works 14.109 Construction will be monitored to ensure that works are in line with the appropriate method statements. This will be the responsibility of the Main Contractor and the Construction (Design & Management) Co-ordinator for the works
Watercourses 14.110 Monitoring of the development will be carried out to ensure that the required mitigation measures are properly and effectively implemented. It is envisaged that this will be achieved predominantly through planning conditions and building control inspections.
Foul Drainage 14.111 The newly constructed system will be adopted by the local drainage authority and as such will be regularly maintained and monitored.
References
Ref 14.1 EC Directive 2000/60/EC: The 'Water Framework Directive' [WFD]
Ref 14.2 The Floods and Water Management Act 2010
Ref 14.3 The Water Act 2003 (as amended)
Ref 14.4 The Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended)
Ref 14.5 The Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended)
Ref 14.6 The Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended)
Ref 14.7 The Reservoirs Act 1975
Ref 14.8 The Environmental (England and Wales) Permitting Regulations 2010 (as amended 2012)
Ref 14.9 The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
Ref 14.10 The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003
Ref 14.11 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended)
Ref 14.12 The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001
Ref 14.13 Flood and Water Management Act 2010
Ref 14.14 Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended)
Ref 14.15 The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (as amended)
Ref 14.16 Groundwater Regulations 1998
341
Ref 14.17 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012) National Planning Policy Framework.
Ref 14.18 Written Statements on Sustainable Drainage Systems (HCWS161)
Ref 14.19 Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems
Ref 14.20 DCLG (2015) National Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change
Ref 14.21 JBA Consulting Ltd, (2014) St Helens Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Ref 14.22 DEFRA (2015) Non-statutory technical standards for SuDS
Ref 14.23 CIRIA, (2016) C753 SuDS Manual
Ref 14.24 WRc (2012) Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition
Ref 14.25 Highways Agency (2009) Road Drainage and the Water Environment (DMRB) Vol. 11, Section 3, Part 10 (HD45/09)
Ref 14.26 EA (2012) Flood risk assessment: standing advice (as amended)
Ref 14.27 Building Regulations 2010 Drainage and Waste Disposal: Approved Document H (as amended)
Ref 14.28 CIRA (2001) C532-Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites
Ref 14.29 DEFRA (2011) Future Water - The Government’s water strategy for England
342
15. Environmental Management
15.1 This chapter presents a summary of the measures which have been identified within the Environmental Statement (ES) to mitigate any likely significant (adverse) environmental effects arising during the construction or operation of the Proposed Development.
15.2 Bringing each of the proposed mitigation measures into this single location chapter will assist the decision maker in drafting the planning conditions which will be required to secure the mitigation measures identified in this ES.
The EIA Process
15.3 In accordance with the EIA Regulations 2011, the ES describes the mitigation measures which are necessary to avoid and minimise likely significant adverse effects on the environment.
15.4 The most effective form of mitigation is to design a project to avoid environmental effects at source. From the outset of this project, the design of the Proposed Development has been informed by a thorough understanding of the baseline environmental conditions and particular constraints and opportunities of PDS.
15.5 An iterative design process has been followed (described in Chapter 3 and 4) where by the Proposed Development has been designed as far as practicable to avoid or minimise the occurrence of significantly adverse environmental effects. This type of mitigation is ‘embedded’ into the scheme design and the development parameters defined within ES Volume 3b: Appendix 3.1, rather than being an ‘add-on’. These embedded measures include the provision of a landscape boundary at least 15 metres deep around the perimeter of the site, an ecology corridor through the centre of the site and a maximum building height of 60.25 AOD.
15.6 This commitment to embedded mitigation has resulted in relatively few likely significant environmental effects being identified. A small number of likely significant effects do however arise and, for these, additional mitigation over and above that which is ‘embedded’ is proposed to reduce the significance of the effect.
15.7 In addition, mitigation has also been proposed where the effect is not significant in EIA terms, but the identified mitigation will secure environmental best practice.
Additional Mitigation
15.8 The subsequent sections of this chapter set out the additional mitigation measures which are required during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
343
Table 15.1: Environmental Management during Construction
ES Topic Environmental Initial Assessment of Additional Mitigation Residual Effect Significant Receptor Significance of Effect13
Socio-economic Employment Major positive effect in None Major positive effect in Y medium term. medium term.
Productivity Major positive effect in None Major positive effect in Y medium term. medium term.
