DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Statement Volume 1: Report May 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Statement Volume 1: Report May 2012 RENEWABLE ENERGY Environmental Statement Volume 1: Report May 2012 MAGNETIC PARK ENERGY CENTRE Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by AMEC (©AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2012) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by AMEC under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of AMEC. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by AMEC at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. AMEC excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. Document Revisions No. Details Date 1 Final Report May 2012 i Contents Volume 1 1. Overview of the Proposed Development 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Site Description 1 1.3 Overview of the Development Proposals 1 1.4 Purpose of this Report 2 1.5 Applicant and Project Team 2 1.6 Report Structure 3 2. The Proposed Development 5 2.1 Overview of the Need for the Proposed Development 5 2.2 Alternatives 6 2.2.1 Alternative Locations 6 2.2.2 Alternative Technologies 8 2.3 Development Description 8 2.3.1 Overview 8 2.3.2 Details of the EfW Facility 8 2.4 Other Consents 14 3. Environmental Impact Assessment 15 3.1 The Process 15 3.1.1 Overview 15 3.1.2 Scoping 16 3.1.3 Project Evolution 17 3.2 Application of EIA 18 3.2.1 EIA Terminology 18 3.2.2 Topics to be Addressed in the EIA 19 3.2.3 Scoping Exercise 19 3.2.4 Assessment Methodology 20 4. Planning Policy 23 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited May 2012 h:\projects\30633 magnetic park efw\docs\es\rr023i1.doc ii 4.1 Introduction 23 4.2 Planning and Guidance 23 4.2.1 The Statutory Development Plan 23 4.2.2 National Planning Policy 33 4.3 Conclusions 34 5. Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology 37 5.1 Introduction 37 5.2 Context 37 5.2.1 Relevant Terminology 37 5.2.2 Technical Context 37 5.2.3 Planning and Guidance 38 5.3 Assessment Approach 40 5.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work 40 5.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 40 5.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 40 5.3.4 Technical Consultations 42 5.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 42 5.3.6 Information Gaps 42 5.4 Baseline Conditions 42 5.4.1 Potential Sources of Contamination 42 5.4.2 Fieldwork 44 5.4.3 Intrusive Investigations 44 5.4.4 Contamination 45 5.5 Proposed Mitigation 46 5.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 46 5.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 46 5.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 50 5.6 Assessment of Effects 50 5.6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology 50 5.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 50 5.6.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 51 5.6.4 Possible Other Mitigation 53 5.6.5 Conclusions 53 5.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 53 5.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 56 5.9 Technical References 56 6. Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk 57 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited May 2012 h:\projects\30633 magnetic park efw\docs\es\rr023i1.doc iii 6.1 Introduction 57 6.2 Context 57 6.2.1 Relevant Terminology 57 6.2.2 Technical Context 58 6.2.3 Planning and Guidance 58 6.3 Assessment Approach 62 6.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work 62 6.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 62 6.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 63 6.3.4 Technical Consultations 64 6.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 65 6.3.6 Information Gaps 65 6.4 Baseline Conditions 65 6.4.1 Ground Conditions 65 6.4.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology 66 6.4.3 Nature Conservation Sites 67 6.4.4 Fisheries 67 6.4.5 Rainfall 67 6.4.6 Water Supply 67 6.4.7 Foul Water 67 6.4.8 Surface Water Drainage and Surface Water Features 68 6.4.9 Surface Water Quality 68 6.4.10 Pollution Incidents, Water Abstractions and Discharge Consents 70 6.4.11 Flooding 71 6.4.12 Future Baseline 72 6.5 Proposed Mitigation 72 6.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 72 6.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 74 6.6 Assessment of Effects 75 6.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 75 6.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 75 6.6.3 Conclusions 77 6.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 77 6.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 78 6.9 Technical References 79 7. Ecology 81 7.1 Introduction 81 7.2 Context 81 7.2.1 Relevant Terminology 81 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited May 2012 h:\projects\30633 magnetic park efw\docs\es\rr023i1.doc iv 7.2.2 Technical Context 82 7.2.3 Planning and Guidance 82 7.3 Assessment Approach 94 7.