Environmental Statement Volume 1: Report May 2012

RENEWABLE ENERGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Noise 175 10.1 Introduction 175 10.2 Context 175 10.2.1 Relevant Terminology 175 10.2.2 Technical Context 176 10.2.3 Planning and Legislative Context 176 10.3 Assessment Approach 179 10.3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Survey Work 179 10.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 179 10.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 180 10.3.4 Significance Criteria 182 10.3.5 Technical Consultations 186

vii

10.3.6 Final Scope of the Assessment 186 10.3.7 Information Gaps 187 10.4 Baseline Conditions 187 10.4.1 Baseline Monitoring Locations 187 10.4.2 Data Collection 188 10.4.3 Baseline Monitoring Results 189 10.4.4 Commentary 190 10.5 Proposed Mitigation 192 10.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 192 10.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 193 10.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 194 10.6 Assessment of Effects 194 10.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 194 10.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 195 10.6.3 Possible Other Mitigation 200 10.6.4 Conclusions 200 10.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 201 10.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 201 10.9 Technical References 202

11. Air Quality 203 11.1 Introduction 203 11.2 Context 203 11.2.1 Relevant Terminology 203 11.2.2 Technical Context 204 11.2.3 Planning and Legislative Context 205 11.3 Assessment Approach 209 11.3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Survey Work 209 11.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 210 11.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 212 11.3.4 Technical Consultations 214 11.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 214 11.3.6 Information Gaps 214 11.4 Baseline Conditions 215 11.4.1 Continuous Monitoring Data 215 11.4.2 Passive Monitoring Data 215 11.4.3 Estimated Ambient Concentrations 215 11.4.4 Local Air Quality Management 215 11.5 Proposed Mitigation 216

viii

11.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects 216 11.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures 217 11.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 218 11.6 Assessment of Effects: Air Quality 218 11.6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology 218 11.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 220 11.6.3 Possible Other Mitigation 222 11.6.4 Conclusions 222 11.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 222 11.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 223 11.9 Technical References 224

12. Traffic and Transportation 225 12.1 Introduction 225 12.2 Context 225 12.2.1 Technical Context 225 12.2.2 Planning and Guidance 225 12.3 Assessment Approach 226 12.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work 226 12.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment 226 12.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 227 12.3.4 Technical Consultations 227 12.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment 228 12.3.6 Information Gaps 228 12.4 Baseline Conditions 228 12.4.1 Cycling 228 12.4.2 Walking 229 12.4.3 Highway Safety Considerations 229 12.4.4 Public Transport 229 12.4.5 Local Highway Network 230 12.5 Proposed Mitigation 231 12.5.1 General Approach 231 12.5.2 Public Transport 232 12.5.3 Pedestrians and Cycling 232 12.5.4 Site Access Strategy 232 12.5.5 Travel Plan Measures 233 12.6 Assessment of Effects 234 12.6.1 Data Collection, Preparation and Interpretation Methodology 234 12.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 234

12.6.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase 236 12.6.4 Possible Other Mitigation 238 12.6.5 Conclusions 238 12.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 239 12.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 239 12.9 Technical References 239

13. Socio-Economic Effects 241 13.1 Introduction 241 13.2 Assessment Methodology 241 13.2.1 Relevant Terminology 241 13.2.2 Planning and Guidance 241 13.3 Assessment Approach 243 13.3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Survey Work 243 13.3.2 Proposed Scope of Receptors 244 13.3.3 Information Gaps 244 13.4 Proposed Mitigation 245 13.4.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures 245 13.4.2 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects 245 13.5 Baseline Overview 245 13.5.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology 245 13.5.2 Baseline Conditions 246 13.5.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology 249 13.6 Assessment of Effects 250 13.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase 250 13.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational/ Occupation Phase 250 13.6.3 Other Potential Mitigation 251 13.6.4 Conclusions 252 13.7 Summary of Predicted Effects 252 13.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 254 13.9 Technical References 254

14. Cumulative Effects 255 14.1 Introduction 255 14.2 Planning Context 255 14.2.1 National Planning Policy Guidance 255 14.2.2 Local Planning Policy Guidance 255

14.3 Proposed Scope of Assessment 256 14.3.1 Potential Receptors 256 14.3.2 Combination of Effects with Similar Sites 258 14.3.3 Combination of Effects with Other Proposed Developments 258 14.3.4 Potential Significant Effects 258 14.4 Assessment of Cumulative Effects 258 14.4.1 Assessment Methodology 258 14.4.2 Predicted Effects and Their Significance (Human Receptors) 259 14.4.3 Predicted Effects and Their Significance (Other Receptors) 262 14.5 Conclusions 264

15. Summary of Predicted Effects 265 15.1 Summary of Significant Effects 265 15.2 Adverse (Negative) Effects 266 15.3 Beneficial (Positive) Effects 266 15.4 Cumulative Effects 267 15.5 Conclusions 267

Table 3.1 Summary of Environmental Topics and where Addressed in the ES 19 Table 5.1 Significance Matrix 42 Table 5.2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 48 Table 5.3 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 54 Table 5.4 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 56 Table 6.1 Effect Significance Matrix 63 Table 6.2 Effect Significance: Criteria to Define the Sensitivity and Magnitude of Effects 64 Table 6.3 Existing and Historic Trends at the Confluence of the River Jordan and River Welland 2009-2000 (Based on Available GQA data) 69 Table 6.4 Recorded Pollution Incidents and Discharge Consents 70 Table 6.5 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 74 Table 6.6 Estimated Water Demand 76 Table 6.7 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 77 Table 6.8 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 79 Table 7.1 Assessment of Nature Conservation Importance 97 Table 7.2 Determination of Significance Level 100 Table 7.3 UK and Local BAP Species of Relevance to this Assessment 101 Table 7.4 Summary of Nature Conservation Value 107 Table 7.5 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 110 Table 7.6 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 112 Table 7.7 Potential Ecological Receptors 113 Table 7.8 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 116 Table 7.9 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 118 Table 8.1 National Legislation and Policy Context 123 Table 8.2 Sensitivity/ Value of the Cultural Heritage Assets 125 Table 8.3 Definition of Magnitude Table 126 Table 8.4 Significance of Effects 126 Table 8.5 Known Archaeological Features 128 Table 8.6 Historic Buildings and Their Approximate Distance from the Development Site 131 Table 8.7 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 134 Table 9.1 Significance Matrix 144 Table 9.2 Photograph Viewpoints 152 Table 9.3 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 156 Table 9.4 Summary of Landscape Effects and Evaluation of Significance 169 Table 9.5 Summary of Visual Effects and Evaluation of Significance 170

Table 9.6 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 172 Table 10.1 Typical Noise Levels 176 Table 10.2 Policy Issues to be Considered in Preparing the ES 177 Table 10.3 Policy Issues to be Considered in Preparing the ES 178 Table 10.4 Noise Guidance Documents 178 Table 10.5 Noise Emission Data for Construction Plant 181 Table 10.6 Perception of Changes in Steady Noise Levels 184 Table 10.7 Relationship between the Period of Construction Operation and Noise Threshold 184 Table 10.8 Summary of Noise Magnitude Criteria Applicable to Long Term Noise Effects Which Occur Frequently or For Long Durations 185 Table 10.9 Significance Matrix 186 Table 10.10 Reproduced Baseline Monitoring Results - The Grange II, Desborough ES (2011) 188 Table 10.11 Summary of Baseline Noise Monitoring Results (dB) 190 Table 10.12 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 194 Table 10.13 Construction Noise Levels (dB) 195 Table 10.14 BS4142 Assessment of Industrial Noise (dB) 196 Table 10.15 BS8233 Industrial Noise Assessment 198 Table 10.16 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 201 Table 10.17 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 202 Table 11.1 Relevant Terminology 203 Table 11.2 Receptors included in the Traffic Assessment 210 Table 11.3 Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Annual Mean Concentration 212 Table 11.4 Impact Descriptors for Changes in Concentrations 213 Table 11.5 Estimated Ambient Concentrations 215 Table 11.6 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 218 Table 11.7 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 223 Table 11.8 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 223 Table 12.1 Summary of Development Trip Rates and Traffic Generation 237 Table 12.2 Percentage Changes in Traffic Flow on the Study Area Approaches (All Trips) 237 Table 12.3 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 239 Table 12.4 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 239 Table 13.1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures 245 Table 13.2 Labour Supply Economically Active 246 Table 13.3 Employment by Occupation 247 Table 13.4 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance 253 Table 13.5 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals 254 Table 15.1 Summary of Predicted Significant Effects 265

xii

Volume 2

Figure 1.1 Site Location Plan Figure 6.1 Locations of Surface Watercourses Figure 7.1 Designated Sites and Protected Species Plan Figure 7.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Figure 7.3 Pond Locations Figure 8.1 Cultural Heritage Features Figure 9.1 Topography Plan Figure 9.2 Local Landscape Character Figure 9.3 Aerial Photograph Figure 9.4 Landscape Designations Figure 9.5 Visual Analysis Plan Figure 9.6 Photo Viewpoints Figure 9.7 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (Stack Only) Figure 9.8 Zone of Theoretical Visibility (Building Only) Figure 9.9 Photo Viewpoint 1 Figure 9.10 Photo Viewpoint 4 Figure 9.11 Photo Viewpoint 13 Figure 9.12 Photo Viewpoint 5 Figure 9.13 Night Time Photo Viewpoint Locations Figure 9.14 Night Time Photo Viewpoints Figure 9.15 Landscape Proposal Plan Rev A Figure 10.1 Noise Monitoring (M1-M5) and Receptor (R1-R7) Locations Figure 12.1 Proposed HGV Routing Plan

Appendix 3.1 EIA Scoping Report Appendix 5.1 Landmark Envirocheck Report Appendix 5.2 British Steel Mining Plans Appendix 6.1 Flood Risk Assessment Appendix 6.2 Environment Agency General Quality Assessment (GQA) Scheme Appendix 7.1 Desk Study Appendix 7.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Protected Species Survey Appendix 9.1 Extracts from Published Landscape Character Assessment Documents Appendix 9.2 Visual Effects Table Appendix 10.1 Industrial Noise Sources Appendix 10.2 Noise Monitoring Results Appendix 10.3 Monitoring Instrumentation Appendix 11.1 Air Quality Effects Appraisal Appendix 11.2 Traffic Data Appendix 11.3 Results of Traffic Assessment Appendix 11.4 Results of Cumulative Effects Assessment Appendix 12.1 Transport Statement Appendix 12.2 Travel Plan

1. Overview of the Proposed Development

1.1 Introduction Origin Renewable Energy are submitting a planning application to Northamptonshire County Council for the development of a gasification-fired Combined Heat and Power plant that will provide a renewable energy facility within the industrial area of Magnetic Park off Stoke Road, Desborough. The plant will convert household and commercial waste, via a gasification process, into heat and power for the adjacent housing, and nearby businesses, as well as supplying surplus electricity into the National Grid.

1.2 Site Description The location of the proposed development is shown on Figure 1.1. It is centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) SP799844 and is located approximately 0.4 km north of the outskirts of Desborough. It lies in an established commercial and industrial area that includes premises on the Millbuck Industrial Estate including Rigid Containers Ltd, Povoas Packaging and Mainstream Motors, as well as the Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse and O Kay Engineering at Magnetic Park. Wider land use to the north, east and west of the site is dominated by agriculture and pockets of woodland, interspersed by residential development and farm buildings. The site itself covers an area of around 1.68 ha and is currently vacant, having been prepared for development as part of the regeneration of land known as ‘Magnetic Park’, for industrial land- use, and as such comprises recently disturbed ground. The presence of the existing warehouses and other commercial properties around the site means that the site is located within an industrial context. The site access is off a dedicated internal access road, (Eagle Avenue), which will be shared with the other properties at Magnetic Park, via the B576 (Harborough Road). Eagle Avenue forms the southern site boundary and the northern boundary is formed by Stoke Road.

1.3 Overview of the Development Proposals The proposed Energy Centre is aimed at both contributing to sustainable waste management and providing a localised source of heat and power. The Energy Centre would generate around 8MW of electricity, and would also have the potential to operate as a Combined Heat and Power plant (CHP), capable of producing 32MW of heat or a combination of heat, steam and electricity. This would have wider climate change benefits by providing an alternative to fossil fuels as well as offering a decentralised energy source close to centres of population and industry. The design of the development also incorporates several renewable technologies including solar panels and small roof wind turbines. In terms of waste treatment, the proposed development targets both the municipal and commercial and industrial waste sectors. All sections of society produce waste and have been

doing so in ever increasing quantities over recent years. Traditionally, most of this waste has been managed by disposing of it to landfill. Now, however, the way in which we manage our waste is undergoing substantial change. No longer is it acceptable to simply throw waste away; it must be treated to remove wastes that can be re-used and recycled, to remove wastes from which value can be recovered, and to process wastes in a way that leaves the residues more stable so reducing their potential effect on the environment. Using waste as a resource is the key to maximising the value obtained from waste processing and treatment and a key element of this can be the generation of energy. The proposals provide an opportunity to divert significant quantities of waste away from landfill. The proposed development (referred to in this document as the energy from waste facility or EfW) will use ENERGOS gasification technology and will have a capacity of 96 000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of residual waste. The facility will not accept hazardous or clinical waste and it is anticipated that the vast majority of waste arriving at the site would come from across the local area. The proposed development would also create a new venue available to the community in the form of a modern visitors centre, offering educational, meeting and conferencing facilities. The site location and the area that is subject to the planning applications are shown on Figure 1.1. Further details of the proposals are given in Section 2.

1.4 Purpose of this Report This ES complies with the EC Directive 97/11/EC ‘The assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment’, which amended EC Directive 85/337/EC. The amended Directive was implemented in England by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, and advice on the Regulations is provided by Circular 02/1999. Under the EC Directive, the proposals for the Energy Centre fall within the scope of a Schedule 1 development, whereby an EIA is mandatory. The EIA and the resulting ES were undertaken and prepared with due regard to the criteria of Schedule 4 of the Regulations. The ES includes an assessment of the predicted effects of the proposed development, focusing, as required by the EIA Regulations, on the likely significant environmental effects. The content of the ES, as well as the overall approach to the EIA, has also been designed to reflect other requirements of the EIA Regulations as well as widely recognised good practice in EIA.

1.5 Applicant and Project Team AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd (AMEC) is a firm of Environmental and Engineering Consultants, which has been responsible for the compilation of the ES and Non-Technical Summary (NTS). The technical assessments were undertaken by the following consultant team:

• Noise; Air Quality; Health Risk Assessment: AMEC;

• Planning Policy; Socio-economics: Pegasus Planning Group;

• Traffic and Transport: Lawrence Walker Ltd;

• Ecology; Landscape and Visual Assessment: FPCR Environment and Design Ltd;

• Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk: Michael Thomas Consultancy;

• Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology: Eastwood and Partners; and

• Cultural Heritage: University of Leicester. The applicant is Origin Renewable Energy Limited. Origin was formed in 2008 by a group of property developers, who wished to ensure the sustainability of the new developments and communities that they are creating. The company directors personally undertook their own research across Europe in order to shortlist the renewable technologies available that would allow new developments to benefit from de-centralised local energy generation. Origin currently supports small-scale gasification as the best available and proven technology to ensure localised energy generation for community developments, local grid reinforcement and an alternative to waste landfilling.

1.6 Report Structure In addition to this introduction (Section 1), the ES is divided into 14 further sections covering the following: • Section 2 sets out the reasons for (and the alternatives to) the development and provides a description of the existing topography and land use, together with a detailed description of the proposed development; • Section 3 provides information relating to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Specifically it includes details relating to the EIA process, before setting out how it will be applied to the Magnetic Park Energy Centre. The key terminology used during the EIA process is also explained; • Section 4 provides an overview of planning policy relevant to the development and is drawn from the more detailed text that can be found in the accompanying Planning Statement;

• Sections 5-13 each deal with an individual environmental topic and therefore provide separate technical assessments. However, there is a clear link between many of the subjects and the order in which they appear on the ES is intended to strengthen the connections;

• Section 14 deals with the cumulative effects of this development and other related developments in the locality; and

• Section 15 concludes the ES with a summary of environmental effects. References are listed at the end of each section and appendices provide additional data and information. The Non-Technical Summary (NTS) is provided as a separate document.

2. The Proposed Development

2.1 Overview of the Need for the Proposed Development The East Midlands region produces around 6.3 million tonnes of commercial and industrial waste every year1. Northamptonshire accounts for around 1.1 million tonnes of regional arisings and latest estimates indicate that over 295 000 tonnes are currently subject to recycling, 295 000 to biological processing, and 166 000 to advanced treatment (thermal, pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc and other waste to energy processes and other emerging advanced technologies)2. The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS1 Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity identifies target capacity for ‘Waste Management or Advanced Treatment (Municipal Solid Waste and Commercial & Industrial Waste)’ of: “…392 000 and 456 000 tonnes per annum for 2016 and 2026 respectively…” To meet these targets additional advanced treatment facilities, such as that proposed at the Magnetic Park Energy Centre, would be required. In October 2009 Defra published its Statement of Aims and Actions for Commercial and Industrial Waste in England. This states that: “A key part of our vision for commercial and industrial waste is to achieve a greater degree of convergence in policy between C&I waste and household waste. This is because in terms of carbon and other impacts it makes little difference whether the source of any given kind of waste is businesses or households. In the early part of the current decade, policy instruments to address municipal waste were much more strongly developed than for business waste: this was a consequence of the specific landfill diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste set in the EU landfill directive. More recent policy development, however, has focussed more strongly on measures which apply to both business and household waste. This applies in particular to the significant increases in landfill tax announced in successive Budgets. Incentives to invest in energy from waste plants from the system of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) also apply to both kinds of waste. And if landfill bans are put into place, applying to both municipal and non- municipal waste, that will help achieve yet further convergence.”

1 http://www/defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/wrfg03-indcom/

2 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Core Strategy DPD (Adopted May 2010)

Defra’s objectives for commercial and industrial waste are therefore the same as for household waste as outlined in the National Waste Strategy 2007. They are to: • Reduce the amount of waste that arises in the first place - by more sustainable design, production, purchasing and use as well as reuse of products and materials in the economy; • Increase the proportion of the waste that does arise which is productively re-used, recycled or recovered;

• Reduce significantly the amount of waste that is sent to landfill or incinerated without recovering energy;

• Manage any remaining residual waste responsibly; and

• Maximise the investment opportunities for business from commercial and industrial waste management. The proposed development is aimed at contributing to Government’s aims and vision for managing the commercial and industrial waste sector. Achieving this vision would enable businesses to save money, improve resource efficiency in the economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (by reducing reliance on fossil fuels) and other environmental impacts.

2.2 Alternatives An ES should include details of the main alternatives to the development considered by the applicant3. In this context, the applicant has considered:

• Alternative locations for the proposed Energy Centre; and

• Alternative technologies to the proposed Energy from Waste gasification facility. In view of the need to develop new recovery facilities and to divert wastes from landfill, it is not considered that the ‘do-nothing’ option is a viable or sustainable one.

2.2.1 Alternative Locations A comprehensive site search exercise has been carried out by the applicant to determine whether there are any suitable and available sites in the East Midlands that would be suitable for the development of a strategic waste management facility. The sites considered, and reasons for not pursuing these sites, are as follows: 1. Area of Land off Junction 16 M1 (known as Midway Park) The potential for an Energy Centre at a new development known as Midway Park was considered. The proposed development site extended to approximately 146 ha with masterplanning for a mixed-use development comprising B1/2/8 uses as well as Hotel and Conference/ Fast food (A2).