Transport Driver Delay Minor / Negligible CEMP Minor / Negligible N
Public Transport Users Negligible CEMP Negligible N
Pedestrian Delay Negligible CEMP Negligible N
Fear and Intimidation Negligible CEMP Negligible N
Severance Negligible CEMP Negligible N
Accidents and Road Safety Negligible CEMP Negligible N
Ecology Designated Sites None None None N/A
13 Taking embedded mitigation measures into account
344
ES Topic Environmental Initial Assessment of Additional Mitigation Residual Effect Significant Receptor Significance of Effect13
Scattered broad leaved trees Significant residual positive None Significant positive at less Y effect at less than local level than local level in the long in short term. term
Modified neutral grassland Significant positive effect at None Significant positive at less Y and species poor modified less than local level in short than local level over medium neutral grassland term term
Arable field margin Significant positive effect in None Significant positive at less Y short term term than local level over medium term
Species poor-intact Significant positive effect at Significant Positive effect at Y
hedgerow and ditch the Local level in the the local level over medium- medium term long term.
Bats Negligible None Negligible
Breeding Birds (Farmland Significant adverse at less None Significant adverse at less Y species) than local level than local level
Breeding Birds (Woodland Significant beneficial at less None Significant beneficial at less Y and Grassland) than local level in the than local level in the medium term medium term
Birds (Wintering Lapwing) Significant adverse at local None Significant adverse at local Y level level
Water Vole Negligible Negligible N
Archaeology Haydock Park (Non Low adverse and not Programme of archaeological Negligible Designated Heritage Asset significant mitigation: (1)Written
345
ES Topic Environmental Initial Assessment of Additional Mitigation Residual Effect Significant Receptor Significance of Effect13
02) Scheme of Investigation (2) Geophysical surveys; (3) targeted archaeological investigations if shown to be necessary.
To be secured by planning condition
LVIA Landscape Character Moderate to minor adverse in Implementation of Minor adverse in the long N
short term – significant Construction Environment term Management Plan (CEMP) (to be secured by condition) to include screen fencing along boundaries of site.
Visual Amenity Public Views Implementation of Minor adverse N
Moderate to negligible Construction Environment adverse in short term Management Plan (CEMP) (significant effect in some (to be secured by condition) views) to include screen fencing along boundaries of site.
Private Views
Moderate to minor adverse in short term (significant effect in some views)
346
ES Topic Environmental Initial Assessment of Additional Mitigation Residual Effect Significant Receptor Significance of Effect13
Air Quality Dust soiling and human Low risk and not significant None Low risk and not significant N health
Receptors R1-R16, Site35 Negligible Production and Negligible and not significant M
and AN3 (Road traffic emissions implementation of associated with construction Construction Environment traffic) Management Plan (CEMP). To be secured by planning condition
Noise and Vibration Construction noise: Minor adverse, short term Measures within CEMP (to Minor adverse, short term N
and not significant be secured by planning and not significant condition) to further minimise
impacts from construction
noise and vibration
Construction Vibration: Minor adverse, short term Measures within CEMP (to Minor adverse, short term N
and not significant be secured by planning and not significant condition) to further minimise impacts from construction noise and vibration
Construction Traffic Minor adverse, short term Measures within CEMP (to Minor adverse, short term N
and not significant be secured by planning and not significant condition) to further minimise impacts from construction noise and vibration
Ground Conditions Enabling works None NA NA NA
347
ES Topic Environmental Initial Assessment of Additional Mitigation Residual Effect Significant Receptor Significance of Effect13
Fuel Storage and Use Moderate – Major CEMP and OSR2001 None N compliant storage equipment
Construction worker contact Minor – major adverse CEMP including use of PPE None N equipment and provision of welfare facilities
Dust generation from Minor – Major adverse CEMP including speed limits None N stockpiles and dust suppression
Run off from stock piles Major CEMP and location and None N bunding of stockpiles
Provision of foundation Minor None Minor N structures
Water Environment Water Quality Neutral CEMP Neutral N
Increased rates of run off Neutral CEMP Neutral N
Pollution from temporary Neutral CEMP Neutral N sanitary facilities
Increased fluvial flood risk Slight CEMP Neutral N down stream
Impact on existing consented Slight CEMP Neutral N discharges and licenced abstractions
348
Table 15.2: Environmental Management during Operation
ES Topic Environmental Initial Assessment of Additional Mitigation Residual Effect Significant Receptor Significance of Effect14
Socio-economic Employment Major /Moderate positive None Major / Moderate positive Y effect in long term. effect in long term.
Productivity Major / Moderate positive None Major / Moderate positive Y effect in long term. . effect in long term.
Population Negligible. Not significant None Negligible. N
Unemployment and Minor to moderate positive None Minor to moderate positive Y Deprivation effect in long term . effect in long term.