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work 94 7.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 95 7.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 96 7.3.4 Technical Consultations 100 7.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 100 7.3.6 Information Gaps 100 7.4 Baseline Conditions 101 7.4.1 Desk Study 101 7.4.2 Designated Sites 101 7.4.3 Protected and Notable Species 102 7.4.4 Field Survey 102 7.4.5 Summary of Identified Valued Ecological Receptors 107 7.5 Proposed Mitigation 108 7.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 109 7.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 109 7.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 110 7.6 Assessment of Effects: Designated Sites 112 7.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 112 7.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 112 7.7 Assessment of Effects: Habitats and Flora 114 7.7.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 114 7.7.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 114 7.8 Assessment of Effects: Bats 114 7.8.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 114 7.8.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 114 7.9 Assessment of Effects: Great Crested Newts 114 7.9.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 114 7.9.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 115 7.10 Assessment of Effects: Invertebrates 115 7.10.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 115 7.10.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 115 7.11 Assessment of Effects: Other fauna 115 7.11.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 115 7.11.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 115 7.12 Cumulative Effects 115 7.13 Summary of Predicted Effects 116 7.14 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 118 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited May 2012 h:\projects\30633 magnetic park efw\docs\es\rr023i1.doc v 7.15 Technical References 118 8. Cultural Heritage 121 8.1 Introduction 121 8.2 Context 121 8.2.1 Relevant Terminology 121 8.2.2 Technical Context 122 8.2.3 Planning and Guidance 122 8.3 Assessment Approach 124 8.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work 124 8.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 124 8.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 125 8.3.4 Technical Consultations 126 8.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 127 8.3.6 Information Gaps 127 8.4 Baseline Conditions 127 8.4.1 Designated Features 128 8.4.2 On-site Features 128 8.4.3 Archaeological Finds in the Surrounding Area 128 8.4.4 Historic Buildings 130 8.4.5 Historic Landscapes 131 8.4.6 Baseline Value of the Cultural Heritage 132 8.5 Proposed Mitigation 132 8.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 132 8.6 Assessment of Effects 133 8.6.1 Predicted Effects and Their Significance: Construction Phase 133 8.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 133 8.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 134 8.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 134 8.9 Technical References 135 9. Landscape and Visual Assessment 137 9.1 Introduction 137 9.2 Context 137 9.2.1 Relevant Terminology 137 9.2.2 Technical Context 138 9.2.3 Planning and Guidance 138 9.3 Assessment Approach 140 9.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work 140 © AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited May 2012 h:\projects\30633 magnetic park efw\docs\es\rr023i1.doc vi 9.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 142 9.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 143 9.3.4 Technical Consultations 144 9.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 145 9.3.6 Information Gaps 145 9.4 Baseline Conditions 145 9.4.1 Topography 145 9.4.2 Landscape Character and Context 145 9.4.3 Visual Receptors and Existing Views 151 9.5 Proposed Mitigation 155 9.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 155 9.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 156 9.6 Assessment of Landscape Effects 157 9.6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology 157 9.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 157 9.6.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 158 9.6.4 Conclusions 159 9.7 Assessment of Visual Effects 160 9.7.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology 160 9.7.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 160 9.7.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 162 9.7.4 Possible Other Mitigation 168 9.7.5 Conclusions 168 9.8 Cumulative Effects 168 9.9 Summary of Predicted Effects 168 9.10 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 171 9.11 Technical References 172 10.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • T1)E Bedford,1)Ire Naturaii,T 45