3 Schedule 4, part 1, paragraph 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 requires that an outline of the main alternatives is provided and an indication of the main reasons for the choice given.

The site was not considered suitable by the applicants due to the lack of appropriate end-users, particularly residential properties, for the CHP element of the proposals. 2. Site at Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal, Junction 18 M1 Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is a rail-road intermodal freight terminal with an associated warehousing estate; the facility is located at the junctions between the M1 motorway, A5 and A428 with a rail connection from the Northampton loop of the West Coast Main Line. Current users at the site include Mothercare, Eddie Stobart, Tesco and the Royal Mail. Whilst having excellent road and rail links, end users of energy, other than commercial electricity and some space heating, were again considered by the applicant to be limited. The site was therefore discounted. 3. Peterborough - Area of Ground at Great Haddon The Great Haddon site represents an urban extension to the west of Peterborough and encompasses approximately 430 hectares of land. The site has good access to the strategic road network via the A1(M) to the west and the development proposals include for approximately 6 000 homes, strategic employment areas and other B1/2/8 uses. Although it was considered by the applicant that the site represented a suitable location for the proposed Energy Centre, attempts to secure the necessary land were not successful. The development of an Energy Park at Storey’s Bar Road in Peterborough by Green Energy Parks, utilising advanced mechanical recycling, biomass gasification and plasma vitrification technology, also presented competition for source waste and heat and power distribution. This site was therefore discounted by the applicant. 4. Corby A site within Corby was considered as a potential location for the proposed Energy Centre. The site is located between two extensive and heavy industrial areas off the A6086/A6116 in the north-east of the town. Difficulties encountered with this site included the fact that it is in close proximity to sensitive receptors as it is less than 150 m from existing residential properties. Furthermore there was no prospect of new residential properties being developed locally to provide potential end-users for the CHP element. The potential for CHP supply to nearby industrial units was discussed but this did not come to fruition. This site was therefore discounted by the applicant as a viable location for the Energy Centre. In context of the above exercise, it was concluded that the Magnetic Park site represented the most suitable location for the development of the proposed Energy Centre. The site has good road links as well as multiple end users of heat and power on the nearby residential and industrial estates, as well as being located in an existing industrial setting.

2.2.2 Alternative Technologies The applicant carried out a review of various technologies for a similar previous application at Ashton Park, Bristol. The aim was to provide a low-carbon energy solution on a local scale to supply both residential and commercial properties. The technologies considered included wind turbines, biomass CHP, biomass heat only, energy from waste and gas-fired CHP.

In terms of the CO2 savings, energy production, as well as minimising land-take, the energy from waste option proved one of the most viable. The potential for an EfW facility to act as a combined heat and power plant, and the fact that this option also has the additional benefit of contributing to sustainable waste management, led the developers to choose this technology as the most viable for the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. The proposed gasification technology developed by ENERGOS can be developed at a much smaller scale than conventional EfW facilities based upon incineration. They can be developed as a more local solution that will not crowd out further recycling and composting. ENERGOS is seeking to develop a number of similar schemes throughout the UK and was awarded planning consent for a similar scheme in Irvine, Scotland in 2007 and Knowsley, Merseyside in 2009. A plant on the Isle of Wight is operational, and there are a further seven plants operating in Norway and Germany demonstrating that it is a proven technology. The applicant therefore considers the proposed CHP plant using gasification EfW technology offers the most deliverable and practical option for the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre.

2.3 Development Description

2.3.1 Overview Full details are provided for the proposed EfW facility based upon the ENERGOS technology. The following is the development description: Erection of an energy from waste gasification facility, turbine and boiler halls, air cooled condenser farm and associated plant, together with site access, weighbridge, visitors centre, car parking and landscaping. Key components include: a reception hall and fuel bunker for the receipt of the waste fuel; a two staged thermal conversion process which initially gasifies the waste fuel prior to high temperature oxidization; two heat recovery steam generators (HRSG); an energy utilisation system; a flue-gas cleaning system; and a control and monitoring system. It will have the capacity to process approximately 96 000 tonnes of waste per annum and generate around 8 megawatts (MW) of electricity or 32MW of heat.

2.3.2 Details of the EfW Facility

Introduction The EfW facility will comprise plant, machinery and building design to allow the conversion of non-hazardous waste into energy (electricity and heat). The development details can be found in the following drawings:

• RDC-EFW_888_50: Visual 1;

• RDC-EFW_888_51: Visual 2;

• RDC-EFW_888_52: Visual 3;

• RDC-EFW_888_95: Coloured Site Layout Rev C;

• RDC-EFW_888_96: Coloured Elevations Rev A;

• RDC-EFW_888_110: Site Layout Rev H;

• RDC-EFW_888_115: Plant Layout;

• RDC-EFW_888_120: Amenity Block Rev C;

• RDC-EFW_888_200: Elevations Rev G;

• RDC-EFW_888_300: Visitors Centre Rev A;

• RDC-EFW_888_301: Visitors Centre - Elevations;

• RDC-EFW_888_302: Roof Plan;

• RDC-EFW_888_302: Typical Section. The development will have the capacity to process up to 96 000 tonnes of waste per annum based on a nominal calorific value of 11.7 MJ/Kg, comprising mostly commercial and industrial waste, but will also be able to process municipal solid waste. Following processing, recyclable materials (such as metals), which can comprise up to 3.5% of total inputs, will be taken off-site for re-processing. Residues from the facility which can comprise between 16% and 30% of total waste inputs dependant on waste composition will be sent for final disposal at a suitably permitted, proximate waste disposal facility if no alternative use for the material is commercially available. The EfW facility has the potential to be a comprehensive Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant. The electricity generated will have a nominal gross capacity of 8MW and the steam turbine will be designed to allow both high and low pressure steam to be readily exported to the adjacent commercial industries on Magnetic Park and the Millbuck Industrial Estate. Residential properties of the Grange II development would benefit from hot water via a proposed district heating network as well as a supply of electricity. There is also the potential to supply heat and power to the existing housing development at the Grange. This option is currently being investigated by the applicant. This will increase the overall energy efficiency of the plant. The ENERGOS EfW technology is also classed as ACT (Advanced Conversion Technology) and the biomass content in the waste qualifies for Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Unlike traditional EfW facilities (i.e. incineration), the technology employed involves a two stage system, which initially gasifies the waste to produce synthetic gas, or ‘syngas’. This gas is then transferred to a second stage where controlled oxidation of the syngas takes place. This produces stable process-related emissions which are compliant with current emission limits given in Directive 2000/76/EC (the Waste Incineration Directive or WID).

Design Evolution The architectural design for the Magnetic Park Energy Centre has been prepared by RDC Development Consultants. The main building has been designed around the internal ENERGOS plant. In order to form an initial design a typical plant layout was issued by ENERGOS. Given the aspiration to deliver a landmark building it was decided to enclose all of the plant within the building envelope, with potentially visually intrusive elements of the building’s process equipment being contained leading to a less industrial looking building fitting of its aspirations and location. Having established the plant layout in conjunction with ENERGOS the building elevations were evolved. Following a design review it was found that the massing of the building could be reduced resulting in a reduction in the building height. The curved nature of the roof closely follows the internal plant and so minimises voids which would be created if the building had been formed from a series blocks. Further information on the design of the proposed development is provided in the Design and Access Statement submitted as part of this planning application (RDC Development Consultants, 2012).

Layout The EfW facility is made up of the following principal elements: • A main building - this will house the majority of process plant and will have a flue stack. All waste material will be unloaded inside the building. At its highest point, the main body of the building will be ~30 m high and be ~100 m long by ~50 m wide (max). It is anticipated that the flue stack will extend to a maximum height of ~53 m high; • Turbine Hall/Boiler Room - this will be a separate building ~14.5 m high, 32 m long and 13 m wide; • Sub-station compound - this will be a separate building ~7.5 m high, 10.1 m long and 7 m wide; • Air cooled condensers - the condensers are supported on an ‘A Frame’ structure; the height of the structure is ~20 m from ground level and is ~32 m long and ~13 m wide; and • Sprinkler tank - the tank will be ~9 m diameter and 8 m high. In addition, the external site areas will include:

• Two weighbridges (in and out);

• Site entrance and circulation roads;

• 18 car parking spaces;

• Visitor Centre, incorporating photovoltaic panels, integrated wind turbines and green roof, and associated parking spaces; and • Landscaping.

Process Description As noted above, the plant employs a two stage system that first gasifies the waste to produce a synthetic gas which is then transferred to a second stage where it is oxidized. The two stage system enables a thorough control of the process which minimises emissions including Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and dioxins and ensures compliance with the limits given in the WID. The plant has the capability of using several different waste streams as fuel, including:

• Commercial and industrial waste (the primary fuel source expected for the facility);

• Municipal solid waste;

• Final non reuse/recyclable wastes such as paper reject from the recycling process; and

• Residual wastes from other processes such as Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). The following describes its key stages (illustrated on Figure 7 of the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of this planning application).

Waste Receipt and Fuel Preparation System Waste will be delivered by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) via Eagle Avenue and unloaded in the waste bunker. The plant is equipped with a pre-treatment system that includes a shredder with belt conveyors, magnetic belt for metal separation, eddy current separator for non-ferrous metals and a pick up crane. An overhead crane system feeds the shredder and the hopper of the gasification chamber. The overhead crane loads the shredder. The magnetic metal will be extracted from the shredded waste and transferred to containers. Shredded waste (fuel) is unloaded in the fuel bunker.

Fuel Bunker and Transport System Fuel is transferred from the fuel bunker by use of the overhead crane and unloaded into hoppers upstream of the feeding chamber of each gasification chamber. The fuel mixture is then fed from the feeding chamber into the gasification chamber. Odour in the vicinity of the plant is minimised by using air from the bunker hall as process air for the gasification and high temperature oxidation process.

Thermal Conversion Thermal conversion takes place in two steps. Drying, pyrolysis and gasification of the fuel, producing a synthetic gas or ‘syngas’, is carried out in the gasification chamber. In the high temperature oxidation chamber a staged oxidation is facilitated by multiple injections of air and recycled flue-gas. The gasification chamber is equipped with a fixed horizontal oil-cooled grate that is divided into several separate sections, each with a separate air supply. A hydraulically operated water- cooled plunger feeds the fuel into the gasifier grate. A water-cooled guillotine is installed at the inlet of the gasification chamber to control the thickness of the fuel bed. A hydraulically operated water-cooled feeder (duplex feeder) secures the fuel transport along the grate. The duplex feeder is designed in such a manner that in addition to the longitudinal transport, a good

local mixing of the moving fuel bed is achieved to promote local homogeneity of the fuel. A proprietary software programme controls the fuel-feeding rate into the gasification chamber as well as transportation along the grate. The bottom ash (typically 18% of the input waste) is discharged from the gasification chamber at the end of the grate and cooled in a water-basin before transportation to the bottom ash storage. The stored bottom ash is then transported for alternative end uses, such as road sub-base, bulk fill, asphalts, foamed concrete and cement bound materials in construction projects, or to a suitable waste disposal facility by HGV at regular intervals. The nearest such facility is at Oakley Road, Rushton, Kettering. The syngas produced in the gasification chamber is transferred via a channel to the high-temperature oxidation chamber. Injection of air and re-circulated flue-gas through distributed nozzles in the high temperature oxidation chamber ensures temperature control and complete high temperature oxidation of the syngas. Flue-gas exiting the high temperature oxidation chamber is passed to the heat recovery steam generator. Auxiliary burners are used during plant start-up, shutdown and as stand-by burners to ensure that the temperature in the high temperature oxidation chamber is above 850oC while the plant is in operation.

Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Each of the two HRSG units that recovers the energy from the flue-gas is connected downstream of each high temperature oxidation chamber. The HRSG is a combined water-tube and smoke-tube boiler with an economiser. The water-tube boiler section consists of water-tube bundles (evaporator and super-heater) that are easily removable for service and maintenance. The system is equipped with a feed-water tank, feed-water pumps, make-up water system, blow-down tank for blowing of the boiler and facilities for cleaning (shot cleaning) of the heat transfer surfaces (flue-gas side) during operation.

Steam Turbine and Air Cooled Condenser Steam from the two HRSG units is passed to a common condensing steam turbine for the generation of electricity. Exhaust steam from the steam turbine is condensed by an air-cooled vacuum condenser and the condensate is passed back to the feed-water tank for re-use in the facility.

Flue-gas Cleaning System The EfW facility is supplied with a dry flue-gas cleaning system located downstream of each HRSG. The flue gas cleaning system consists of adsorbent silo, bag-house filter and storage silo for filter dust. The cleaning of the flue gas is based on injection of adsorbent (lime and carbon) into the flue-gas for absorption of acid components, adsorption of heavy metals, mercury, TOC and dioxins. Fly ash and adsorbents are separated from the flue-gas in a bag house filter. Residue is collected at the bottom of the filter and pneumatically transported to the filter dust storage silo. The silo is drained at regular intervals through a sealed system into designated HGVs for transport to disposal in accordance with statutory regulations. The flue-gas fans are located downstream of each bag house filter. These fans maintain the required air current in the gasification and high temperature oxidation chambers and discharge the flue-gas to the atmosphere via a common flue-gas stack. A portion of the flue-gas is recycled to the high temperature oxidation chamber by use of a re-circulated flue-gas fan.

Control and Monitoring System The facility is equipped with a control and monitoring system, which performs automatic control of the process. The facility operators interact with the control system via the human machine interface (HMI) in the control room. The HMI presents all important process data, including flue-gas emissions. An independent emergency shutdown system (ESD) takes control during emergency situations and secures the facility into a safe state to avoid damage to people, environment and equipment. Emission monitoring of flue-gas components is performed according to Directive 2000/76/EC. Any special requirement from local authorities related to emissions is not included in the scope, but will be supplied on request. A separate historical data logging system stores all process data in a database and is used for analysis purposes.

Utilities The EfW facility will be supplied with the following process utility systems: • Electrical system excl. transformer and connection to the grid;

• Emergency power generating unit;

• Process air system;

• Re-circulated flue gas system;

• Compressed air system;

• Hydraulic system;

• Water cooling system;

• Thermal oil system;

• Process sewage system; and

• Fuel oil or gas system.

Operating Hours With the exception of an ‘emergency situation’ (for example the unexpected closure of another facility) it is proposed that the facility would generally only accept the delivery of waste and the despatch of materials during normal daytime hours: 0800 to 1800 hours during weekdays and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays; it is accepted that this will be subject to a planning condition should the development be approved. No delivery, despatch or on-site movement of waste would therefore take place on Sundays or bank holidays, again, except in the case of emergencies. Notwithstanding this, the facility will be designed to provide sufficient internal storage of waste and residues to enable continuous operation over the longer public holiday periods of Christmas and Easter. The internal processing of materials will operate on a continuous (24 hour) basis, however, on- site loading, sorting and handling operations would be limited to the delivery and despatch hours set out above. Routine and non-routine maintenance operations within the building(s) will take place as and when required. Routine maintenance operations outside the building(s)

will be scheduled to take place during the daytime (delivery) hours and will only extend into the night time and/or weekends should this prove necessary to maintaining the continuity of the process. Any non-routine maintenance and repair operations will be undertaken as and when they arise.

Landscaping A landscaping strategy has been prepared and details are provided on Figure 9.15 of this ES.

Material Delivery and Despatch It is envisaged that heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) delivering waste to the site and taking recyclable materials (mainly metals) and residues off-site would travel to the site via the A14 and A6, and access the site using an existing access point from the junction of the B576 (Harborough Road) and Stoke Road. An HGV routing plan has been is included as Figure 12.1 of this ES.

2.4 Other Consents In addition to planning permission, other consents will be required to enable the proposed development to proceed. Of particular importance to this development is the need for Environmental Permits from the Environment Agency that will control all operations associated with the facilities based upon various risk assessments. Information presented in this ES will be used in the preparation of the Environmental Permits.

3. Environmental Impact Assessment

3.1 The Process

3.1.1 Overview Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process. Its key characteristics are that it is: • Systematic, comprising a sequence of tasks defined both by regulation and by good practice, leading to the use of the information that is gathered to inform decision-making as to whether or not the proposed development should be allowed to proceed; • Analytical, requiring the application of specialist skills from the environmental sciences; • Impartial, its aim being to inform the decision-maker rather than to promote the project; • Consultative, with provision being made for obtaining feedback from interested parties including local authorities and statutory agencies; and

• Interactive, whereby the proposals for the key stages of the development are progressively refined in response to environmental as well as technical considerations with a view to minimising the scheme’s potential adverse environmental effects and maximising its environmental benefits. The preparation of the ES is one of the key stages in the EIA process, as it brings together the environmental information that has been used to inform the evaluation of the significance of the environmental effects. The ES also needs to include information about the decisions that have been taken during the interactive scheme development process referred to above. Following the production of the ES, the next key step in the EIA process is for the competent authority that is responsible for determining the planning application to determine whether or not the development should be allowed to proceed. In respect of the Magnetic Park Energy Centre the competent authority is Northamptonshire County Council (NCC). If consent is granted, the EIA process should continue, reflecting any requirement for monitoring or the implementation of mitigation measures which may be conditioned as part of the consent. The key steps in the EIA process (once the requirement for EIA has been established) are summarised in Box 3.1. These are based on the EIA Regulations, government guidance and good practice. They require inputs from not only the EIA team but also from the developer (Origin) and competent authority (NCC).

Box 3.1 Key Steps in the EIA Process

• Defining the project, including consideration of the need for the project and alternatives for meeting this need;

• Deciding on the likely significant effects that need to be assessed and how the necessary assessments will be carried out;

• Consulting over the scope of the EIA and refining the scope in response to the comments that are received (with this refinement process continuing as the proposals for the scheme and the understanding of its environmental effects evolve);

• Assembling further information about the baseline environmental conditions that relate to the likely significant effects;

• Identifying measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for adverse effects, or to increase the environmental benefits of the scheme, and liaising with the project design team to incorporate these (where possible) into the proposals, ensuring that the development proposals as amended are environmentally assessed;

• Ongoing consultation with statutory consultees and other interested parties, as appropriate;

• Assessing the magnitude and other characteristics of the environmental effects being assessed;

• Evaluating the significance of the predicted effects;

• Collating the findings in an ES and summarising the findings in a Non-Technical Summary (NTS);

• Submission of the ES to the relevant competent authority;

• Decision-making, which may involve inter alia ongoing negotiation and requests for further information;

• Informing stakeholders of the decision on whether or not the development is to be permitted; and

• Ongoing environmental monitoring, assessment and other work, as required.

Before moving on (in Section 3.2) to describe how the EIA process has been applied to the Magnetic Park Energy Centre, Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 describe aspects of the generic approach to both scoping EIAs and how the EIA team has contributed to the evolution of development proposals.

3.1.2 Scoping Scoping involves identifying: • The people and environmental resources (collectively known as ‘receptors’) that could be significantly affected by the proposed development; and • The work required to take forward the assessment of these likely significant effects. The context for scoping is provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 and by Circular 02/1999. Schedule 4 of the Regulations states that the ES should include “a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment…”. In addition, the Circular states that: “In many cases, only a few of the effects will be significant and will need to be discussed in the ES in any depth. Other impacts may be of little or no significance for the particular development in question and will need only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been considered”.