Skills Minor to moderate positive None Minor to moderate positive Y effect in long term effect in long term
Business Rates Moderate positive effect in None Moderate positive effect in Y long term long term
Transport Driver Delay Negligible – minor in the long DMP / Travel Plan Negligible – minor in the long N term term
Public Transport Users Neutral in the long term DMP / Travel Plan Neutral in the long term N
Pedestrian Delay Minor beneficial in the long DMP / Travel Plan Minor beneficial in the long N term term
Pedestrian Amenity Minor beneficial in the long DMP / Travel Plan Minor beneficial in the long N term term
Fear and Intimidation Neutral in the long term DMP / Travel Plan Neutral in the long term N
14 Taking embedded mitigation measures into account
349
Severance Neutral in the long term DMP / Travel Plan Neutral in the long term N
Accident and Highway Neutral in the long term DMP / Travel Plan Neutral in the long term N Safety
Ecology Designated Sites No adverse effects No adverse effects N
Scattered broad leaved trees No adverse effects Landscape Habitat No adverse effects N Management Plan for habitats in built curtilages
Modified neutral grassland No adverse effects Landscape Habitat No adverse effects N and species poor modified Management Plan for neutral grassland habitats in built curtilages
Arable field margin No adverse effects Landscape Habitat No adverse effects N Management Plan for habitats in built curtilages
Species poor-intact No adverse effects Positive over long term N hedgerow and ditch
Bats Positive as woodland Vegetated surface water Positive over long term at Y planting matures system maintained under the the local level. terms of a Landscape Habitat Management Plan (to be secured by condition
Birds – availability of new Significant positive at less Significant positive at less Y nesting habitat for passerine than local level as woodland than local level species matures
Water Vole Positive effect at County None Positive effect at County Y level level
350
Archaeology No effects are predicted during the operational phase of the proposed development _
LVIA Landscape Character NCA 56 – Minor adverse and None. Mitigation including Minor adverse after 15 years N not significant implementation of as the landscape mitigation Landscape Habitat embedded into the scheme Management Plan design and existing embedded into scheme woodland matures design
Study area - Moderate to minor adverse and significant in the short term
Visual Amenity Public Views: Moderate None – mitigation including Minor adverse effect after 15 N adverse effect (significant) implementation of years as the landscape on receptors 9 and 1015 Landscape Habitat mitigation embedded into the Management Plan scheme design and existing embedded into scheme woodland matures design Public Views: Moderate to Minor adverse effect after 15 N (Receptor 7)
Low Adverse effect years as the landscape N (Receptor 8) (significant) on receptors 7 mitigation embedded into the and 816 scheme design and existing woodland matures
Public Views Minor or N negligible effect on all other receptors (not significant)
15 Pedestrians and cyclists using the local footpath/cycleway along the A580 East Lancashire Road (receptors 9 and 10). Users of M6 (elevated section 16Users of A580 Between M6 Junction 23 and Ladyhill Plantation (7 and 8)
351
Private Views: Moderate None – mitigation including Minor (receptor A) to N (Receptor A)
adverse and significant – implementation of Moderate Adverse (Receptor Y (Receptor L) receptors A and L17) Landscape Habitat L) after 15 years as the Management Plan landscape mitigation embedded into scheme embedded into the scheme design design and existing woodland matures
Private Views: Moderate to Minor adverse effect after 15 N Minor adverse and years as the landscape significant (Receptor G) 18 mitigation embedded into the scheme design and existing woodland matures
Minor adverse to negligible Minor to negligible after 15 N for all other receptors (not years as the landscape significant) mitigation embedded into the scheme design and existing woodland matures
Air Quality Receptors R1-R16, Site35 Road traffic emissions Provision of electric charging Negligible N and AN3 associated with operational points at ratio of at least 1 traffic Electric Vehicle (EV) “rapid 2 charge” point per 1000m of commercial floor space Negligible
Noise and Vibration Sensitive receptors identified Operational Noise Emissions Various options – refer to Minor adverse N
in chapter (including nearby Minor - Major advese and main chapter for details
17 Residents of Haydock Park Farm and Haydock Park Farm Cottages (Receptor A). Users of Haydock Park Racecourse (Receptor L) 18 Users of Holiday Inn at Haydock (Receptor G)
352
residences, care home and significant hotel)
Road Traffic Noise None Minor adverse N
Minor adverse and not significant
Fixed Plant Noise Minor adverse N
Minor adverse and not significant
Ground Conditions Ground gas Minor Building designed in Negligible N accordance with CIRIA 665 and BS8486
Water Environment Water Quality Neutral CEMP Neutral N
Increased rates of run off Neutral CEMP Neutral N
Pollution from temporary Neutral CEMP Neutral N sanitary facilities
Increased fluvial flood risk Slight CEMP Neutral N down stream
Impact on existing Slight CEMP Neutral N consented discharges and licenced abstractions
353
Turley Office 1 New York Street Manchester M1 4HD
T 0161 233 7676