    T1)e Bedford,1)ire NaturaIi,t 45 Journal for the year 1990 Bedfordshire Natural History Society 1991 'ISSN 0951 8959 I BEDFORDSHffiE NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY 1991 Chairman: Mr D. Anderson, 88 Eastmoor Park, Harpenden, Herts ALS 1BP Honorary Secretary: Mr M.C. Williams, 2 Ive! Close, Barton-le-Clay, Bedford MK4S 4NT Honorary Treasurer: MrJ.D. Burchmore, 91 Sundon Road, Harlington, Dunstable, Beds LUS 6LW Honorary Editor (Bedfordshire Naturalist): Mr C.R. Boon, 7 Duck End Lane, Maulden, Bedford MK4S 2DL Honorary Membership Secretary: Mrs M.]. Sheridan, 28 Chestnut Hill, Linslade, Leighton Buzzard, Beds LU7 7TR Honorary Scientific Committee Secretary: Miss R.A. Brind, 46 Mallard Hill, Bedford MK41 7QS Council (in addition to the above): Dr A. Aldhous MrS. Cham DrP. Hyman DrD. Allen MsJ. Childs Dr P. Madgett MrC. Baker Mr W. Drayton MrP. Soper Honorary Editor (Muntjac): Ms C. Aldridge, 9 Cowper Court, Markyate, Herts AL3 8HR Committees appointed by Council: Finance: Mr]. Burchmore (Sec.), MrD. Anderson, Miss R. Brind, Mrs M. Sheridan, Mr P. Wilkinson, Mr M. Williams. Scientific: Miss R. Brind (Sec.), Mr C. Boon, Dr G. Bellamy, Mr S. Cham, Miss A. Day, DrP. Hyman, MrJ. Knowles, MrD. Kramer, DrB. Nau, MrE. Newman, Mr A. Outen, MrP. Trodd. Development: Mrs A. Adams (Sec.), MrJ. Adams (Chairman), Ms C. Aldridge (Deputy Chairman), Mrs B. Chandler, Mr M. Chandler, Ms]. Childs, Mr A. Dickens, MrsJ. Dickens, Mr P. Soper. Programme: MrJ. Adams, Mr C. Baker, MrD. Green, MrD. Rands, Mrs M. Sheridan. Trustees (appointed under Rule 13): Mr M. Chandler, Mr D. Green, Mrs B.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment Appendices Biodiversity Character
    BIODIVERSITY CHARACTER ASSESSMENT APPENDICES CONTENTS APPENDIX 1 Datasets used in the Northamptonshire Biodiversity Character Assessment ................................................................. 03 APPENDIX 2 Natural Areas in Northamptonshire .............................................................................................................................................. 04 Natural Area 44. Midlands Clay Pastures ....................................................................................................................................... 04 Natural Area 45. Rockingham Forest .............................................................................................................................................. 09 Natural Area 52. West Anglian Plain ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Natural Area 54. Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge .............................................................................................................................. 20 Natural Area 55. Cotswolds ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIX 3 Site of Special Scientifi c Interest Summaries .............................................................................................................................. 26 APPENDIX 4 Wildlife Site Summaries ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Appraisal
    Sustainability Appraisal Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents Rothwell and Desborough Urban Extension Area Action Plan – Proposed Submission November 2009 CONTENTS Content Page Executive Summary 2 1. Introduction 5 2. Appraisal Methodology 7 3. Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan Objectives and Policies 17 4. Mitigation 31 5. Monitoring 32 Appendices Appendix 1 Summary of Sustainability Appraisal into County Structure 33 Plan Appendix 2 Sustainability Appraisal of Plan Objectives and Core Spatial 36 Strategy Objectives Appendix 3 Consultation on Scoping Report 41 Appendix 4 Sustainability Framework 43 Appendix 5 Other Plans and Programmes 53 Appendix 6 Baseline Information 77 Appendix 7 Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan Objectives & Policies – 104 Data Matrices Appendix 8 Documentation of Effects of Policies 165 Appendix 9 Magnitude of Effects of Policies 179 Appendix 10 Monitoring Indicators 180 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY AND OUTCOMES The plan being produced, the Rothwell and Desborough Urban Extension Area Action Plan, relates to the provision of two greenfield Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) of 700 dwellings each plus associated infrastructure. Also, at Rothwell 4 hectares of employment land is proposed as part of the extension. The context for the Plan is found in saved policy within the County Structure Plan Adopted in 2001 and the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. The Proposed Submission Document for Rothwell and Desborough has evolved from work undertaken prior to the commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and developed from the issues and options formulated around that time, the Preferred Options stage (October, 2006), and the updated Position Statement stage in February 2009. The County Structure Plan and Core Spatial Strategy were subject to a Sustainability Appraisal.