The approach to scoping adopted by this EIA accords with Circular 2/1999. Specifically, it started at the outset of the EIA process to allow the focus to be placed on the important issues. The initial conclusions about the scope of the EIA were set out in a scoping report that was submitted to the competent authority for consultation and comment. There is no statutory requirement to produce such a report, although to do so is widely recognised as good practice since it engages interested parties and enables them to contribute to the scope of the EIA from an early stage, which in turn can reduce delays later on. In the scoping report, potential environmental effects are identified for further assessment and therefore are ‘scoped-in’ when: • They are likely to be significant; or

• They could be significant and further information and/or consultation is required to determine whether they are likely to be significant. For each of these effects, the scoping report identifies the work required to take forward the EIA. Ideally there might already be sufficient information available for the scoping report to fully define the assessment approach for each environmental topic required. Often though, all that can be done is to identify the survey work needed to determine whether receptors are present and to understand the changes that could result in significant effects upon them. Only when this has been done can the assessment requirements relating to the receptor be fully defined and as new evidence becomes available, effects that were previously ‘scoped-in’ might be ‘scoped-out’ and vice versa.

3.1.3 Project Evolution Even before the start of the EIA process, many development proposals are informed by environmental considerations. For example, early decisions might be made to avoid direct effects to designated nature conservation or cultural heritage features and there will often be recognition of the need to implement standard measures to control noise and dust emissions, and to minimise the risk of pollution incidents. Further opportunities to avoid or reduce potential adverse effects, or to deliver environmental enhancements, may be identified whilst preparing the scoping report. Some of these opportunities will be acceptable to the client/project design team and will become part of the scheme proposals. The interactive process of scheme development continues through to a ‘design freeze’ at which stage detailed work to assess the effects of the finalised scheme can be completed. AMEC’s approach to EIA is to assess the effects of the scheme proposals as they stand at the ‘design freeze’, incorporating the mitigation and enhancement measures that the client has agreed should form part of the proposals, irrespective of how or when they were adopted. However, in undertaking the assessment of the proposals, it is essential to consider the likely effectiveness of the mitigation/ enhancement measures. Only those measures that might reasonably be expected to be effective are likely to influence the assessment, although other measures can still provide benefits. The mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals at Magnetic Park Energy Centre are related to each of the individual environmental topics that are assessed as part of the EIA and are described in the relevant topic-specific ES chapters (Sections 5-13). These include some measures where there is an uncertain or limited certainty of effectiveness.

3.2 Application of EIA

3.2.1 EIA Terminology

Impacts and Effects In some EIAs, the terms ‘impacts’ and ‘effects’ are used interchangeably, whilst in others the terms are given different meanings. Some use ‘impact’ to mean the cause of an ‘effect’ whilst others use the converse meaning. This variety of definitions has led to a great deal of confusion over the terms, both among the environmental specialists that undertake EIAs and those who read the resulting ESs. Other than where it is also used in quotations, the convention used in this ES is to use ‘impacts’ only within the context of the term EIA, which describes the process from scoping through ES preparation to subsequent monitoring and other work. Otherwise, this document uses the word ‘effects’ when describing the environmental consequences of the proposed development. Such effects come about as a result of a series of events (or from pathways) that involve:

• Physical activities that would take place if the development were to proceed (e.g. vehicle movements during construction operations);

• Environmental changes that are predicted to occur as a result of these activities (e.g. loss of vegetation prior to the start of construction work or an increase in noise levels). In some cases one change causes another change, which in turn results in an environmental effect. The environmental effects that are predicted to result are the consequences of the environmental changes for specific environmental receptors (e.g. for bats from the loss of roosting sites or foraging areas or for people because of an increase in noise levels etc.). This ES is concerned with evaluating the significance of the effects of the development, rather than the activities or changes that cause them. However, this requires these activities to be understood and the resultant changes quantified, and this in turn often necessitates predictive assessment work to be undertaken. An example of how a physical activity and environmental change can lead to an Environmental Effect is given in Box 3.2.

Box 3.2 Example of Activities and Environmental Changes Leading to an Environmental Effect

At the Magnetic Park Energy Centre heavy plant will undertake a number of activities related to the handling of waste. These include the transportation and handling of waste within the site boundary. These activities will lead to an increase in background noise levels that could be significant. It is therefore necessary to obtain information that will determine the magnitude of change and this will include data relating to the baseline conditions (background noise levels monitored at potential noise sensitive receptors). It will also include data from plant manufacturers to determine the amount of noise each item of plant will generate, together with site design information to determine the numbers of plant involved, the areas and routes in which they will operate and their relative proximity to receptors. The assessment will then involve predicting the magnitude of the noise that will be experienced at each receptor, taking into account any incorporated mitigation to reduce noise levels, and determine the resultant effects of this change.

Mitigation In this report, mitigation is defined as covering the following terms. • Avoidance: Measures taken to avoid adverse effects;

• Reduction: Measures taken to reduce adverse effects; and

• Compensation: Measures taken to offset or compensate for adverse effects. These measures usually take the form of attempting to replace what will be lost. In addition, reference will be made to enhancement measures. These constitute genuine enhancement of environmental interests, unrelated to any avoidance, reduction or compensation, is not considered to be mitigation. However, it will still be relevant to the ES if it is proposed as part of the development.

3.2.2 Topics to be Addressed in the EIA Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations specifies that the EIA should address: “...direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects...”. Schedule 4 also specifies that the ES should describe those: “…aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including notably 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.” These topics are dealt with under the respective chapter headings as summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Summary of Environmental Topics and where Addressed in the ES

Topics in the EIA Regulations ES Chapter Reference

Population Landscape and Visual (S9), Noise (S10), Air Quality (S11) and Traffic (S12)

Fauna Ecology (S7) Flora Ecology (S7) Soil Ground Conditions & Hydrogeology (S5) Water Hydrology, Drainage & Flood Risk (S6) Air Air Quality (S11) Climatic factors Hydrology, Drainage & Flood Risk (S6), Noise (S10), Air Quality (S11) Material assets Traffic (S12) Landscape Landscape and Visual (S9) The inter-relationship between the No specific topic but addressed by analysis of the environmental changes above factors associated with the development and the consequent effects being central to the approach used to scoping and assessment.

3.2.3 Scoping Exercise The findings of the early scoping work carried out for this EIA were set out in a scoping report, which for this proposed development was submitted to NCC on 9 February 2012, and was

subsequently distributed to a range of consultees. A copy of this Scoping Report is set out at Appendix 3.1. The scoping report set out in broad terms the proposals for the Magnetic Park Energy Centre; the environmental issues that were likely to arise as a result of the development; the methodologies to be applied in the EIA; and the content of the proposed ES. A formal scoping opinion was received from NCC on 5 April 2012. The scoping opinion included copies of the responses received from consultees. The scoping report has not been reissued in response to the scoping consultation responses that have been received. Instead the scope of the assessment has been modified in order to reflect:

• Material changes to the project (e.g. where refinements to the development proposals avoided effects or reduced them to the point that they were no longer likely to be significant);

• New information that came to light (e.g. from consultees or further survey) indicating that previously ‘scoped-out’ effects were likely to be significant or that previously ‘scoped-in’ effects were not; and • New effects that were identified, which could be significant. The changes that have been made to the scope of the assessment are detailed in each topic chapter in this ES, as appropriate.

3.2.4 Assessment Methodology All of the individual environmental topic assessments have been undertaken on the basis of a common understanding of the nature of the proposed development and of the major changes that could affect the baseline in the absence of the development. Each environmental topic chapter also follows a broadly common format, although by necessity some variations have been included, especially where a chapter is primarily informative, e.g. land quality. However, the format for most sections includes the following subsections:

• Introduction: This provides a brief introduction to the assessment topic;

• Context: This provides a ‘pen-picture’ of the relevance of each environmental topic and includes details of the terminology and technical and planning context relevant to technical discipline;

• Assessment Approach: This summarises the data gathering and survey work that was undertaken to inform the proposed scope of the EIA;

• Baseline Conditions: This provides a detailed description of the receptors and draws conclusions in respect of their sensitivity or value based on the evaluation of relevant criteria;

• Proposed Mitigation: This section deals primarily with the ways in which the scheme design has been modified to avoid or reduce the effects that could potentially be significant during the key phases of the development. Measures designed to compensate for or offset likely significant effects are also provided;

• Assessment of Effects: The results of the detailed assessment are described in this section and are related to each of the receptors. It therefore takes account of the sensitivity (or value) attributed to a particular receptor and relates to it the predicted magnitude of environmental change from the various development-related activities. Information about the effects of all the environmental changes is then drawn together and a conclusion reached about the overall effect, as to whether it is ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’. Broadly, an effect that is considered significant is of such weight that it could influence the development consent decision;

• Conclusions: This concludes the overall findings of the assessment in respect of the environmental topic or specific receptors. This is demonstrated in tabular form and summarises the predicted effects in relation to each receptor. It therefore provides a useful checking device to the findings of the preceding detailed assessments, which has determined whether the effects are “significant” or “not significant” as defined by the EIA Regulations; and • Implementation of Mitigation Measures: For each of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the scheme design details are provided in respect of: - How the measures will be implemented (e.g. as part of a site environmental management plan); - What, if any, monitoring is required;

- Who will be responsible for their implementation/ monitoring; and

- What planning controls or other mechanisms are considered necessary to formalise the delivery of the measure.

4. Planning Policy

4.1 Introduction This chapter identifies the relevant planning policy context for which the Proposed Development should be considered against.

4.2 Planning and Guidance Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that “if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” The Localism Bill was given Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. The Localism Act makes provision for numerous changes to development plans including the abolition of Regional Strategies under Section 109. At the time of writing the East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (2006) remains part of the statutory development plan. The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012; it replaces previous planning policy guidance and a number of planning policy statements. It was outlined in the draft National Planning Policy Statement, published in July 2011, that Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management will remain in place until the National Waste Management Plan is published, therefore PPS10 remains a material consideration for the proposed development.

4.2.1 The Statutory Development Plan The statutory development plan relevant to the application for the waste fuelled CHP Energy Centre at Desborough comprises of the following elements:

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy DPD (May 2010); • Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Locations for Waste Development DPD (March 2011);

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Proposals Map (April 2011);

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011);

• East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006);

• Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10): Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011); and

• North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008). Regard has also been given to the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development and Implementation Principles SPD (September 2011), although this document does not form part of the statutory development plan it does provide greater clarity of aspects of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework therefore is considered a material consideration. Reference has been made the Rothwell and Desborough Area Action Plan – Submission (August 2010). This document provides additional guidance on the on the Desborough North Sustainable Urban Extension for which the proposed waste management facility will supply with energy. It should be noted that the Rothwell and Desborough Area Action Plan has not yet been formally adopted but has been subject to a number of formal consultation stages and it is therefore considered a material consideration. Also of material consideration are those policies at both a national and regional level. This includes the NPPF, PPS10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011) and the East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006).

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy DPD (May 2010) In May 2010 the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy DPD was adopted. This document sets out the strategy for minerals and waste in Northamptonshire based upon ‘The Waste Hierarchy’ as outlined in the European Waste Framework Directive (1975) (75/442/EEC) and later incorporated into the East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (2006) and the Northamptonshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (2008). The Waste Hierarchy aims to reduce the reliance on waste disposal favouring methods of reuse, recycling, and energy recovery. Policy CS1 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy is directly relevant to the consideration of the proposed development as it sets the target for Northamptonshire’s waste management facilities by type. Policy CS1 identifies the target capacity for waste management facilities providing advanced treatment such as the proposed waste fuelled CHP Energy Centre at Desborough. The target is to provide the capacity to process Municipal Solid Waste and Commercial and Industrial Waste at the rate of “392,000 and 456,000 tonnes per annum for 2016 and 2026 respectively”. The ‘Key Diagram’ within the Strategy visually illustrates ‘The Spatial Strategy for Waste Management’ identifying Desborough as a small town stating that “waste facilities should be consistent with local service role”. Furthermore it is clearly shown that Desborough is located within the ‘Central Spine’ described as “areas of focus for waste development particularly integrated and advanced treatment facilities”. Box CS3 entitled ‘Waste management and disposal in Northamptonshire defines the “Central Spine Area” as “in or related to the principal urban area of Northampton; in or related to the urban areas of Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and Rushden/ Higham Ferrer; in or related to the central spine service centres of Burton Latimer, Irthlingborough, Rothwell and Desborough;...” The spatial strategy is expanded in Policy CS2: ‘Spatial Strategy for Waste Management’ where it is reiterated that “Northamptonshire’s waste management network, particularly advanced treatment facilities with a sub-regional or wider catchment, will be focused within the central spine, and the sub-regional centre of Daventry” … “Development in the smaller towns should

be consistent with their local service role…”. It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the spatial strategy outlined. Table CS3 of the Waste and Mineral Development Framework Core Strategy provides an example of the potential combinations of waste management facilities needed to address capacity requirements to 2025/256, this includes 4-6 small scale Waste to Energy facilities which could provide roughly 70,000 tonnes per annum (small scale) or 1-2 sub regional scale facilities which could provide roughly 300,000 tonnes per annum. The proposed development for the waste fuelled CHP Energy Centre at Desborough responds to the need set out in both Policy CS1 and the policy expectation as outlined in Table CS3. Regard has been given to Core Strategy Policy CS7: ‘Sustainable design and use of resources’ throughout the design process of the Energy from Waste Facility at Desborough, particular attention has been paid to the “design and layout that allows the sorting, recycling, biological processing and storage of waste”. Although not directly related to the current application, consideration has been given to Core Strategy Policy CS8: ‘Co-location of waste management facilities with new development’. It is intended that the energy and heat produced by the waste fuelled Energy Centre will be supplied to dwellings at The Grange II, located to the south-east of the development site, and other existing businesses in proximity to the site. The need for a waste management facility to be located in proximity to the Desborough North Sustainable Urban Extensions is outlined in both the North Northamptonshire Spatial Core Strategy and emerging advice contained within paragraph 7.6.26 of the Rothwell and Desborough Area Action Plan – Submission (2010). Policy CS9 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy is entitled ‘Encouraging sustainable transport movements’, it states that “minerals and waste related development should seek to minimise transport movements and maximise the use of sustainable or alternative transport modes.” Core Strategy Policy CS14: Addressing the impact of proposed minerals and waste development states that “Proposals for minerals and waste development must demonstrate that the following matters have been addressed:

• minimising environmental impact and protecting Northamptonshire’s key environmental designations,

• protecting natural resources or ensuring that any unavoidable loss or reduction is mitigated,

• ensuring built development is of a design and layout that has regard to its visual appearance in the context of the defining characteristics of the local area,

• ensuring access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable, and

• ensuring that local amenity is protected.”

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Locations for Waste Development DPD (March 2011) The Energy Centre proposed at Magnetic Park is not allocated within the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Locations of Waste Development DPD and therefore the site is not shown on the Minerals and Waste Proposals Map (2011). Paragraph 3.3

of the Locations for Waste Development states that the “Minerals and Waste Development Framework therefore attempts, in the interests of both flexibility and deliverability, to strike a balance between allocating sites and allowing non-allocated sites to come forward.” The following description of a location accepted in principle for waste management facilities is relevant to the proposed development at Desborough as outlined at paragraph 3.4 of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework Locations for Waste Development:

• “Industrial area locations for waste management uses - specific industrial estate locations within the main urban areas, smaller towns and some of the rural service centres where waste management facilities would be acceptable in principle.”

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD (2011) The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD was adopted in June 2011. This document sets out the policy context for which the Energy Centre application will be determined against. As mentioned above the proposed Energy Centre at Magnetic Park is not allocated. Paragraph 3.4 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD states that the Minerals and Waste Development Framework attempts “to strike a balance between allocations and also allowing non-allocated sites to come forward.” Policy CMD1: ‘Development Criteria for Waste Management Facilities (non-inert and hazardous)’ states that “Proposals for waste management facilities on non-allocated sites (including extensions to existing sites and extensions to allocated sites) must demonstrate that the development:

• “does not conflict with the spatial strategy for waste management,

• promotes the development of a sustainable waste network and facilitates delivery of Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity requirements,

• clearly establishes a need for the facility identifying the intended functional role, intended catchment area for the waste to be managed, market base for any outputs, and where applicable the requirement for a specialist facility,

• is in general conformity with the principles of sustainability (particularly regarding the intended catchment area),

• facilitates the efficient collection and recovery of waste materials, and

• where intended for use by the local community, is readily and safely accessible to those it is intended to serve. Development should also, where appropriate, and particularly in the case of advanced treatment facilities:

• ensure waste has undergone preliminary treatment prior to advanced treatment,

• integrate and co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities,

• maximise the re-use of energy, heat, and residues, and

• maximise the use of previously developed land (particularly existing and designated industrial land, and derelict, despoiled, or brownfield urban land), or redundant agriculture and forestry buildings (and their curtilages).” Paragraph 3.12 of the Minerals and Waste Control and Management of Development DPD defines the criteria for the catchment area for waste facilities. In relation to the proposed development at Desborough the following description of a local catchment area is directly relevant: “Local – Waste to be managed on site originates from within up to two adjacent local planning authority areas or an equivalent geographical area. The facility is intended to serve either an urban area and its immediate rural hinterland; or be located in a rural area for the purpose of dealing with agricultural and / or similar wastes produced locally. The facility should be for preliminary treatment, however in certain circumstances may be for advanced treatment. The facility supports the waste hierarchy and is not for the disposal of waste.” A Catchment Area Assessment has been completed and accompanies the application to fulfil the requirements of policies relating to catchment area. The assessment involved a detailed market analysis over an area with a hypothetical 20 mile radius of the proposed facility’s location, which is comparable to a 30 minute travel time used as an industry standard. The reports derived estimates for the availability for MSW and C&I Waste, as well as treatment capacity within the same area. Full details are included within the Planning Statement (Pegasus Planning Group, 2012). Policy CMD12: ‘Preventing Land Use Conflict’ states that “Proposals for development considered to be incompatible with committed or allocated minerals or waste development will be required to demonstrate practical measures, including the use of separation areas, for preventing the occurrence (either now or in the future) of land use conflict and potential adverse environmental effects resultant from ongoing occupation and usage (of the proposed development). The following should be taken into consideration in proposals for incompatible development in determining adequate separation areas: • nature of both the minerals and / or waste development (committed or allocated) and proposed development (including duration), • compatibility of the proposed activity with the minerals and / or waste development (committed or allocated),

• characteristics of any potential adverse environmental effects likely to arise as a result of land use conflict, and

• any additional measures considered necessary to mitigate potentially adverse impact”. Box CMD6: ‘Compatibility of Minerals & Waste Development with other forms of Land Use’ states that incompatible development for waste-related development may include: residential, commercial, or recreational development. Although the proposed development is within the indicative separation buffer zone of 100-250 m from the site and incompatible land uses, this issue has been addressed and justification has been made throughout the accompanying

application documentation outlining that the proposed technology will not cause an adverse impact to the surrounding land uses. Policy CMD10: ‘Layout and Design Quality’ states that “The layout and overall appearance of waste management facilities, and where appropriate minerals development, will be required to demonstrate that the development: supports local identity and relates well to neighbouring sites and buildings, is set in the context of the area in which it is to be sited in a manner that enhances the overall townscape, landscape, or streetscape (as appropriate), utilises local building materials as appropriate, incorporates specific elements of visual interest, and builds- in safety and security”.

Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Development and Implementation Principles SPD (September 2011) The Development and Implementation Principles SPD was adopted in September 2011, this document provides additional practical guidance on specific aspects of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework to provide clarity and ensure consistency. Box SPD2: ‘Principles for Waste Design and Neighbourhood Facilities’ outlines that proposals for development must incorporate the following principles: waste hierarchy, high quality innovative design, provision of complementary facilities, environmental protection and enhancement, adequate space and access, environmental education and public safety.