    [Show full text]
  • Area a Assessments
    Central Bedfordshire Council www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk Appendix A: Area A Assessments Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan Initial Settlements Capacity Study CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN: INITIAL SETTLEMENTS CAPACITY STUDY Appendix IIA- Area A-Initial Settlement Capacity Assessment Contents Table AMPTHILL ................................................................................................................... 1 ASPLEY GUISE ............................................................................................................ 7 ASPLEY HEATH ......................................................................................................... 13 BARTON-LE-CLAY.................................................................................................... 18 BILLINGTON ............................................................................................................. 23 CADDINGTON ......................................................................................................... 27 DUNSTABLE .............................................................................................................. 32 EATON BRAY ........................................................................................................... 38 EGGINGTON ........................................................................................................... 43 EVERSHOLT (CHURCHEND) ..................................................................................... 48 FLITWICK .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KBC Note on Historically and Visually Important Local Green Space December 2020
    KBC Note on Historically and Visually Important Local Green Space December 2020 1. Introduction 1.1. Paragraph 99 of the NPPF enables the designation of land as Local Green Space through local and neighbourhood plans to allow communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. It states that the designation of land as Local Green Space should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes jobs and essential services. Paragraph 100 of the NPPF sets out criteria which should be applied when designating Local Green Space, the designation should only be met when the green space is: a) In reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; b) Demonstrably special to the local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and c) Local in character and not an extensive tract of land. 1.2. The NPPG provides further guidance on the approach to designating Local Green Space in paragraphs 005 Reference ID: 37-005-20140306 to Paragraph: 022 Reference ID: 37-022-20140306. 1.3. EXAM17 raised a number of points in relation to Policy NEH3 Historically and Visually Important Local Green Spaces. In summary these are: • Information is needed on the approach to the identification of sites and whether these were put forward or promoted by the local community. • Individual assessment sheets from the 2012 background paper have not been provided. • The absence of information on who promoted sites, the community’s reasons for seeking the designation and an explanation of why the space is considered to be demonstrably special means there are concerns over the soundness of the policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019-2020
    Annual Report 2019 - 2020 The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire Company Registration No 2534145 (England and Wales) www.wildlifebcn.org Registered Charity No. 1000412 Contents Corn bunting, Great Fen Chair’s Introduction .....................................................................................2 Annual Review - our strategic report ................................................3 Finance Review ..............................................................................................22 STRATEGIC REPORT Structure, Governance and Management ......................................25 Charity Information ......................................................................................28 Statutory Information .................................................................................29 “The Trust aims to protect and restore the Our Thanks ........................................................................................................31 Our Vision natural environment in our three counties and Independent Auditors Report ...............................................................32 enable people to learn about it and enjoy it.” Consolidated Statement of financial activity ...............................35 People close to nature, in a land rich in wildlife Consolidated Balance Sheets ................................................................36 Sir Graham Fry, Chair of the Council Wildlife Trust Trust BCN Wildlife Charity Balance Sheets ..............................................................................38
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Appraisal of the Site Specific Proposals Local Development Document
    Sustainability Appraisal of the Site Specific Proposals Local Development Document Scoping Report March 2009 ii Contents Page No 1. Introduction 1 2. Context within the Core Spatial Strategy 3 3. Baseline Information - Introduction 8 - The Borough in Context 10 - Housing 12 - Gypsy and Travellers 14 - Employment 14 - Retail 18 - Leisure and Tourism 19 - Community Facilities 19 - Education 20 - Transportation 21 - Waste 23 - Settlement Pattern 24 - Land & Soil 25 - Landscape 26 - Cultural Heritage 27 - Conservation 27 - Archaeology 28 - Open Space 28 - Biodiversity 29 - Water 32 - Air & Climate 33 - Social Deprivation 34 - Crime 34 - Health 36 4. The Sustainability Report 37 Appendix 1. Appraisal Questions 38 Appendix 2. Biodiversity data 43 i 1. Introduction Purpose of the Scoping Report 1.1 Under the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 a Sustainability Appraisal is mandatory for Development Plan Documents, including Supplementary Planning Documents. Planning Authorities must also undertake an Environmental Assessment in accordance with European Directive 2001/42/EC. Sustainability Appraisals are intended to help Local Planning Authorities to achieve ‘sustainable development’ in its widest context and are undertaken as part of a systematic process during the formulation of Development Plan Documents. The requirements of the European Directive are incorporated into the Sustainability Appraisal. 1.2 This Scoping Report is the first stage of the Sustainability Appraisal process with regard to the Site Specific Proposals Local Development