• Waste hierarchy – “System of preferential sustainable waste management options where prevention and minimisation are the most preferred followed by re-use, processing of recyclates (including composting), and energy recovery; with disposal to landfill being the least preferred option. The hierarchy acts as a guide and in most circumstances a combination of the above management options may be required to deal appropriately with wastes generated” • High quality innovative design – “Waste management facilities should be of high quality sympathetic to surrounding built environment, incorporate sustainable development practices (including materials resource efficiency), and of innovative design (where appropriate). Design of facilities should accommodate potential for future change in waste management methods, collection processes, and occupation or function of the individual buildings & development.” • Provision of complementary facilities – “The provision of waste management facilities should complement and support existing facilities & services. Adequate provision should be made for ongoing maintenance and management of facilities.” • Environmental protection and enhancement – “Avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding environment and human health, and where necessary ensure appropriate mitigation measures are implemented.” • Adequate space and access – “Provision of adequate space for, and access to, facilities for separation, storage, and collection of waste.” • Environmental education – “Maximise opportunities for environmental education and promote awareness of sustainable waste management.” • Public safety – “The design, layout and landscaping components associated with waste management facilities should seek to ‘plan out crime’ by creating safe &

secure environments, increasing the risk of detection of criminal or antisocial activity, and make crime more difficult to commit.” Box SPD3: ‘Design Principles for Minerals and Waste Development’ outlines that development proposals should incorporate the following principles: high quality design, holistic design, local distinctiveness, environmental protection and enhancement, sustainable development, strategic site layout, high quality landscaping and boundary treatments, effective buffers, lighting, site access, sustainable transport, integrated development, public safety.

• “High quality design – High quality design that accommodates the nature of operations and is in context with and complementary to the surrounding landscape and townscape; • Holistic design – Holistic design incorporating all components of the built form into a consistent architectural treatment. Including all buildings (operational, offices, reception, security, etc), building components (ventilation, extractor grills, service pipes, etc), storage area, structures, secure boundary treatments (gates and fences), service infrastructure, wash bays, weigh bridges, etc.;

• Local distinctiveness – Support local distinctiveness and character;

• Environmental protection and enhancement – All design aspects (built form, site layout, lighting, access, landscaping, etc) should seek to avoid and where necessary mitigate adverse impacts on the surrounding environment and human health (including air, water, land, noise, odour, amenity, landscape, biodiversity, heritage assets, geodiversity, and flood risk) whilst maximising beneficial outcomes;

• Sustainable development- Incorporate sustainable development practices that promote the prudent use of natural resources, waste minimisation, and energy efficiency; • Strategic site layout – Seek to reduce impact on both the immediate surrounds and the broader landscape level through strategic site layout; • High quality landscaping and boundary treatments – High quality landscaping and boundary treatments that are in context with and complementary to the surrounding landscape character. Landscaping and boundary treatments should be maintained to a high standard and positively contribute towards amenity, biodiversity, heritage assets, and nature conservation where possible. Landscaping and boundary treatments should seek to balance the needs of both the historic and natural environment, and not compromise heritage assets;

• Effective buffers – Provision of adequate and effective buffers to reduce adverse impacts on sensitive receptors or areas. Buffers are to be in context with and complementary to surrounding landscape or townscape, and may include aspects of the built form, landscaping and boundary treatments. Buffers should seek to positively contribute towards amenity, biodiversity heritage assets, nature conservation, habitat enhancement, and catchment conservation where possible. Buffers should balance the needs of, and protect, both the historic and the natural environment. Access opportunities within buffer areas should be maximised where safe;

• Lighting – Minimise light pollution (includes sky glow, glare, light spill, and trespass); • Site access – Site entry and public access areas are to be well maintained and act to reduce the visual impact of the site. Public rights of way should be retained where possible. Access to the major transport network should seek to reduce impacts on sensitive receptors;

• Sustainable transport – Incorporate sustainable or alternative transport options where appropriate (e.g. rail and water transport);

• Integrated development – Maximise opportunities to locate complementary operations and activities together;

• Public safety – The design, layout, and landscaping components should seek to ‘plan out crime’ by creating safe and secure environments, increasing the risk of detection of criminal or antisocial activity, and make crime more difficult to commit”. The Development and Implementation SPD also provides further information about preventing land use conflict between existing uses and the provision of waste management facilities as mentioned in Policy CMD12 of the Control and Management of Development DPD. For advanced treatment facilities it is advised that special consideration be given to: noise, bioaerosols, air emissions, and transport (HGVs) within the design process and through practical use of the facility whilst waste is loaded and unloaded, transferred, or treated/ processed for all types of waste developments. Furthermore paragraph 2.69 provides guidance for indicative separation areas to be applied for the development of waste management facilities. For advanced treatment facilities such as the gasification-based Energy from Waste facility at the proposed Energy Centre the indicative separation area is “100 to 250m from the site boundary”. Although the proposed development is within the indicative separation buffer zone of 100-250 m from the site and incompatible land uses this issue has been addressed and justification for the waste fuelled Energy Centre has been made throughout the accompanying application documentation outlining that the proposed technology will not cause adverse impact to the surrounding land uses. The Development and Implementation SPD also provides further information about the catchment areas for waste mentioned in Policy CMD12 of Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Control and Management of Development DPD. Indicative Catchment Areas are stated in Table SPD3, the local scale catchment area is described as “up to two adjacent LPA areas or an equivalent geographical area” indicated to be “1000km”.

East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006) The East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy was produced by the East Midlands Regional Assembly and was adopted in January 2006. This document contains overarching advice from the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8) and Planning Policy Statement 10 published in 2005.

Policy RWS 1.4 of the Regional Waste Strategy outlines that waste planning authorities should aim to develop a “...comprehensive range of facilities for the recovery, treatment and possible recycling or reprocessing of wastes where they can meet environmental, technical and

operational objectives and which can lead to a coordinated approach to waste management preferably in conjunction with other forms of development.” Policy RWS 1.7 of the Regional Waste Strategy states that “Waste development plan documents should allocate specific sites for a range of types and scales of waste management facilities giving priority to safeguarding and expanding appropriate sites with existing waste management use and acceptable transport arrangements. The suitability of sites should be assessed against the following criteria: • proximity to existing or major new or planned development;

• good transport connections with preference given to rail and water;

• compatible land uses; namely

- active mineral working sites;

- previous or existing industrial land use;

- contaminated or derelict land;

- land adjoining sewage treatment works;

• locally based environmental and amenity criteria...” Policy RWS 1.8 of the Waste Regional Strategy states “development plan documents and municipal waste management strategies should encourage the development of advanced recovery technologies as part of an integrated approach to waste management. All proposed facilities should operate to the highest standards and should maximise the practicable recovery, recycling or composting of materials if this has not already been carried out. Proposed thermal facilities should, wherever practicable, aim to incorporate combined generation and distribution of heat and power.”

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008) Policy 1: ‘Strengthening the Network of Settlements’ refers to the aim to “achieve greater self- sufficiency for North Northamptonshire as a whole, development will be principally directed towards the urban core, focused on the three Growth Towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The smaller towns of Burton Latimer, Desborough, Higham Ferrers, Irthlingborough, Rothwell and Rushden will provide secondary focal points for development within this urban core. The emphasis will be on regeneration of the town centres, through environmental improvements and new mixed use developments, incorporating cultural activities and tourism facilities, in order to provide jobs and services, deliver economic prosperity and support the self sufficiency of the network of centres. New sustainable urban extensions to the growth towns will provide major locations for housing and employment growth and reinforce the roles of these settlements.” The proposed waste fuelled CHP Energy Centre at Desborough is considered to be providing strategic infrastructure for the settlement. Although this application is not directly linked to the proposed residential development within Desborough’s Sustainable Urban Extension, Desborough North, it is intended that the energy produced by the waste fuelled CHP Energy Centre will be supplied to the residential development and local businesses in close proximity to the waste management facility. Therefore consideration has been given to the following Core Strategy policies.

Policy 14: ‘Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction’ states that “Development should meet the highest viable standards of resource and energy efficiency and reduction in carbon emissions. In particular: a) Proposals for large developments including the Sustainable Urban Extensions, should demonstrate that: i. residential units to be delivered 2008 – 2012 will meet the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) level 3 as a minimum; those delivered 2013 – 2015 will meet CSHcode level 4 as a minimum; and those delivered from 2016 onwards will meet CSHcode level 6 as a minimum4 ii. non-residential development will be compliant with a BREEAM/Eco-building assessment rating of at least ‘very good’ iii. a target of at least 30% of the demand for energy will be met on site (the actual figure to depend upon technical and economic viability), and renewably and/or from a decentralised renewable or low-carbon energy supply*

(b) Elsewhere, development proposals should demonstrate that:

i. the development incorporates techniques of sustainable construction and energy efficiency ii. there is provision for waste reduction/recycling iii. there is provision for water efficiency and water recycling iv. residential development involving 10 or more dwellings or 0.5 hectares or more of land, and non-residential development involving 1,000 square metres gross floor area or 1 hectare or more of land should demonstrate that at least 10% of the demand for energy will be met on-site and renewably and/or from a decentralised renewable or low-carbon energy supply* *Unless alternative measures such as off-site generation elsewhere within North Northamptonshire can be demonstrated to achieve the same or greater levels of carbon savings.” Policy 16: ‘Sustainable Urban Extensions’ states that “Master Plans will be produced for all sustainable urban extensions and should make provision for: a) A broad balance and range of housing choice, including both market and affordable housing; b) Variations in housing density with an overall minimum net density of 35 dwellings per hectare; c) A wide range of local employment opportunities that offer a choice of jobs and training prospects; d) An appropriate level of retail, leisure, social, cultural, community and health facilities that meet local needs but do not compete with the town centre; e) Nursery, primary and, where necessary, secondary educational needs; f) Access to well designed separate but overlooked cycleways (both off and on road) and walking routes serving the local facilities; g) Housing located within a maximum walking distance of 300m of a frequent, viable and accessible bus service; h) A design-led approach to the provision of car-parking space with the overall aim of reducing dependency on the private car; i) Measures to deliver a target of 20% modal shift away from car use over the plan period;

j) A network of green spaces linking the area to the wider green infrastructure framework that provides for large-scale landscape enhancement, the conservation of important environmental assets and natural resources, biodiversity and formal and informal recreation areas; k) Development that respects the environmental character of its rural surroundings and existing townscape character. Particular attention should be given to the creation of a well designed and defined edge to development and a sensitive transition to adjoining areas in the wider countryside. Proposals will need to include plans for the long term use and management of these areas; l) Local waste management facilities and neighbourhood waste management facilities for the separation, storage and collection of waste, to increase the efficiency of its subsequent re-use, recycling and treatment.”

4.2.2 National Planning Policy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Adopted on 27 March 2012, paragraph 11 of the NPPF indicates that “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” It goes on to state that it “…does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise…” Whilst the NPPF sets out the general principles for development, paragraph 5 states that “This framework does not contain specific waste policies, since national waste planning policy will be published as part of the National Waste Management Plan for England4. However, local authorities preparing waste plans and taking decisions on waste applications should have regard to policies in this Framework so far as relevant.” It is therefore necessary, for the purpose and nature of this application, to refer to PPS10: ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011)’.

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (March 2011) Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management was adopted in March 2011 this document replaces Planning Policy Guidance 10: Planning and Waste Management (PPG10) published in 1999 and an earlier edition of PPS10 published on 21st July 2005. PPS10 is to be replaced by the forthcoming National Waste Management Plan. At the time of writing this has not been published and PPS10 remains a material consideration. It is outlined in paragraph 1 of PPS10 that “The overall objective of government policy on waste, as set out in the strategy for sustainable development, is to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible...” Paragraph 2 states that “Positive planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management:

4 Footnote 5 of the NPPF: The Waste Planning Policy Statement will remain in place until the National Waste Management Plan is published.

• through the development of appropriate strategies for growth, regeneration and the prudent use of resources; and • by providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time.” With regard to identifying suitable locations for waste management facilities it is outlined in paragraph 20 of PPS10 that “...waste planning authorities should consider... a broad range of locations including sites, looking for opportunities to co-locate facilities together with complementary activities.” Paragraph 21 provides the criteria to assist waste planning authorities identify sites for waste management facilities.

• “the extent to which they support the policies in PPS10;

• the physical and environmental constraints on development, including existing and proposed neighbouring land uses (see Annex E); • the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality social cohesion and inclusion or economic potential; • the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support suitable movement of waste, and products arising from the resource recovery, seeking where practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport”. Annex E advices waste authorities to consider the following: a) protection of water resources, b) land instability, c) visual intrusion, d) nature conservation, e) historic environment and built heritage, f) traffic and access, g) air emissions, including dust, h) odours, i) vermin and birds, j) noise and vibration, k) litter, and l) potential land use conflict. It is outlined in paragraph 24 that “Planning applications for sites that have not been identified, or are not located in an area identified, in a development plan document as suitable for new or enhanced waste management facilities should be considered favourably when consistent with: i) the policies in this PPS, including the criteria set out in paragraph 21; ii) the waste planning authority’s core strategy.” Paragraph 22 states “...when proposals are consistent with an up to date development plan, waste planning authorities should not require applicants for new or enhanced waste management facilities to demonstrate a quantitative or market need for their proposal.” Paragraph 25 states “In the case of waste disposal facilities, applicants should be able to demonstrate that the envisaged facility will not undermine the waste planning strategy through prejudicing movement up the waste hierarchy.”

4.3 Conclusions The policies of relevance to the proposed development have been analysed and assessed on a national, regional and local level. Whilst the proposed development site has not been allocated within the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework ‘Locations for

Waste Development DPD’ (March 2011), it is considered that the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre development at Desborough conforms with the development plan and wider overall national planning policies.

5. Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology

5.1 Introduction This chapter has been prepared by Eastwood & Partners Limited and considers the likely significant effects that the ground conditions at the application site could have on the proposed development and vice versa. The following aspects are considered:

• The ground conditions expected beneath the application site and in the surrounding area. This includes the geology, hydrology and hydrogeology;

• The environmental sensitivity of these;

• The likelihood of contaminants being present both within the application site’s boundaries as well as within the local area, which may influence the application site during both construction and operational phases of the proposed development; • Any further pollution which may result from the proposed development of the application site itself; and • Any other hazards which may be associated with the ground.

5.2 Context

5.2.1 Relevant Terminology There are a number of key terms that have been referred to in this chapter and for ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows: • Geology - soils and underlying bedrock;

• Hydrology - surface water;

• Hydrogeology – groundwater;

• Controlled Waters - surface water and groundwater.

5.2.2 Technical Context The purpose of undertaking this assessment is to determine whether there could be potential risks to human health, environmental receptors (geology and controlled waters) or the development itself that would require further investigation and possibly remediation to reduce any risks to an acceptable level agreed with the regulatory authorities. It is also to identify any hazards associated with the ground which could influence the proposed development or be influenced by it.

The expected baseline ground conditions at the application site, including the presence of contamination, are discussed together with the potential risks posed and the mitigation measures proposed to render the application site suitable for the proposed development.

5.2.3 Planning and Guidance Contaminated Land is assessed and managed in accordance with the ‘Contaminated Land Report 11 – Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’ (Environment Agency, 2004).

Legislation The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended by Section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) and the Contaminated Land Regulations 2005 has created a regime for the identification and remediation of contaminated land, and introduced a definition of contaminated land, which is described in Defra Circular 01/2006 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A ‘Contaminated Land’. Section 78A(2) defines contaminated land for the purposes of Part 2A as: ‘any land which appears to the Local Authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that – (a) Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) Pollution of Controlled Waters is being, or is likely to be, caused’.

In this context, the Government’s objectives with respect to contaminated land are: (a) to identify and remove unacceptable risks to human health and the environment; (b) to seek to bring damaged land back into beneficial use; and (c) to seek to ensure that the cost burdens faced by individuals, companies and society as a whole are proportionate, manageable and economically sustainable. These three objectives underlie the ‘suitable for use’ approach to the remediation of contaminated land, which the Government considers is the most appropriate approach to achieving sustainable development in this field. The ‘suitable for use’ approach focuses on the risks caused by land contamination. The approach recognises that the risks presented by any given level of contamination will vary greatly according to the use of the land and a wide range of other factors, such as the underlying geology of the site. Risks therefore need to be assessed on a site-by-site basis.

National Policy In broad terms, the Part IIA regime applies where land is causing unacceptable risks assessed on the basis of the current use and circumstances of the land. The planning system must, however, operate on a wider basis, because contamination can also have a potential impact that goes

wider than the current land use. The planning authorities have a duty to consider contaminated land in setting development plans and determining planning decisions. Planning Policy Statement PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control is relevant in this context for planning decisions in England. This document states that: ‘…Land contamination, or the possibility of it, is therefore a material planning consideration in the preparation of development plan documents and in taking decisions on individual planning applications.’ This same document reinforces the ‘suitable for use’ approach to the clean-up of contaminated sites. It states that: ‘the developer is responsible for ensuring that development is safe and suitable for use for the purpose for which it is intended’ ‘The Local Planning Authority should satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990’. Risks are assessed by identifying pollutant linkages. A pollutant linkage requires each of the following to be identified: (a) a Contaminant; (b) a Receptor; and (c) a Pathway capable of exposing a receptor to the contaminant. Generic and site specific assessment criteria can be derived using the methodology described in the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model, produced by the Environment Agency and DEFRA. The documents describing the methodology are a series of Science Reports produced by the Environment Agency. The main ones are SC050021/SR2 ‘Human health toxicological assessments of contaminants in soil’ and SC050021/SR3 ‘Updated technical background to the CLEA model’. The values of the Generic Assessment Criteria depend on the future use of the land with lower values being derived for residential developments, which are more critical, than for commercial or industrial developments. The concentrations in groundwater or surface water and in eluate produced from soil leaching tests can be compared with the assessment concentrations summarised in the ‘Environment Agency technical advice to third parties on Pollution of Controlled Waters for Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990’, reference 07_02 V.2, dated 03/05/02.

Regional and Local Policy There are no known additional plans or polices relating to Contaminated Land which cover the application site.

5.3 Assessment Approach

5.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work The assessment involved a desk based study and site walkover. The data sources the desk study considered are detailed in Section 5.3.2 below. The walkover was completed on 09 November 2011.

5.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment Information regarding the current and former land uses both on and surrounding the application site, as well as the environmental sensitivity of the application site’s location, as determined by factors including geology, hydrogeology and hydrology, have been examined. The potential presence of both man made contaminants as well as those which are expected to be naturally occurring is assessed. A review is also made of any forms of pollution which may ultimately result from development of the site. The final sections of this chapter examines the anticipated risks to future end users of the site from any potential contaminants highlighted and discusses, where relevant, options for mitigating any risks. The information reviewed is from a variety of sources. Reference has been made to geological maps and memoirs of the area as well as a Landmark Envirocheck report, obtained specifically for the application site. This includes copies of the relevant historical Ordnance Survey maps, allowing a review of previous potentially polluting activities, and information on a variety of contamination issues, such as landfills and radon. A copy of the Landmark Envirocheck report forms Appendix 5.1. In addition, a walkover inspection of the application site to assess current land use and any potentially polluting activities has been carried out. Reports of previous site investigations of land, mainly to the east of the current application site, have also been examined. These included the excavation of trial pits, cable percussion boreholes, testing of soil samples for contamination levels, a review of mining plans provided by British Steel Plc and discussions with the various approving bodies such as the Environment Agency and Kettering Borough Council. A copy of the mining plans, provided by British Steel Plc who are now part of the Corus group, form Appendix 5.2. The area to the east of the application site has been developed with the Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse since the site investigations. The engineer who was responsible for the site during the ground works for Great Bear Distribution provided some additional information regarding the ground conditions.

5.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology

Assessment Criteria There are no universal threshold criteria for assessing the significance of the potential effects that may arise from land contamination or ground hazards. Current guidance on the assessment of contamination risk advocates the use of a conceptual model in an attempt to establish connecting links between a hazardous source and a sensitive receptor, via a plausible exposure pathway. The fundamental concept behind this approach is that without all of these three elements (source, pathway and receptor) there can be no risk. Thus, the mere presence of a hazard at a particular site does not imply the existence of associated risks.

The significance of effect (where a contamination risk or ground hazard has been identified) has been determined from criteria developed from best practice techniques and expert knowledge. Contamination and ground hazards have been assessed by the identified presence of specific potential sources of contamination and previous investigation of this and similar sites in the surrounding area. The criteria for assessing the magnitude of effects (change) and sensitivity of receptors to qualify the significance of effects within the EIA Assessment Matrix are detailed below.

Magnitude of Change Scale The magnitude of potential effect is assessed using a qualitative scale which is considered would be generally accepted by the various interested parties within the risk assessment of ground contamination and hazards: • High - There is likely to be a significant increase in the probability of harm or pollution, e.g. a permanent pathway from a known contaminant source to a receptor is introduced, or users of the proposed development will be exposed to significantly higher risk of significant harm than users of the application site in the baseline condition. Buildings and services within the proposed development would be at risk of damage. The proposed development would significantly increase the risk from contaminant sources to neighbouring properties in the long term; • Medium - The proposed development introduces uncertainty that contaminant pathways are inactive, or an increased risk of slight harm or slight damage to property; • Low - The increase in risk to receptors from contaminant sources as a result of the proposed development is not expected to be material e.g. an increase in number of users to the application site which has been remediated to reduce risks to an acceptable level;

• Negligible - An increase in risk is not identified e.g. elevated concentrations of a contaminant are recorded or expected but there is no plausible pathway or receptor or the levels of risk are within acceptable limits.

Receptor Sensitivity Scale The sensitivity of receptors is assessed based on experience and a qualitative scale as follows: • High – Any additional risks presented to the receptor would be unacceptable e.g. detrimental effects on human heath are likely or a Principal Aquifer or watercourse would be affected. Remediation would be required if a pollutant linkage were identified;

• Medium – Additional risks presented to the receptor could be unacceptable e.g. additional testing or detailed quantitative risk assessment would probably be required to confirm a pollutant linkage does not exist. Remediation is likely to be required if a pollutant linkage were identified;

• Low – Additional risks are unlikely to be presented e.g. a pathway probably doesn’t exist but could be a possibility. Additional testing or quantitative risk assessment would possibly be required to confirm a pollutant linkage does not

exist. Remediation would be a cautious or precautionary measure. Risks are transient and would be unlikely to have any long term negative effect. The seven point scale used to qualify likely significant environmental effects is consequently considered to apply to this chapter as follows.

Table 5.1 Significance Matrix

Magnitude of Change Sensitivity

High Medium Low

High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate

Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate

Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight

Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible

Key: Significant Not Significant

5.3.4 Technical Consultations There have been no technical consultations specific to this assessment.

5.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment The scope of the assessment has not changed from that outlined in Section 5.3.2.

5.3.6 Information Gaps There are no information gaps to the assessment at this stage.

5.4 Baseline Conditions

5.4.1 Potential Sources of Contamination

Previous Land Use In order to inform the assessment of potential sources of contamination resulting from previous land use, historical Ordnance Survey maps obtained as part of the Landmark Envirocheck report (Appendix 5.1) have been reviewed. The information extracted from these has been supplemented by plans provided by British Steel Plc (Appendix 5.2). The earliest map, published in 1885, shows the application site to comprise open fields with a wooded border along the north-western boundary. Stoke Road is present along the western boundary of the site, however its route is straighter than the present day and therefore the site veers away from the road at the south-western edge. By 1938 three small buildings occupy the central part of the site. These are assumed to be residential or farm buildings and are later

labelled as The Grange. The site then does not change much until between 2006 and 2011 when the buildings are demolished and the site appears as it is today. On the 1885 map the Midland Railway is shown, as it is today, around 500 m to the south-east of application site. A quarry is shown approximately 750 m south-east. The quarry expands in the subsequent maps and in 1958 is shown to come within 20 m of the application site, though does not extend over the site boundary. It appears that quarrying took place in an anti- clockwise pattern from a pivotal point south-east of the application site. By 1971 all signs of the quarry are gone. By 1971 there is a factory on the other side of Stoke Road, noted as being a Fibre Board Container factory. Tanks are noted on this site at a distance of around 110 m west of the application site. A disused campsite is located north of the factory, also on the far side of Stoke Road. An ice cream depot is located around 120 m north of the application site. This is later replaced by the Albany Shed Company. By 1999 the factory is much expanded and other commercial/industrial units associated with Millbuck Industrial Estate are constructed. Between 2006 and 2011 housing is constructed around 300 m to the south-east and an industrial building, the Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse, to the south-west of the application site. The plans provided by British Steel indicate that the quarry noted on the Ordnance Survey maps was for the open cast extraction of ironstone and detail the period and extent of these workings. These show that the open cast workings did not extend into the application site. The workings were completed in 1951 and backfilling was occurred between 1953 and 1957. This correlates with what is shown on the geological map.

Geology The geological map, Sheet 170, 1:50,000 scale, shows the application site to be underlain by Boulder Clay. Beneath this is Northampton Sand of the Inferior Oolite Series and Clay of the Upper Lias of the Jurassic. There are no faults conjectured to cross the site or in close proximity to the site. The geology (soils and bedrock) would not be expected to be a significant receptor.

Hydrology There are no significant surface water features shown in close proximity to the application site. There are no licensed abstractions within 500 m of the application site. Surface water is therefore unlikely to be a significant receptor.

Hydrogeology The Landmark Envirocheck report (Appendix 5.1) indicates that the Northampton Sand is a Secondary A Aquifer and the Upper Lias Clay is a Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifer. The overlying Boulder Clay is however classified as Unproductive Strata. There are no licensed groundwater abstractions or source protection zones within 1 km of the application site. A Secondary A Aquifer is used to classify permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. The term Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifer has been assigned in cases where it has not been possible to attribute either category A or B to a rock type. In most cases,

this means that the layer in question has previously been designated as both a minor and non- aquifer in different locations due to the variable characteristics of the rock type. Unproductive Strata are rock layers or drift deposits with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply or river base flow. Groundwater is therefore unlikely to be a sensitive receptor.

5.4.2 Fieldwork

Present Land Use A walkover has been carried out to assess the risks of contamination from current land use. A large industrial building, known to be the Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse, occupies the area immediately to the south-east of the application site, on the far side of Eagle Avenue. The north-western boundary is defined by Stoke Road, on the far side of which is a large factory which deals in packaging materials (Rigid Containers Ltd). Tanks were noted associated with the factory on the historical maps and it is possible that leakages from these could migrate on to the site. No evidence of contamination at the surface was observed along the boundary of the application site shared with the factory. There is also expected to be a significant depth (at least 2 m to 3 m) of boulder clay at the surface, which will be relatively impermeable and thus significantly reduce the likelihood of any contamination migrating across the application site. To the north of this is Millbuck Industrial Estate. This contains several small industrial units which are not expected to have significant environmental effects and consequently not cause severe, if any, contamination. Albany Shed Company, which is approximately 120 m north of the application site deals in the coating and manufacture of timber products. The preservatives added to timber are often toxic and relatively soluble. There is thus the potential for contamination in this area to migrate beyond the boundaries of the works and onto the application site. No evidence of contamination at the surface was observed along the northern boundary of the application site. Also, due to the presence of clay, as discussed above, the likelihood of any contamination migrating across the application site is considered negligible. The Landmark Envirocheck report (Appendix 5.1) includes reference to any records of pollution incidents and hazardous substances held by the Environment Agency. No incidents are recorded for any of the aforementioned industries.

5.4.3 Intrusive Investigations

Ground Conditions Intrusive investigation undertaken within the application site, by Eastwood & Partners in November 2005, confirmed that natural ground was present underlying topsoil. During the walkover no topsoil was identified at the surface, and it appeared that building rubble had been mixed with clay at the surface. This is expected to be as a result of the construction of the adjacent distribution warehouse and is not expected to extend to a significant depth. The natural ground comprised Boulder Clay with the Northampton Sand only encountered in one pit in the south-east of the site at a depth of 3 m. The base of the Boulder Clay was not proven in any of the other pits.

Eastwood & Partners also drilled boreholes to the east of the application site and therefore generally in the area of the back-filled quarry. These identified the backfill to be of variable thickness occurring up to depths of approximately 4.5 m. Banded ironstone was recorded beneath the backfill. Beneath the ironstone, mudstone was encountered directly on top of strong grey limestone at depths of approximately 5.5 to 6 m below ground level (bgl). One borehole encountered sandstone at 5.5 m beneath the ironstone stratum, and another borehole identified the same at 5.3 m depth. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the trial pits or trenches. Groundwater was encountered in some boreholes within the ironstone stratum at depths of 5 m to 7 m bgl. The area to the east of the application site has been developed with the Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse since the ground investigation in 2005. The Engineer who was responsible for the site during the ground works for Great Bear Distribution has confirmed the following: “I have had a look at the information we have on the proposed site and can confirm, based on this information, that the site lies on virgin ground and is clear of the quarry. The area of the site was used as the contractors’ compound during the construction of the Great Bear Building and remained relatively untouched. The ground conditions in this area consist of Boulder Clay which overlies the Northampton Sand and Ironstone (NSI). Based on the information we have, the top of Northampton Ironstone on the proposed site is probably at a level around 134.5 to 135 m AOD. We have no information that records the thickness of the NSI. During the construction works for the Great Bear Building, groundwater was not a major issue although the majority of the excavations were relatively shallow - the attenuation pond was excavated to a level of 135 m AOD without significant problems. A borrow pit was also excavated on the eastern side of the Magnetic Park site which was excavated in virgin ground down to a depth of between 4.5 and 8 m bgl. No significant groundwater problems were encountered during the excavation. We are not aware of any significant contamination being found during any of the works carried out to date on the Magnetic Park site.”

5.4.4 Contamination

Solid or Liquid Contaminants Chemical testing was carried out as part of previous investigations and these found no significant contamination, except for elevated arsenic concentrations. It is however, possible that localised pockets of contaminated material may be encountered. A single isolated oily ashy pocket and a further localised area of ashy fill were found during previous investigations of nearly 25 hectares. This was in the backfilled quarry and the fill is not expected beneath the application site.

Naturally occurring elevated concentrations of arsenic, chromium and vanadium are often recorded associated with the Northampton Ironstones. Chromium was not identified by previous investigation and vanadium was generally not tested. The risks associated with these latter two contaminants would be expected to be covered by an assessment of arsenic.

Ground Gas Radon Basic radon protective measures are expected to be required in new buildings constructed at the application site.

Methane and Carbon Dioxide Only very minor amounts of biodegradable material were found during previous investigations within the area of open cast workings to the east and south-east of the current application site. There is thus not expected to be the potential for the generation of significant amounts of landfill gas. There are no landfill sites identified by the Envirocheck report within 500 m of the site. A series of gas spike tests were carried out to test the levels of soil gases as part of previous investigations mainly to the east of the current application site and very limited testing of wells also to the east. Levels were generally below acceptable limits, with only slightly elevated levels of carbon dioxide being recorded in a few cases. Thus, there is considered to be a low risk of landfill gas being present.

Ground Hazards Physical hazards posed by the ground have generally not been identified. Consideration may need to be given to the position of the quarry high wall where buildings are proposed in the south-east of the application site.

5.5 Proposed Mitigation

5.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects It is considered that planning conditions attached to any planning permission will ensure that potential risks are identified and dealt with accordingly. Any potential long term adverse effects to future site users, plants, controlled waters and built structures both on the application site and in the surrounding area as a result of the ground conditions both during and post construction will need to be mitigated through implementation of a contamination Remediation Strategy agreed with the Local Authority Contaminated Land Officer and any other relevant parties after intrusive investigation of the application site. This will also apply to ground hazards which are dealt with through the Building Control and Building Regulations systems.

5.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 5.2 lists the receptors that could be affected by the proposed development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into

the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows: • High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment; • Medium certainty of effectiveness: The measure can reasonably be expected to be effective based on the available information (and so can be relied on in assessment), although additional data may require review of the measures;

• Uncertainty of effectiveness: The measure may be beneficial but cannot necessarily be relied on and therefore should not therefore influence the assessment of the effect. However, the measure has been incorporated into the design of the scheme on the basis that, despite its potential ineffectiveness, it is worthwhile.

Table 5.2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Potential Effects Incorporated Mitigation Likely Effectiveness

Operational Phase

Humans and buildings Ground gas could migrate and build up All buildings will need to be designed to comply with Building Regulations, including High within enclosed spaces within the provision of ground gas protective measures, where necessary, in accordance buildings with the guidance given in:

The Building Regulations 2000: Approved Document C ‘Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture’;

BRE Report BR211, 2007 Edition, ‘Radon - Guidance on protective measures for new buildings’;

Plants Direct contact with the elevated A capping of clean soil, a maximum of 600 mm thick, may need to be installed in any High arsenic concentrations landscaped areas. This will need to be installed and verified in accordance with the guidance in ‘Contaminated Land Report 11 – Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination’ (Environment Agency, 2004)

Construction Phase

Controlled Waters Creation of pathways for the migration Investigation works would be undertaken in accordance with BSI 2001, ‘Investigation High of contamination of potentially contaminated Sites, Code of Practice 10175’;

Humans Direct contact with contaminants The potential risks to the health of workers from contact with impacted ground are High expected to be at higher assessment criteria than those used for assessing a contaminants potential effect on human health post construction, with any potential risks mitigated by:

Making workers aware of the contaminants present and the associated risks;

Ensuring that appropriate safety measures and working practices are followed, with guidance taken from documents such as:

1) CIRIA 1996 ‘A guide for safe working on contaminated sites, Report 132’ CIRIA London; and

2) The Health and Safety Executive ‘Protection of Workers and the General Public During the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land’ HMSO, London

Table 5.2 (continued) Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Potential Effects Incorporated Mitigation Likely Effectiveness

Buildings Direct contact with sulphates and low Founding materials appropriate for prevailing ground conditions, designed in High pH accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, should mitigate the risks from aggressive ground conditions;

Controlled Waters Spillages The risks from the inappropriate handling and storage of chemicals and fuels should High be mitigated by good working practices in accordance with current guidelines

Buildings Settlement of non piled structures This can be dealt with through consideration in the design. High

Buildings (Water supply Permeation of plastic pipes by A copy of the Site Investigation report should be submitted to the water supply High pipes) contaminants. company so as the pipes can be designed with suitable resistance to the types and levels of contaminants identified

5.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects There is the possibility that unexpected contamination will be identified. A strategy for dealing with this would be included in the Implementation Plan for the application site. The identification and remediation of any unexpected contamination identified is expected to be an overall positive effect of development of the application site.

5.6 Assessment of Effects

5.6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology The potential effects of the expected contaminants and ground hazards are identified, evaluated and an assessment is made of the degree of significance of the effect for the both the construction and operational phases. These two sections are further split with individual potential receptors being considered in turn.

5.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Construction activities could cause disturbance of the existing ground conditions and thus have the potential to result in effects on human health, the environment and the built environment. In particular it is expected that the following activities could result in effects: • Investigation Works;

• Earthworks;

• Foundation Works; and

• Contamination Remediation. Potential effects associated with these include: • Disturbance of the ground at any site has the potential to adversely affect human health. The receptors at most risk are site workers, visitors to the application site and nearby public. • Creation of preferential pathways:

- Through low permeability layers, to allow contamination of an underlying aquifer; and

- Through low permeability layers, to allow ground gas to the surface.

• Direct contact of site workers with contaminated spoil;

• Direct contact of the foundations with aggressive ground (sulphates) causing degradation of concrete;

• Placing of fill would be expected to result in some settlement, which may affect external paving and service entries through differences in the settlement which will occur between piled and non piled structures;

• Inappropriate handling and storage of chemicals and fuels on site has the potential to result in spills and leaks with anticipated adverse impacts to ground and groundwater; • Potential for the creation of preferential lateral pathways through the installation of service corridors, for underground utilities, which has the potential to impact off site receptors. Each of these potentially adverse effects would be managed and therefore the magnitude of change could be expected to be low and the sensitivity of receptors would be generally medium. The significance of this effect would consequently be slight to moderate, and therefore not significant.

5.6.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase For the purpose of considering the likely significant effects post-construction, the proposed development is classified as commercial/ industrial in terms of assessment criteria. It is considered that conditions attached to any planning permission would ensure that potential risks are identified and dealt with accordingly. Any potential long term adverse effects on future site users, plants, controlled waters and build structures both on the application site and in the surrounding area as a result of the ground conditions will need to be mitigated through implementation of a contamination Remediation Strategy agreed with the Local Authority Contaminated Land Officer and any other relevant parties after intrusive investigation of the application site. It is therefore considered that the magnitude of change can be no greater than low.

Human Health Solid Contaminants Chemical testing was carried out as part of previous investigations of the area and these found no significant contamination, except for elevated arsenic concentrations. Elevated levels of arsenic have been found for both the topsoil and the fill within the area of the former open cast workings. As the backfill was largely made up of re-worked natural ground, the elevated levels of arsenic are also expected to be present within the natural ground. This is to be expected because it is known that there are naturally occurring elevated arsenic levels associated with the Northampton Ironstones. Concentrations of between 3 mg/kg and 133 mg/kg (ppm) were recorded. These exceed the Soil Guideline Value of 32 mg/kg for a residential end use. The Soil Guideline Value for a commercial/industrial end use however, is 640 mg/kg. There consequently should not be significant risks to human health. The magnitude of change could be expected to be negligible and the sensitivity of receptor in this case would be medium. The significance of this effect would consequently be negligible to slight prior to the implementation of the mitigation measures required for plants, and not significant.

Ground Gas Radon Basic radon protective measures are expected to be required in new buildings constructed at the application site. The risks from radon gas are easily mitigated within the design of buildings.

The magnitude of change could be expected to be low and the sensitivity of receptor in this case would be medium. The significance of this effect would consequently be slight to moderate adverse prior to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, and therefore not significant. Methane and Carbon Dioxide Ground gas monitoring may be required at the application site as it is near to the area of open cast workings, however previous rounds of gas monitoring have demonstrated the risk from landfill gas to be low. The magnitude of change could be expected to be low or negligible and the sensitivity of receptor in this case would be medium. The significance of this effect would consequently be slight to moderate and not significant.

Plants The proposed development will have limited landscaped areas. The only contaminant of concern to plants is arsenic. This is also a phytotoxic element. Eluate tests were carried out to determine the leachabililty of the arsenic and thus its availability for uptake by plants. The results showed levels of leachable arsenic of up to 16 ppm. These indicate that most of the arsenic is relatively insoluble and thus not available for uptake by plants. The risk to the growth of plants will thus be low. This is also supported by the fact that the vegetation seen on site indicates that plant growth is not discouraged. If mitigation measures were required this would most likely require a capping of clean soil, a maximum of 600 mm thick, in any landscaped areas. Installation of a capping layer of this thickness is a fairly standard requirement for building on previously developed land. The magnitude of change could be expected to be low and the sensitivity of receptor in this case would again be medium. The significance of this effect would consequently be slight to moderate adverse and not significant.

Groundwater The general leachable fraction of arsenic was recorded below the EU Drinking Water Standards (10 µg/l or ppm) and can therefore be considered not to pose significant risks to groundwater. The magnitude of change could be expected to be low or negligible and the sensitivity of receptor in this case would be low. The significance of this effect would consequently be negligible to slight and not significant.