    [Show full text]
  • The Plens Lflt
    Pipeline works We hope you enjoy your visit New housing to the North of Desborough has required that a pipeline be buried through the centre of the nature reserve. This may appear to be highly destructive in the short term, however in the long term such ‘disturbances’ can often be More Information WWelcomeelcome to to beneficial. The Plens was created Your local Wildlife Trust protects wildlife and Welcome to through a similar process that countryside for people to enjoy in Bedfordshire, brings rocks and poor soils to the Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and TheBarford Plens Meadow surface providing new areas for Peterborough. We are a charity dependent on plants and insects to colonise. voluntary contributions. NatureNature Reserve Reserve If you would like more information about this reserve Nature Reserve The wildflowers and animals that or other reserves in Northamptonshire, please make this site important are highly contact: dependent on these conditions. With growing numbers of Reserves Manager visitors to the site, it is The Wildlife Trust increasingly important to be Lings House, sensitive to nature, for Billing Lings, Northampton example simply by NN3 8BE cleaning up after dogs Tel: 01604 405285 and general E-mail: [email protected] recreational activities. Common spotted orchid Access This site is supported by: Access to the reserve is by foot through the Country park to the East of the reserve or alternatively, via the Desborough to Stoke Albany footpath, which Through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme runs North- west through the reserve. Some places are steep and slippery, and can be muddy in wet Market Harborough Round Table No.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PPG17 Open Space Needs Assessment
    KETTERING BOROUGH COUNCIL OPEN NEEDS ASSESSMENT A REPORT BY PMP DECEMBER 2007 CONTENTS Page Section 1 Introduction and background 1 Section 2 Undertaking the study 6 Section 3 Strategic context 14 Section 4 Consultation 44 Section 5 Parks and gardens 61 Section 6 Natural and semi natural open space 75 Section 7 Amenity greenspace 88 Section 8 Provision for children and young people 103 Section 9 Outdoor sports facilities 123 Section 10 Allotments and community gardens 136 Section 11 Green corridors 148 Section 12 Cemeteries and churchyards 155 Section 13 Civic spaces 161 Section 14 Resourcing and open space 166 Section 15 Planning overview 169 Section 16 Example of provision calculations 186 Section 17 Conclusion 197 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background i. PMP were appointed to undertake an audit and assessment of open space across the Kettering Borough in accordance with the requirements of the latest Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (Planning for Open Space Sport and Recreation, July 2002) and its Companion Guide (September 2002). ii. The Companion Guide sets out a five step logical process for undertaking a local assessment of open space. Although presented as a linear process below, in reality, many stages were undertaken in parallel. iii. The five step process is as follows: • Step 1 - Identifying Local Needs • Step 2 - Auditing Local Provision • Step 3 - Setting Provision Standards • Step 4 - Applying Provision Standards • Step 5 - Drafting Policies - recommendations and strategic priorities. iv. The study considers ten typologies of open space facilities, namely: • parks and gardens • natural and semi natural open space • amenity greenspace • provision for children • provision for young people • outdoor sports facilities • allotments and community gardens • green corridors • churchyards and cemeteries.
    [Show full text]
  • Nene Valley Strategic Plan
    RIVER NENE REGIONAL PARK - NENE VALLEY STRATEGIC PLAN Realising the potential of the Nene Valley Final Report October 2010 Commissioned by the River Nene Regional Park, ALSF Natural England, Bee Bee Developments Ltd, Environment Agency, Natural England and North Northamptonshire Development Company 2 CONTENTS Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 2. Strategic Context .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 3. Nene Valley Today ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 PART 2: THE NENE VALLEY STRATEGIC PLAN 4. Vision, Objectives and Themes .......................................................................................................................................... 24 5. A More Enjoyed River Nene ................................................................................................................................................ 28 6. Reinvigorated Nene Towns ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Three: Development Principles
    Chapter Three: Development Principles 75 Strategic Planning for the Districts and Boroughs of Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough & East Northamptonshire 25. Introduction It also suggests where there are barriers how these can be improved and enhanced to become more of a feature to the town 25.1 Development Principles 25.1.1 This chapter uses the constraints and opportunities information with new development, such as the rivers and open spaces. For contained within Chapter Two and other qualitative factors from instance, a Grade E (poor) score would highlight a sector where a range of existing evidence base documents, including the there are no possible connections to a local connected network, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Urban the only connecting point would be via a vehicle only route and the adjacent town structure is cut off by dead ends and loops, Extensions Studies. These are encapsulated in summary diagrams to assess the potential sectors where development could be none of which front onto the single connecting route. There located around the towns. would be no clear grid network, no GI routes and significant barriers between site and amenities, which cannot be overcome 25.1.2 Once these broad sectors are established, they are broken down without significant difficulty such as large areas of built form, into smaller sub areas based on the adjacent town structure. Highways Agency level roads, and flood plains. These sub areas are then assessed for their potential level of integration to the existing town. The assessment is based on the 25.2.3 The assessments indicate the key issues that any site coming route structure analysis, informed by the axial lines analysis forward in the sector would need to resolve to improve its alongside Green Infrastructure (GI) routes, and examination of any connectivity.
    [Show full text]