Surface Water There are no major surface water features within 500 m of the application site and therefore, for the reasons outlined in the groundwater section above, the risks to surface water from arsenic would be expected to be negligible. The significance of this effect could consequently only be negligible and not significant. During its operational phase, the site could have an effect on land quality through the introduction of contaminants from off-site, mainly in the form of liquid wastes requiring treatment, process chemicals and fuels. Spillage or leakage of these substances could cause potentially significant soil and groundwater contamination, as well as human health risks. Operational risks can be mitigated by careful design of the proposed facility, to incorporate bunded enclosures for liquid storage and impermeable surfacing generally, with interception of

surface water drainage. This must be supplemented by strict protocols for handling of liquids on site, and a rigorous inspection and maintenance regime for tanks and pipework (including drains). The aim is to prevent uncontrolled releases of any substance into the environment. Contingency plans (e.g. spill kits) must be in place to deal with emergencies. Provision should also be made for containment of fire-fighting water and other chemicals in the event of an incendiary incident.

Buildings The concentrations of existing contaminants may exceed levels which could affect drinking water and the water supplier should be consulted and may advise on protective pipes. The magnitude of change could be expected to be low and the sensitivity of receptors would be medium. The significance of this effect would consequently be slight to moderate adverse prior to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, and therefore not significant. It is considered that the above significance of effects should be qualified further by noting that these are not unusual effect managed by standard remediation techniques required in redeveloping most brownfield sites.

5.6.4 Possible Other Mitigation The mitigation methods are fairly standard and therefore alternatives do not need to be considered.

5.6.5 Conclusions The application site is unlikely to be significantly contaminated with either manmade or naturally occurring contaminants except that there are likely to be slight risks from arsenic and radon. These, however, can be easily mitigated. The presence of risks from arsenic and radon would not be unusual and are regardless of development. They are consequently not caused or exacerbated by proposed development of the application site. They will also not have any effect beyond the boundaries of the application site.

5.7 Summary of Predicted Effects There are not expected to be significant risks posed to receptors based on the application site’s current use/ state. There are however, contaminants present and therefore development of the application site would require mitigation of any potential adverse effects and result in the elevated contaminants or ground hazards having been managed giving confidence that the risks have been assessed and where necessary mitigated. This could be considered a moderate beneficial effect, although not significant in EIA terms.

Table 5.3 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Sensitivity or Magnitude Significance Value Level Rationale

Construction Phase

Construction Workers Possible High Low Not Significant A combination of risk assessment, PPE measures, site health and safety procedures and staff training will minimise the risk of exposure to contamination and unstable ground.

Groundwater Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant A combination of risk assessment, site procedures and staff training will minimise the risk of contaminants entering the ground

Surface Water Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant A combination of risk assessment, site procedures and staff training will minimise the risk of contaminants entering the ground

Operational/Occupational Phase

Humans Unlikely High Low Not Significant The implementation of an appropriate site remediation strategy, such as the incorporation of ground gas protective measures to buildings, treatment of impacted soils and appropriate design for the ground conditions will ensure that risks to human health are suitably mitigated.

Soil Quality Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant Good design of the facility and operational practices will ensure that risks of future soil contamination are minimised.

Plants Possible Medium Low Not Significant The implementation of an appropriate site remediation strategy will ensure that risks to plants are suitably mitigated

Groundwater Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant Good design of the facility and operational practices will ensure that risks of future contamination are minimised

Table 5.3 (continued) Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Sensitivity or Magnitude Significance Value Level Rationale

Surface Water Possible Medium Low Not Significant Good design of the facility and operational practices will ensure that risks of future contamination are minimised.

Buildings Possible Low Low Not Significant Appropriate design for the ground conditions, for example, the use of sulphate resistant concrete will ensure that risks to buildings are suitably mitigated. Key: Probability Value* Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

5.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures It is considered that conditions attached to the planning permission will ensure that potential risks are identified and dealt with accordingly. Any potential long term adverse effects to future site users, plants, controlled waters and built structures both on the application site and in the surrounding area as a result of the ground conditions both during and post construction will need to be mitigated through implementation of a contamination Remediation Strategy agreed with the Local Authority Contaminated Land Officer and any other relevant parties after intrusive investigation of the application site.

Table 5.4 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism

Implementation and verification of the measures Implemented by the developer, Planning Condition identified in the remedial strategy and detailed in the verified by a consulting implementation plan e.g. capping of landscaped engineer and signed off by the areas and installation of basic radon protective Local Authority Contaminated measures. Land Officer and Planning Department

Protection of human health during construction Appointed contractor Principal Contractor during phase including procedures and PPE. construction phase

Protection of controlled waters during construction Appointed contractor Principal Contractor during phase. construction phase

Construction of permanent surface water drainage Designer To be agreed with system Environment Agency

Construction of new plant including hard surfacing Designer Client to define work required and landscaping and advise contractor

Remediation strategy and implementation Designer/ Appointed contractor Design and implementation to be agreed with local planning authority

Gas protection measures to proposed buildings Designer Design to be agreed with local planning authority

Sulphate resistant concrete in building foundations Designer Design to be agreed with local and buried structures planning authority

5.9 Technical References 1. British Geological Survey map, Sheet 170, 1:50,000 Scale 2. British Steel Plans 3. Eastwood & Partners (Consulting Engineers) Limited’s ‘Report on a Site Investigation of land at The Grange, Desborough’, reference 27097, dated January 2006. 4. Landmark Envirocheck report 36695923_1_1

6. Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk

6.1 Introduction This chapter assesses the effect of the proposed development on flooding, drainage, water quality and water resources. In particular, consideration is given to effects that may arise during construction and operation in terms of flood risk, surface water drainage, surface water quality, ground water quality, water supply and surface and foul water sewerage capacity. The Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 6.1), which outlines proposals for managing flood risk and surface water drainage from the application site, has been reviewed during preparation of this chapter and is submitted separately in support of this application. In addition, available information on utilities has also been reviewed. This chapter includes a summary of the legislative and policy framework relevant to the application site; describes the assessment methodology and significance criteria used; presents the baseline; and sets out an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development. Where significant effects are identified, mitigation measures are described that will reduce or negate the significance of the potential effects. This chapter has been prepared by Michael Thomas Consultancy LLP.

6.2 Context

6.2.1 Relevant Terminology There are a number of key terms that have been referred to in this chapter and for ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows:

• Balancing Pond - A pond designed to attenuate flows by storing run off during peak periods and releasing the water after the flood peak has passed. The pond always contains water. Storage periods may not be long enough to improve water quality; • Catchment - A river catchment is the whole area which drains either naturally or with artificial assistance to a river. It includes drainage channels, tributaries, and washlands associated with a river and estuary where one is present;

• Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) - A sequence of management practices and control structures, often referred to as SuDS, designed to drain water in a more sustainable manner than some conventional techniques. Typically these are used to attenuate run-off from development sites.

6.2.2 Technical Context This chapter considers the impact of the proposed development upon the application site and surrounding area in relation to existing baseline conditions and relevant legislation and national, regional and local planning policy with regards hydrology, drainage and flood risk.

6.2.3 Planning and Guidance

Legislation Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC The Water Framework Directive required a new river basin planning system to enable water resources to be managed in a more holistic and transparent way following the principles of better regulation. Included in this is the introduction of a new and updated range of environmental standards and conditions in respect to water quality. The main objectives of this Directive are to enhance and prevent further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and associated wetlands, encourage sustainable water usage and reduce surface water and groundwater pollution.

Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC The Groundwater Directive (as amended) prohibits the direct or indirect discharge into groundwater of List I substances and limits discharges of List II substances so as to avoid pollution.

Water Act 2003 This Act formalises the Government’s commitment to the sustainable management and use of water resources and water conservation. The Act amends both the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Industry Act 1991 to improve long term water resource management.

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 This Act formalises the Government’s commitment to the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage surface water by requiring drainage systems to be approved against a set of National Standards by the SuDS Approving Body (SAB). The act places a duty on Local Authorities and other relevant bodies to adopt and maintain SuDS, whilst the automatic right to connect surface water to the public network will cease and connection of surface water to the public system will be dependent upon the proposed drainage system being approved by the SAB as meeting National Standards.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 Circular 02/2000 (Department of Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR), 2000), provides guidance on the implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 and describes a risk assessment methodology in terms of ‘significant pollutant linkages’ within a source-pathway-receptor model.

Groundwater Regulations 1998 The Groundwater Regulations introduce environmental protection measures which provide enhanced protection for groundwater and complete the transposition of the Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC (as amended) into UK legislation.

Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999 The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations prescribe the contents and application of anti-pollution works notices served under Section 161 A of the Water Resources Act 1991. Under the powers given in the Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999 the Environment Agency is able to stop construction activities at any time should a significant pollution risk be posed to the environment. In order to accord with the legislative requirements described above, the proposed development must minimise the demand placed on water supplies, integrate appropriate surface water and foul water drainage, and safeguard surface and groundwater resources from pollution. Sustainable development is therefore particularly relevant to the proposed development and places emphasis on pollution prevention, and the reuse and recycling of surface run off in order to reduce the overall water demand of a development.

National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and states that with regards the environment the role of the planning system involves: “contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built, and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”. The core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework include the objectives that planning should: “support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change…”; and “contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution…” The Government’s objective is that planning should help to deliver a healthy natural environment and places emphasis upon the planning system to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment and ensure that new development is prevented from contributing to unacceptable levels of pollution, including to surface and ground water resources which should be safeguarded from pollution. Sustainable development is required to minimise the demand placed on existing resources including water supply and sewerage infrastructure. This initiative places emphasis on the use of SuDS and the re-use and recycling of water and surface water run-off during the operation of development to reduce the demand on water infrastructure. Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development in flood risk areas appropriate 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 flood risk can be safely managed; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.” In relation to flooding, inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Where new development is exceptionally necessary in such areas the policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework aims to make such development safe, without increasing the flood risk elsewhere, and to where possible reduce the overall flood risk. Its aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to direct development away from areas of highest risk. The Sequential Test and Exception Test are retained when considering the location of new development. Additional detail on flooding is provided in the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. Development and Flood Control (Communities and Local Government, 2006) strengthens the controls over development within or adjacent to flood plains and increases the Environment Agency’s powers to enforce these controls.

Regional and Local Policy East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) The East Midlands Regional Plan includes policies relating to the regional priorities for water management, public water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, and integrated planning for development and water issues. Policy 32: A Regional Approach to Water Resources and Water Quality requires the responsible organisations to work together to take water related issues into account at an early stage, in order to ensure the timely provision of appropriate infrastructure for water supply and wastewater treatment to cater for development levels whilst avoiding adverse impacts to surface and ground water. Policy 32 also includes points of relevance to abstraction from and pollution to watercourses and aquifers, the provision of new resources, and the use of sustainable drainage techniques: Policy 35: A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk details the regional policy towards flooding in relation to new development. The priority is to defend existing properties from flooding, and where possible locate new development in locations with little or no risk from flooding, away from flood plains and other areas at medium or high risk or areas likely to be at future risk from flooding. Local Development Documents are required to ensure that all developments should not add to the risk of flooding elsewhere and should reduce flooding pressures by using sustainable drainage systems (known as SuDS) where appropriate.

Part A of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy Paragraph 31 of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy states that a key requirement in relation to building sustainable communities is to miminise the use of energy, water and other natural resources. Paragraph 53 relates to utility requirements, and requires utility providers to work with the Environment Agency and other key stake holders with regards water management issues to

ensure that environmental standards are not compromised with regards to water supply, wastewater, drainage, and river quality. Paragraph 54 is relevant to both to water drainage strategy and flood risk in relation to growth in the region and requires a strategic approach and investment programme for water and surface water drainage management. Strategic Policy 3 details the measures by which sustainable communities will be achieved throughout the region. It promotes the highest standards of environmental performance including all aspects of water resource management, providing environmental infrastructure to cope with both current deficits and additional demands, along with managing and reducing demand where appropriate.

Water Resources Strategy Regional Action Plan for Anglian Region The Water Resources Strategy Regional Action Plan produced by the Environment Agency for the Anglian Region builds upon the four aims of the water resources strategy for England and Wales and includes many strategies, the majority of which are aimed at parties such as water companies and abstractors rather than planners and developers. Encouragement is given to the promotion and use of SuDS wherever appropriate and the use of systems such as rainwater harvesting.

The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 13 from the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (June 2008) requires that development does not pose a risk to ground water or surface water quality, increase the risk of flooding on the site or elsewhere, and where possible incorporates SuDS, reduces flood risk and enhances surface and ground water quality. Policy 14 requires development proposals to make provision for water efficiency and water recycling.

Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document The Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document prepared by the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit forms part of the Local Development Framework and provides questions to be considered in designing new developments. Question 5.4 relates to water conservation measures and raises issues including taking a strategic approach to wastewater, minimising impermeable surfacing, incorporating sustainable drainage systems and the water efficiently of the proposal. Question 5.5 relates to flood risk management strategies and raises the issue of whether the proposal has a suitable flood risk strategy including the use of sustainable drainage systems where appropriate and the retention of existing natural watercourses without culverting or canalization.

North Northamptonshire Water Cycle Management Strategy The North Northamptonshire Water Cycle Management Strategy is split into six key areas, and is managed by the North Northamptonshire Development Company in partnership with the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, Anglian Water, and the Environment Agency. It is not however a local development framework document, but instead forms part of the supporting evidence for the Local Development Framework documents and its key findings and recommendations have therefore been drawn into the relevant policies included in the Core Spatial Strategy and other Local Development Documents.

Guidance The Environment Agency is responsible for maintaining or improving the quality of fresh, marine and underground waters (i.e. groundwater). The Environment Agency seeks to achieve this through the enforcement of legislation, by the regulation of industry and through its powers as a statutory consultee in the planning process. The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999 gives the Environment Agency the power to stop construction activities at any time should a significant pollution risk be posed to the aquatic environment. It is important to manage surface run-off in a sustainable manner since increased surface run-off may lead to increased flood risk or the reduction in groundwater levels through the interception of water which would previously recharge an aquifer. The management of surface water run off also lies within the Environment Agency’s jurisdiction and it is Environment Agency policy to promote the use of SuDS wherever possible through the adoption of permeable surfaces and infiltration ponds in order to control surface water run off quantities at the source (i.e. source control).

6.3 Assessment Approach

6.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work

Desk Study A desk based study has been undertaken to establish the hydrology of the application site and identify relevant features up to 0.5 km from the boundary of the application site. The sources of information reviewed as part of the desk study include: • Michael Thomas Consultancy LLP Flood Risk Assessment - Desborough Energy from Waste Plant (Appendix 6.1); • Environment Agency website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk);

• Landmark Envirocheck Environmental Data report (November 2011) (Appendix 5.1); • Kettering and Wellingborough Stage 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005) and Level 1 Update (February 2011); and • Application Site Survey.

Site Visit/ Other Assessment Relevant observations from the site visit are detailed in the following sections. These observations have been considered when preparing this chapter.

6.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment Assessment of effects on the hydrology of the site and surrounding area is based upon a review of the data collected as part of the desktop study and site visits. The method used is a qualitative risk assessment based upon the probability of an event occurring and predicted magnitude of the impact.

Potentially sensitive receptors have been identified within 1 km of the application site, with particular attention to any receptors located downstream of the application site (i.e. hydrologically linked to the drainage regime on the application site and therefore susceptible to changes). The assessment of effects on flood risk, drainage, water resources and groundwater associated with the proposed development incorporates the following: • An assessment of the baseline conditions on the application site and on the immediate surrounding areas; • An assessment of the potential effects during the construction and operational phases, particularly in relation to the sensitive receptors identified; and • Outline mitigation measures to reduce any effects with regards flood risk, drainage, water quality and water resources that may arise as a result of the proposed development. Information on the impact of climate change upon the proposed development with regard to water resources, flood risk, drainage and groundwater is also included within this Chapter.

6.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology The assessment of potential effects resulting from the proposed development has taken into account both the construction and operational phases. The significance level attributed to each effect has been assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the proposed development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor/ receiving environment to change, which are both assessed on a scale of high, medium, low and negligible as shown in the significance matrix below.

Table 6.1 Effect Significance Matrix

Magnitude of Change Sensitivity

High Medium Low

High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate

Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate

Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight

Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible

Key: Significant Not Significant

In addition to this, specific criteria relating to flooding, drainage, surface water quality and surface water resources have been considered when applying an assessment of significance to each effect, as detailed in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Effect Significance: Criteria to Define the Sensitivity and Magnitude of Effects

Sensitivity of Resource Level Magnitude of Change

• Important ground or surface water resource High Significant change in local conditions, examples (including use for potable water supply, include: European or National designated nature conservation site, protected area such as • Extensive changes to the morphology or designated bathing waters, shellfish hydrodynamics of the watercourse (including waters); erosion and sedimentation patterns);

• Water body of ‘very good’ chemical or • A significant increase in surface runoff and the biological status under the Environment flood potential of a site or surrounding area; Agency’s GQA criteria; • Major changes to the water chemistry and/or • Area located within or adjacent to Flood ecology. Zone 3 (annual probability of flooding, with defences where they exist: River 1.0% or greater, Tidal & coastal 0.5% or greater).

• Moderately valued water resource Medium Readily apparent change in conditions, examples (including of regional or local importance for include: nature conservation, of moderate amenity value); • Significant changes to the morphology or hydrodynamics of the watercourse (including • Water body of ‘good’ or ‘fairly good’ erosion and sedimentation patterns); chemical and biological quality under the Environment Agency’s GQA criteria; • A moderate increase in surface runoff within the capacity of the local drainage system; • Area located within or adjacent to Flood Zone 2 (annual probability of flooding: River • Moderate changes to the water chemistry and/ 0.1-1.0%, Tidal & coastal 0.1-0.5%). or ecology.

• A relatively unimportant water resource or Low Perceptible change in conditions, examples include: aquatic habitat tolerant of change; • Minor changes to the morphology or • Water body of ‘fair’ chemical or biological hydrodynamics of the watercourse (including quality under the Environment Agency’s erosion and sedimentation patterns); GQA criteria; • Minor increase in surface runoff within the • Area located within or adjacent to Flood drainage system capacity. Zone 2 (annual probability of flooding: River 0.1-1.0%, Tidal & coastal 0.1-0.5%). • Minor changes to the water chemistry and / or ecology.

• Minor changes to the water chemistry and / Negligible No discernible change in conditions, examples or ecology; include:

• Water body of ‘poor’ or ‘bad’ chemical or • Very small changes to the morphology or biological quality under the Environment hydrodynamics of the watercourse (including Agency’s GQA criteria; erosion and sedimentation patterns);

• Area located within or adjacent to Flood • A moderate increase in surface runoff within the Zone 2 (annual probability of flooding: River capacity of the local drainage system; 0.1-1.0%, Tidal & coastal 0.1-0.5%). • Moderate changes to the water chemistry and/ or ecology.

6.3.4 Technical Consultations A formal Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report has been produced and submitted to Northamptonshire County Council for consultation with the relevant statutory agencies and authorities and other relevant parties seen to have an interest in the proposal. The Scoping

Report proposed that the Environmental Statement to be produced included the topic of “Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk”, which is covered by this Chapter. The formal response to the Scoping Report confirmed that a Flood Risk Assessment would be required to assess all forms of flooding, however there were no further requirements requested in relation to the Hydrology, Drainage and Flood Risk chapter in addition to those stated in the initial scoping request submitted.

6.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment With regards hydrology, the final scope of the assessment of effects on the site and surrounding area is therefore based upon the use of data collected from a desktop data review including relevant sources of information such as the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for the Boroughs of Kettering and Wellingborough and Environment Agency data, a site visit, and consultation with relevant bodies such as the Environment Agency and Anglian Water to establish the baseline conditions at the site. The assessment method then involves a qualitative risk assessment based upon the probability of an impact occurring, and the predicted magnitude of the impact to assess where mitigation measures are required and to then identify appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. The construction and operational phases of development are assessed, with the effects of both unavoidable impacts such as the proposed increase in impermeable area on site upon the baseline conditions considered alongside potential impacts such as from the accidental spillage of fuels, oils or other contaminants.

6.3.6 Information Gaps An observational site walkover was carried out by Michael Thomas Consultancy in November 2011; no quantitative water quality measurements or calculations have been carried out to inform this assessment. Data covering the past 10 years relating to the quality of the River Welland (the watercourse that currently receives surface water from the application site via primarily surface water run-off and the River Jordan) has been obtained from the Environment Agency website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk) for the monitoring station at the confluence of the River Jordan and River Welland. The following assessment is therefore based upon qualitative professional judgement of the available information and data.

6.4 Baseline Conditions The existing conditions at the application site and in the surrounding area with regards to flooding, drainage, surface water quality, surface water resources and ground water have been determined with reference to a site walkover and a review of a number of information sources, identified above and listed in Section 6.9. Surface water courses within 2 km of the site of proposed development are shown on Figure 6.1

6.4.1 Ground Conditions A review of available geological mapping indicates that the bedrock underlying the majority of the application site is the Northampton Sand Formation (Ooidal Ironstone). This is a sandy,

berthierine and sideritic ironstone typically displaying a box like structure and including lenses of mudstone and limestone. A thin strip running in a north to south direction through the centre of the site may be underlain by the Grantham Formation of Sandstone, Siltstone, and Mudstone, whilst a superficial geology of Till from the mid Pleistocene-Diamicton which is of a low permeability may be present on the western side of the site. The Ooidal Ironstone of the Northampton Sand Formation has been quarried in the vicinity of the site in the past and has since been in-filled, however historical mapping provided in the Landmark Envirocheck Environmental Data report (Appendix 5.1) indicates that the extent of the quarrying that took place remained a short distance east of the site. As such it is not anticipated that any of the backfill material used at the site of the old quarry underlies any part of the application site. During the site walkover no significant water features were noted on the application site and there were no areas of standing water present.

6.4.2 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

Hydrology The application site is adjacent to the confluence of three catchment areas, with the application site itself draining to the River Jordan to the west, the majority of the old quarry to the east draining southwards towards the River Ise, and the area of land north of the site draining to Harper’s Brook to the north. There are no watercourses on the application site and surface water from the application site currently discharges by overland flow in westerly direction. It is considered that the application site is hydrologically linked only to the River Jordan. The River Jordan is a tributary of the River Welland, with the confluence of the River Jordan and River Welland approximately 6.5 km northwest of the application site in Market Harborough.

Hydrogeology In depth consideration of hydrogeology is provided in Chapter 5 ‘Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology’, however brief consideration of hydrogeology is also provided in this Chapter due to the potential impacts of development drainage which does fall within the scope of this Chapter. Envirocheck Groundwater Vulnerability and Aquifer Designation Maps indicate that the majority of the underlying geology of the application site is classed as a Secondary A Aquifer (previously termed a Minor Aquifer) and soils are of an intermediate leaching potential, whilst a small section is underlain by a Secondary undifferentiated aquifer. The application site is located outside of any groundwater Source Protection Zone, as designated by the Environment Agency and there are no groundwater Source Protection Zones in the surrounding area. Environment Agency data indicates that both the quantitative quality and chemical quality of groundwater in the vicinity of the application site and in the surrounding area is considered to be good, and is predicted to remain good in 2015.

6.4.3 Nature Conservation Sites There are no sites of Nature Conservation Importance or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) designated for water related interest along the River Jordan within 2 km of the application site. There are no sites of Nature Conservation Importance or SSSIs reliant upon water supply from surface water sources to which the application site will drain, with the closest Sites of Special Scientific Interest being Stoke & Bowd Lane Woods approximately 1.7 km to the north. As surface water drainage from the application site is currently to the west and groundwater is also expected to flow in a westerly direction, it is not believed that the proposed development will have any effect upon this SSSI. The potential effect on Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and SSSIs is therefore scoped out of further consideration in this assessment.

6.4.4 Fisheries There are no important fisheries within 2 km of the application site. The potential effect on fisheries is therefore scoped out of further consideration in this assessment.

6.4.5 Rainfall The annual average rainfall for the period 1971 to 2000 for the nearest Meteorological Office weather station to the application site (Bedford, located approximately 30 miles to the south-east) is 584.4 mm, with the wettest months being September to December. This compares with the higher averages of 838.7 mm for England and 785.5 mm for the Midlands Region and 605.8 mm for the adjacent East Anglia region (Meteorological Office averages from 1971-2000) (Ref: 12.24).

6.4.6 Water Supply The Desborough area is supplied with potable water by Anglian Water who has provided local service plans. Existing water usage on the application site is likely to be minimal to none at present, and in the past the only usage would have related to general farm activities. The volume of water required for the previous agricultural land use on the application site is not known. The application site has an existing consent for commercial/ industrial land use. The number of employees that would work on the application site should the existing consent be implemented is unknown, however Anglian Water estimate that for industrial/ commercial developments water demand tends to be in the vicinity of 20 litres per day per employee.

6.4.7 Foul Water At present the application site is undeveloped and is not generating any foul water flows. Sewer records show the nearest foul sewer is that recently constructed along Eagle Avenue to serve the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre, with several viable connection points to the existing 150 mm sewer provided at existing manholes. Capacity for the consented commercial/ industrial development on the application site was allowed for during construction of the foul sewer associated with the Great Bear site, thus this foul sewer provides a viable foul sewage

connection point for the proposed development. These off site systems have been adopted by Anglian Water, who are responsible for their maintenance.

6.4.8 Surface Water Drainage and Surface Water Features The application site is currently undeveloped and there are no surface water features on the site. Public sewer records show the nearest surface water sewer is that recently constructed to serve the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre. Large diameter pipes of up to 1050 mm feed from the distribution centre itself into an attenuation area to the south of Bear Way from which the existing outfall pipe is a 300 mm sewer which discharges in a westerly direction to an open drain in the fields to the west of the application site which then flows into the River Jordan. As discussed in Section 6.4.2, surface water from the application site currently drains to the River Jordan, and connection of the consented commercial/industrial development on the application site was allowed for in the design of the Great Bear Distribution Centre surface water sewer along Eagle Avenue. This system already incorporates a sufficient storage volume to limit discharge from the proposed development to the discharge rates previously agreed under the existing industrial/commercial consent without the need for additional on site attenuation to be provided, and provides a viable surface water connection point for the proposed development. These off site sewers have been adopted by Anglian Water. The application site has an overall gradient from the east/north-east to the west/south-west with levels generally about 140 m Above Ordinance Datum (AOD). The lowest levels present are approximately 138.40 m AOD in the south-western corner of the application site, whilst the highest levels present are approximately 143 m AOD in the north-eastern corner of the site. The existing drainage regime on the application site consists of surface water run-off in a westerly direction towards the River Jordan, although some groundwater flow through the underlying Ooidal Ironstone may also occur in a westerly direction.

6.4.9 Surface Water Quality Historically the application site has only been used for general grazing and has not been recently used for growing crops. As such it is unlikely that existing surface water run-off or groundwater associated with the site is affected by typical agricultural pollutants, namely nitrates and phosphates which have been used to enrich the soil. These nutrients can harm water features by artificially increasing nutrient content leading to increased plant production, and may cause water bodies to become choked with plant life, sometimes leading to eutrophication. There is potential for some surface water and groundwater pollution from pollutants such as hydrocarbons as a result of fuel spills during the period that the site was used as a compound during construction of the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre, however as discussed in Chapter 5 no evidence of contamination on the application site has been found. The Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme (Appendix 6.2) provides a consistent method for classifying water quality in rivers and canals across the UK and comparing river quality in watercourses to allow identification of changes over time. The scheme uses four main parameters of measurement which include:

• Chemical content;

• Biological content;

• Nutrient content; and

• Aesthetics. The chemistry and biology aspects of the GQA scheme can be divided into grades ranging from Grade A ‘Very Good’ to Grade F ‘Bad’. The nearest Environment Agency water quality monitoring station downstream of the application site is located approximately 6.5 km to the north-west, in Market Harborough at the confluence of the River Jordan and the River Welland. Available data for the Chemical, Biological and Nutrient (nitrate and phosphate) parameters from 2000-2009 is provided in Table 6.3 below (2009 is the most recently available year).

Table 6.3 Existing and Historic Trends at the Confluence of the River Jordan and River Welland 2009-2000 (Based on Available GQA data)

Measurement Chemical Classification Biological Classification Nutrients Year Ammonia Dissolved NTAXA ASPT Overall Nitrate Phosphate (mgN/l) 02 (%) Biological Class

2009 A B a a a 4 4

2008 A A a a a 5 4

2007 A A a a a 5 4

2006 A B - - b 5 4

2005 A B - - b 5 5

2004 A B - - b 5 5

2003 A B - - b 4 5

2002 A B - - b 4 5

2001 A B - - - 4 5

2000 A B - - b 5 5

Results shown in Table 6.3 reveal that at the confluence of the River Jordan and River Welland in all years the Ammonia Chemical Classification has been ‘Very Good’ (GQA Grade A), whilst the Dissolved O2% has always been classified ‘Good’ (GQA Grade B) with the exception of 2007 and 2008 when the Dissolved O2% was classified as ‘Very Good’. During the most recent three years of data the Biological Classification at the monitoring station has been classified as ‘Very Good’ (GQA grade a) which is similar to that expected for an unpolluted river, whereas during previous years the Biology had been classified as ‘Good’. The Nitrate concentration has varied between ‘Moderate’ and ‘High’ (GQA levels 4 and 5 respectively) between 2000 and 2009 with a ‘Moderate’ concentration recorded most recently. Prior to 2005 the Phosphate concentration was classified as ‘Very High’ (GQA level 5), however has since reduced to ‘High’ (GQA level 4).

Upstream of the monitoring station the Environment Agency consider the current ecological quality of the River Jordan to be poor but predict this to be upgraded to moderate by 2015, whilst the EA do not consider that the River Jordan currently requires assessment of its chemical quality and will not require assessment of its chemical quality in 2015. The catchment and the wider area has been designated a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (as shown in the Envirocheck Report) due to high levels of nitrates within local surface waters and groundwater.

6.4.10 Pollution Incidents, Water Abstractions and Discharge Consents No surface water or groundwater water abstractions are recorded within 500 m of the application site. Table 6.4 provides details of recorded pollution incidents and discharge consents within 500 m of the application site. In summary, the data search identified two discharge consents within 250 m, one of which is now revoked, no further discharge consents between 251 and 500 m, and a further six discharge consents between 50 m and 1 km. A total of two known pollution incidents affecting controlled waters were identified within 250 m, with no further incidents identified between 251 and 500 m, and a further three incidents between 501 m and 1 km. All five pollution incidences affecting controlled waters were classed as Category 3 - Minor incidents, and one resulted in prosecution. The Environment Agency categorises pollution incidents according to their severity, and describes the effect of incidents on water, land and air. With respect to water resources, these are summarised as: • Category 1 Incidents - serious effect on water resources;

• Category 2 Incidents - significant effect on water resources;

• Category 3 Incidents - relatively minor effect on water resources; and

• Category 4 Incidents - no effect on water resources (but there may be effects on air or land).

Table 6.4 Recorded Pollution Incidents and Discharge Consents

Location Distance/ Bearing Receiving Water Type/ Notes (from Application Site Boundary)

Discharge Consents

Rigid Containers Ltd, 118 m to the Tributary of River Sewage Discharges - Harborough Road, Desborough southwest Jordan Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water Company

Millbuck Industrial Estate, Stoke 119 m to the north Land Unknown - issued 15 July 1976, Albany Road, Desborough Revoked on 1 October 1996

Anglian Water Services Ltd, 606 m to the Tributary of River Ise Sewage Discharges - Pumping Peverell Place Pumping Station, southwest Station - Water Company Desborough

Table 6.4 (continued) Recorded Pollution Incidents and Discharge Consents

Location Distance/ Bearing Receiving Water Type/ Notes (from Application Site Boundary)

Anglian Water Services Ltd, 606 m to the Tributary of River Discharge of Other Matter - Desborough, 4953 Surface southwest Jordan Surface Water Water Sewer

Albany Aggregates Limited, 640 m to the northeast Tributary of Harpers Sewage Discharges - Stoke Albany Road, Brook Final/Treated Effluent - Not Desborough Water Company

Desborough Deer Farm, Stoke 685 m to the northeast Unnamed Ditch Sewage Discharges - Road, Desborough Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water Company

Anglian Water Services Ltd, 833 m to the Tributary of River Discharge of Other Matter - Desborough, 2753 Surface southwest Jordan Surface Water Water Sewer

Trusthouse Forte Catering, Little 885 m to the Tributary of River Sewage Discharges - Chef, A6 North of Desborough northwest Welland Final/Treated Effluent - Not Water Company

Pollution Incidents

Kettering District, May 1993 149 m to the south Tributary of River Unknown pollutant, Category 3, west Jordan Minor Incident

Kettering District, August 1993 167 m to the Tributary of the River Unknown pollutant - Category 3, south-west Jordan Minor Incident

Kettering District, July 1997 638 m to the northeast Harpers Brook Oils - Waste Oil - Category 3, Minor Incident

Kettering District, March 1996 717 m to the Tributary of the River Crude Sewage - Category 3, southeast Ise Minor Incident

Kettering District, April 1995 785 m to the Tributary of the River Storm Sewage - Category 3, southwest Ise Minor Incident

Prosecution Details

Woodside, Stoke Road, 775 m to the northeast Unknown Illegally storing waste Desborough, October 2009 Source: Envirocheck Report (Appendix 5.1).

6.4.11 Flooding Details of the potential for flooding from fluvial, surface water and groundwater sources as well as sewerage and water supply infrastructure are provided in the Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 6.1) and are summarised below:

• The flood zone maps available from the Environment Agency website indicate the application site to be located within Flood Zone 1: Low Risk; meaning that the site is at low risk (less than a 1:1 000 year risk of fluvial or tidal flooding);

• The site does not benefit from, nor rely upon any formal flood defences;

• The proposed development is compatible with the Flood Risk Classification of the application site;

• According to the National Planning Policy Framework development on the application site can therefore be undertaken with no constraints associated with river, tidal or coastal flooding or the effects of climate change; • There are no known records of groundwater, sewer, or water mains flooding incidences in the vicinity of the application site; • There is a negligible risk of flooding if potable supply mains fail or should existing sewers become blocked as it is considered flows would tend to be channelled along adjacent roads rather than onto the application site itself; and

• Should sewers or water mains constructed as part of the proposed development block or burst, any flows would simply be directed to the downstream Great Bear Distribution Centre attenuation pond to which water is supposed to drain via overland flow routes.

6.4.12 Future Baseline It is anticipated that should the proposed development not take place, the baseline hydrological conditions described above would remain broadly the same at the application site, with the only potential alterations being associated with the implementation of the existing consent for commercial/industrial development. The potential effects of the consented development are discussed where relevant. However, as future climate change is generally predicted to result in more intense rainfall events it is likely that, without adequate mitigation measures, the surface water run-off rate from the application site would be increased leading to an increased risk of incidents of overland flow flooding.

6.5 Proposed Mitigation

6.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects

Construction Phase During the demolition and construction phase, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be implemented to ensure that disturbance of the ground surface, as well as concrete, oils and other chemicals used during the construction process, do not impact upon the water quality of surface water receptors or local drainage regime. Measures to achieve this will include:

• Following the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG) notes to ensure good practice in construction;

• In particular, PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites will be followed to ensure that uncontrolled or elevated levels of sediment runoff do not occur from the site. This will involve a temporary surface water drainage system to include measures to remove sediment from site run-off via sediment settlement areas prior to discharge;

• A construction method statement will be produced that will include measures to prevent pollution such as refuelling and maintenance activities to be carried out on hardstanding, and bunding of chemical storage areas on hardstanding and to 110%; • The guidance provided by CIRIA in manuals C502 (Environmental Good Practice on Site) and C532 (Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites) will be adhered to;

• A Pollution Incidence Response Plan will be produced in line with the Environment Agency’s PPG 21 Pollution Incident Response Planning;

• Best practice measures to prevent localised flooding during construction will be described in the CEMP, which will be produced and agreed with the local planning authority and other consultees as necessary in advance of construction works commencing.

Operation A surface water drainage strategy will be adopted to ensure that all hardstanding and other areas that may be affected by contaminants will be attenuated thus preventing contaminated surface water percolating into the soil. The proposed drainage strategy will seek to maintain the existing hydrology in terms of the volume and rate of surface water run-off from the application site so as not to increase the risk of flooding on- or off-site. The main components of the proposed surface water drainage strategy are summarised below: • Drainage from external road surfaces, hard standing, and parking areas will be drained to the surface water drainage system constructed as part of the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre, which was designed to accommodate discharge from an impermeable area of 1.36 ha on the application site with no need for additional on-site attenuation;

• Attenuation is to be provided at the existing balancing pond associated with the Great Bear drainage system, whilst limiting discharge from the application site to greenfield run off rates;

• Pre-treatment devices (i.e. trapped gullies etc.) are to be incorporated in all areas accessible to vehicles to aid the settlement of particulates within the surface water and subsequent removal of any fuel oils and silt;

• Roof runoff from the main gasification plant building, condenser farm, turbine hall and boilers will be directed to a rainwater harvesting system located beneath the area of hardstanding to the south of the main building which will be used to provide water for wash-down purposes and topping up of the bottom ash quench. The storage required will be provided by means of crushed stone storage blankets located beneath hardstanding areas, with approximately 150 m3 of storage to be provided and an overflow pipe into the Great Bear surface water drainage system; and • A second rainwater harvesting system will be provided at the visitor centre, with an overflow pipe into the Great Bear surface water drainage system again provided.

Further information regarding the proposed SuDS strategy is provided in the Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 6.1). A rainwater harvesting system will be used to provide water for the wash down system and bottom ash quench, whilst water from the boiler blow down is recoverable and will be used in the bottom ash quench, thus reducing the demand of the proposed development on potable water supply and foul sewerage infrastructure.

6.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 6.5 lists the receptors that could be affected by the proposed development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows: • High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment; • Medium certainty of effectiveness: The measure can reasonably be expected to be effective based on the available information (and so can be relied on in assessment), although additional data may require review of the measures;

Table 6.5 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Potential Incorporated Mitigation Likely Effects Effectiveness

Construction

Potential contamination of Introduction of contaminants Implementation of a Medium surface water resources due to construction activities Construction Environmental and plant. Management Plan.

Alteration of Drainage Soil compaction resulting in Use of a temporary surface High Regime increased run off rate. water drainage system.

Operation

Potential contamination of Introduction of contaminants Use of trapped gullies and High surface water resources associated with servicing petrol interceptors in drainage vehicles and gasification plant. system.

Provision of containment for spills of contaminated liquid.

Potential contamination of Introduction of contaminants Provision of positive surface High Groundwater associated with servicing water drainage system with no vehicles and gasification plant. infiltration.

Table 6.5 (continued) Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Potential Incorporated Mitigation Likely Effects Effectiveness

Alteration of Drainage Increased impermeable area Provision of surface water High Regime and increased local resulting in increased run off drainage system incorporating risk of flooding rate resulting in increased risk attenuation and rainwater of flooding to surrounding land harvesting to limit discharge to greenfield rates

Potable water network Increase in volume of water Reuse of water from boiler blow High required at the Application Site down in bottom ash quench and provision of rainwater harvesting system

Foul Sewer Network Increase in volume of foul Reuse of blowdown water and High sewerage discharge from injection of other water into Application Site gasification plant

6.6 Assessment of Effects

6.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Following implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and the mitigation measures set out in Section 6.5, it is considered the there will be no significant effects on the surface water environment during the construction phase.

6.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase

Potential Contamination of Surface Water Resources and Controlled Waters Although increased sources of pollution to water resources may be introduced (e.g. through the introduction of vehicle movements), the incorporation of mitigation measures such as the provision of trapped gullies and oil interceptors will ensure that the risk of contamination entering surface water receptors and effecting their quality is negligible. Non-hazardous waste materials only will be used by the plant, with the materials that will be allowed to be used as fuel to be specified on the environmental permit issued by the Environment Agency that the plant requires in order to operate. The sensitivity of controlled waters in the vicinity of the site is assessed as medium and the magnitude of change is negligible. Therefore, the effect is likely to be slight to negligible and not significant following the implementation of mitigation measures. The sensitivity of the end receptor, The River Welland, is high and the magnitude of change is negligible. Therefore, the effect is likely to be slight and not significant following the implementation of mitigation measures.

Risk of Contamination to Soil and Groundwater Use of a positive drainage system with no infiltration will ensure contaminated water does not enter soil and percolate through to groundwater. The sensitivity of the underlying soil and

groundwater is assessed as medium whilst the magnitude of change is considered negligible. Following implementation of the proposed drainage strategy as mitigation, the potential effects are considered to be slight to negligible and not significant.

Alteration of the Drainage Regime - Increased Rate of Surface Water Discharge and Increased Risk of Localised Flooding While there will be a localised increase in the amount of surface water run off generated as a result of the increase in impermeable surface area resulting from the proposed development, the proposed drainage strategy described in the Flood Risk Assessment (Appendix 6.1) will maintain the current baseline conditions and have a direct, long term, permanent, negligible, and therefore not significant, effect upon the drainage regime during extreme rainfall events and a positive, though not significant, effect during more frequent intensity events.

Increased Pressure on Water Resources due to an Increase in Water Demand The water demand associated with the Proposed Development has been calculated based upon the factoring of data related to a similar plant in Derby, and the results are presented in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Estimated Water Demand

Land Use (Use Class) Anticipated Anticipated Days/Year Proposed Hourly Demand Daily Demand Annual Water Demand

Condensate Losses 0.43 m3 10.32 m3 365 3766.8 m3

Bottom Ash Quench 0.82 m3 19.68 m3 365 7183.2 m3

Boiler Blow Down 0.6 m3 14.4 m3 365 5256 m3

Cooling System 0.25 m3 6 m3 365 2190 m3

Wash Down 0.5 m3 12 m3 365 4380 m3

Total 2.6 m3/Hour 62.4 m3/Day - 22 776 m3/Year

Blow down water fed into the bottom ash quench will meet 0.6 m3 per hour of the 0.82 m3 per hour demand of this system, with the rainwater harvesting system to supply the remaining demand for the bottom ash quench along with the wash down system. This will reduce the demand upon the potable water system from an estimated 2.6 m3 per hour to approximately 1.28 m3 per hour. Following implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the effects on water supply are considered to be direct, long term, permanent, slight negative and not significant.

Increased Pressure on Foul Sewerage Infrastructure The reuse of boiler blow down and injection of other waste water into the oxidation centre will act as mitigation to the foul sewerage demand and ensure that the only demand upon the foul sewerage network as a result of the proposed development will be that associated with employee use and that of the Visitor Centre. This demand has already been allowed for in the design of the foul sewer serving the Great Bear Distribution Centre, and the effect on foul sewerage

infrastructure has therefore been assessed as being direct, long term, permanent and to be negligible negative and therefore not significant.

6.6.3 Conclusions The effects of the proposed development upon the application site and surrounding area have been considered in relation to water resources, flood risk, hydrology and drainage during both the construction and operational phases. It is considered that the mitigation measures discussed above and in Section 6.5 are sufficient to ensure that the proposed development will have no significant effects upon the water environment or risk of flooding.

6.7 Summary of Predicted Effects Table 6.7 provides a summary of the predicted effects of the development on the water environment. No significant effects have been identified.

Table 6.7 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Construction Phase Local Surface Water Possible Medium Low Not Implementation of Construction Receptors Significant Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Construction work to comply with the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance. Use of a temporary surface water drainage system during construction. End Surface Water Possible High None Not Implementation of CEMP. Receptor (River Significant Construction work to comply with Welland) the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance. Use of a temporary surface water drainage system during construction. Alteration of Drainage Unlikely Low None Not Use of a temporary surface water Regime Significant drainage system. Operational Phase Local Surface Water Unlikely Medium Low Not Interceptors or appropriate Receptors Significant measures will be provided for all areas where contaminants may be present or prior to any discharge to existing surface water features. End Surface Water Unlikely High None Not Interceptors or appropriate Receptor (River Significant measures will be provided for all Welland) areas where contaminants may be present or prior to any discharge to existing surface water features.

Table 6.7 (continued) Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Groundwater Unlikely Medium None Not A positive surface water drainage Significant system will be used for all areas where contaminants may be present with no infiltration to groundwater. Alteration of Drainage Unlikely Low None Not Use of rainwater harvesting Regime Significant systems for roof run-off, with all hardstanding areas drained to the existing attenuation area associated with the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre which has been designed to accommodate approximately twice the impermeable area on the application site that will actually be connected. Increased pressure on Certain Low Low Not Reuse of water from the boiler blow water resources due to Significant down and provision of rainwater an increase in water harvesting systems to provide wash demand down and bottom ash quench water will reduce the demand of the proposed development. Increased pressure on Certain Low None Not The only foul discharge from the foul sewerage Significant site will be that associated with infrastructure employee facilities and the visitor centre and there is ample capacity allowed for this in the existing network. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

6.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures Table 6.8 summarises the mitigation measures that are proposed in relation to Hydrology and Flood Risk.

Table 6.8 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Actioned By Compliance Mechanism Monitoring Proposal

Construction Environmental Contractor Contractor to adhere to agreed Construction Management Plan (CEMP) Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) at all times during construction.

Temporary Site Drainage System Contractor Contractor to construct temporary site drainage system as part of site preparation.

Surface and foul water sewers and Contractor/Developer/ Contractor to construct systems in accordance with Rainwater Harvesting System Anglian Water detailed design.

Developer to ensure that on site surface and foul water sewer systems and rainwater harvesting system are maintained.

Anglian Water to ensure adopted off site sewers are maintained.

6.9 Technical References 1. Michael Thomas Consultancy LLP (2012), Flood Risk Assessment for an Energy from Waste Plant at Magnetic Park, Desborough. 2. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (2000), The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. 3. HMSO (1980), Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC. 4. HMSO (2003), Water Act. 5. HMSO (2010), Flood and Water Management Act. 6. HMSO (1990), Environmental Protection Act. 7. Department of Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR) (2000), Circular 02/2000, contaminated Land: Implementation of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act (1990). 8. HMSO (1998), Groundwater Regulations. 9. HMSO (1991), Anti-Pollution Works Regulation. 10. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012), National Planning Policy Framework. 11. DCLG (2012), Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. 12. Government Office for the East Midlands (2009), East Midlands Regional Plan. 13. Government Office for the South East, East Midlands, East of England, (2005), Part A of Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy.

14. Environment Agency (2009), The Water Resources Strategy Regional Action Plan for the Anglian Region. 15. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (2008), North Northamptonshire Water Cycle Management Strategy. 16. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (2008), Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document. 17. Halcrow Group Limited, (2009), North Northamptonshire Water Cycle Management Strategy. 18. Environment Agency, Internet Database: www.environment-agency.gov.uk 19. Landmark Envirocheck Report (2011). 20. Kettering Borough Council and Borough Council of Wellingborough, Kettering and Wellingborough Stage 2 SFRA (2005) and Level 1 Update (2011). 21. Geoff Sharp Land Surveys (2004), Application Site Survey. 22. Meteorological Office, internet Database: www.metoffice.gov.uk 23. Environment Agency (undated), Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 6 - Working at Construction and Demolition Sites.

7. Ecology

7.1 Introduction This chapter of the ES assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development on nature and conservation. The chapter describes the methods used to assess the effects and determines the baseline conditions currently existing at the site of proposed development. Mitigation measures are detailed, where required, to prevent, reduce or offset the effects and the residual effects presented. This chapter has been prepared by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

7.2 Context

7.2.1 Relevant Terminology There are a number of key terms that have been referred to in this chapter and for ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows: Biodiversity: The variety of life in all its forms and the habitats where it occurs Fauna: All animal life Flora: All plant life Connections: Semi-natural features which join otherwise unconnected corridors Ephemeral: short-lived or brief, often seasonal Habitat mosaic: A closely associated group of different habitats, enhancing the inherent value of the individual component habitats Macro-habitat: Broad habitat within a species occurs Micro-habitat: A precise location within a habitat within which a species occurs Notable species: A species which is not legally protected, but is otherwise noteworthy due toits scarcity within a country; region or local area Opportunistic species: A species typical of an unstable environment, typically found in the early stages of succession; characterised by strong dispersal (spreading) ability Priority habitat/ species: A species or habitat of conservation action at UK or local level Red/ amber lists: Bird species with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe as set out by the RSPB Ruderal vegetation: Herbs typically associated with current or past agriculture or human habitation and disturbance; often on waste ground

Structural diversity: Closely associated shorter and longer vegetation; variety of habitat forms Succession: Sequential change in vegetation and associated fauna from bare ground until a final stable stage is achieved (climax). Changes are typically rapid in early stages, slowing down towards the climax state. Sward: Grassland

7.2.2 Technical Context The site of proposed development extends to approximately 1.68 ha of previously cleared farmland. Since clearance the site has been unmanaged and has been colonised by ruderal vegetation across its entirety. Established development lies to the west of Stoke Road, which forms the site’s western boundary, along which there is some immature scrub planting (probably between 2 and 5 years old). Open farmland lies beyond this. The eastern and southern boundaries abut Eagle Way, part of the new infrastructure associated with the recent industrial development at Magnetic Park, beyond which there is a recent housing development, known as the Grange. To the north and beyond the new developments, there is open farmland, currently under determination for further residential development. Further south and south-east lies open countryside and the established development of Desborough town.

7.2.3 Planning and Guidance The policy and guidance framework for nature conservation is provided by various national, regional and local planning policies as outlined below. Supplementary guidance documents, including Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) have been assessed for their relevance to the proposed development. The relevant legislative framework, which provides protection to certain habitats and species is listed below, with further details as necessary within the relevant baseline sections and supporting report at Appendix 7.1.

Legislation Key European and UK legislation of relevance to nature conservation and biodiversity includes: • The Habitats Directive 1992;

• The Habitats and Species Regulations 2010;

• The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);

• The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;

• The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; and

• The Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

National Planning Policy The National Planning Policy Framework; Department for Communities and Local Government was adopted in March 2012. This new national policy framework supersedes the former Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) and provides relevant information relating to the approach to be taken within the planning system by the various issues and disciplines encompassed by sustainable development, including in the production of local development plans and the determination of planning permissions for local

councils. Planning applications should seek to conform the principles set out within this framework, which should be reflected at a local level in local development frameworks and other planning policy documents for that area. The existing government circular Associated Circular Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, ODPM Circular 06/2005; for the former PPS9 which provides the background and further information and detail on the content of PPS9, still applies to the new NPPF until such a time as this has been reviewed and revised (and for which there is no timetable). Of relevance to this particular assessment is Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment (paragraphs 109 – 125) of the NPPF. The following provides the overarching approach that should be taken with respect to the natural environment: “…The planning system should contribute and enhance the natural and local environment by:

• Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services

• Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressure • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at an unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability” In addition the following paragraphs of Section 11 are of particular relevance to nature conservation: “112. Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution they make to wider ecological networks. 118. When determining planning applications local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

• If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or as a last resort compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

• Proposed development on land within or outside a SSSI likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI (either alone or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted, Where an adverse effect

on the site’s notified special interest is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSI. • Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted.

• Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged

• Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged, or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland unless the need for and benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. • The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites - Potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation - Listed or proposed RAMSAR sites

- Sites identified or required as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites 125. By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”

Biodiversity Action Plans Part of the government’s strategy for the implementation of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) has been developed to protect rare or declining habitats and species by targeting those identified as a UK priority with specific actions to reduce their rarity and decline. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) the Government and Local Authorities have a duty to extend regard to biodiversity insofar as this is consistent with the proper exercise of their function. At a more local level, the Northamptonshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP), targets those species of specific relevance to the county.

Regional and Local Planning Policy Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) for the East Midlands (March 2009): Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage “Sustainable development should ensure the protection, appropriate management and enhancement of the Region’s natural and cultural heritage. As a result the following principles should be applied:

the Region’s internationally and nationally designated natural and historic assets should receive the highest level of protection; neither direct nor indirect damage to EU designated Natura 2000 sites will be permitted; damage to natural and historic assets or their settings should be avoided wherever and as far as possible, recognising that such assets are usually irreplaceable; unavoidable damage must be minimised and clearly justified by a need for development in that location which outweighs the damage that would result; unavoidable damage which cannot be mitigated should be compensated for, preferably in a relevant local context, and where possible in ways which also contribute to social and economic objectives; there should be a net increase in the quality and active management of natural and historic assets across the Region in ways that promote adaptation to climate change, and an increase in the quantity of environmental assets generally; and the Region’s best and most versatile agricultural land should be protected from permanent loss or damage.” Policy 28 - Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure: “Local Authorities, statutory environmental bodies and developers should work with the voluntary sector, landowners and local communities to ensure the delivery, protection and enhancement of Environmental Infrastructure across the Region. Such infrastructure should contribute to a high quality natural and built environment and to the delivery of sustainable communities. Local Authorities and those responsible for the planning and delivery of growth and environmental management across the Region should work together to: assess the capacity of existing Environment Infrastructure to accommodate change in order to inform decisions on the scale, location and phasing of new development. Account should be taken of current deficits and likely future demands, including those likely to result from climate change, to identify any further needs or constraints; select appropriate indicators and targets to monitor the condition of Environmental Infrastructure and to ensure that its capacity to accommodate change is not breached; ensure that the provision and design of new Environmental Infrastructure is considered and its delivery planned through environmental capacity analysis at the same time as other infrastructure requirements; within Local Development Frameworks develop ‘green infrastructure plans’ based on character assessments of existing natural, cultural and landscape assets and the identification of new assets required to meet the needs of existing and expanding communities;

increase access to green space that can be used for formal and informal recreation, educational purposes and to promote healthy lifestyles, without increasing pressures on sensitive sites, especially those designated under the European Habitats Directive; and identify delivery and funding mechanisms for the creation and future management of Green Infrastructure, including from the planning system and other funding sources such as EU funded Environmental Stewardship Schemes.” Policy 29 - Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity: “Local Authorities, statutory environmental bodies and developers should work with the voluntary sector, landowners and local communities to implement the Regional Biodiversity Strategy, and to deliver a major step change increase in the level of biodiversity across the East Midlands. Measures should include the: achievement of the East Midlands regional contribution towards the UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets as set out in Appendix 3; establishment of large scale habitat creation projects in the biodiversity conservation and enhancement areas illustrated in Diagram 6; establishment of a regional project to promote the re-creation of key wildlife habitats in each Natural Area in the East Midlands; creating, protecting and enhancing networks of semi-natural green spaces in urban areas; creating, protecting and enhancing features of the landscape which act as corridors and ‘stepping stones’, essential for the migration and dispersal of wildlife; development and implementation of mechanisms to ensure that development results in no net loss of BAP habitats and species, particularly for restricted habitats with special environmental requirements, and that net gain is achieved; and development and maintenance of appropriate data to monitor and report on regional targets, BAPs and BCAs/BEAs.” Policy 30 Regional Priorities for Managing and Increasing Woodland Cover: “Local Authorities, statutory environmental bodies and developers should work with the voluntary sector, landowners and local communities to deliver a significant increase in woodland cover in the East Midlands in ways that respect local landscape character and support the implementation of the Regional Plan. New cover should make use of species resistant to climate change and complement national and regional woodland strategies, including, for example, the Forestry Commission's Woodfuel Strategy for England. Any effect on local landscape character should be carefully considered. New woodland should optimise social, environmental and economic value whilst recognizing the biodiversity and character of existing woodland and the sensitivity of existing nature conservation or archaeological interest.

New woodland should also avoid negative effects on water resources, and contribute to flood alleviation and floodplain management. Woodland unavoidably lost to development should be replaced with new woodland of equivalent value, preferably in the same landscape unit. Preference should be given to creating ‘new native woodland’ as defined in Forestry Commission Bulletin 112. Opportunities should be taken to increase woodland cover as part of new development and by using other mechanisms, focusing on priority areas identified through Space4Trees including; the National Forest, Greenwood Community Forest, Sherwood Forest, Rockingham Forest, East Derbyshire, the Boston Woods Initiative and ancient woodland clusters in the Lincolnshire Limewoods and Leighfield Forest areas; the Northamptonshire Growth Areas, where woodland creation and linkage should feature as a significant component of new green infrastructure; and principal transport corridors and Strategic River Corridors delivering local Biodiversity Action Plan targets. Ancient semi-natural woodlands, veteran trees and other woodlands of acknowledged national and regional importance should be strongly protected by Local Development Frameworks. There should be a general presumption against the conversion of any woodland to other land uses unless there are overriding public benefits. Opportunities should be taken to secure sustainable management of all woodland, and to increase public access to high quality multi-functional woodland close to communities as part of the development of Green Infrastructure.” East Midlands Regional Environment Strategy, East Midlands Regional Assembly, adopted August 2002 Policy ENV21 deals with Biodiversity and aims: “...To conserve and dramatically enhance biodiversity according to regional Biodiversity Action Plan priorities”. The policy goes on to state that “in a region where the decline in biodiversity has been so great, it is essential that regional habitat restoration and creation targets, to compensate for past losses, are proportionately greater than for other regions. Small sites need to be extended to create larger areas where species are able to sustain viable populations and move through the landscape to re-colonise their former haunts”. The local planning policy context for this development is set by the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) 2010 – 2013 Core Strategy; Northamptonshire County Council; adopted March 2010. From this, of relevance to this assessment is the following objective:

• Objective 10: Conserving and enhancing Northamptonshire’s built and natural environment:

“Recognise Northamptonshire’s environmental systems and landscape linkages in order to conserve and enhance the built and natural environment through ensuring sensitive working, and where necessary high standards of mitigation of potentially adverse impacts of minerals and waste development. This is about ensuring new or extended minerals and waste related uses not only do not damage or destroy the county’s existing environmental and natural assets, but that opportunities are taken (including via restoration) to enhance existing and planned green infrastructure networks and to support the identified landscape character areas of the county.” As part of the full suite of associated documents with this MWDF, the Development Plan Document; June 2011 includes the following policy of relevance: • Policy CMD7: Natural assets and resources “Minerals and waste development should seek to (where possible) achieve a net gain in assets and resources, through: − delivery of wider environmental benefits in the vicinity where development would adversely affect any regional or locally designated sites or other features of local interest, − protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and strategic biodiversity networks, in particular the River Nene and other sub- regional corridors, and − consider opportunities to contribute towards Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan targets for habitats and species. Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to undertake an assessment (where appropriate) in order to: − identify and determine the nature, extent, and level of importance of the natural assets & resources, as well as any potential impacts, and − identify mitigation measures and / or requirement for compensation (where necessary) to avoid, reduce, and manage potentially adverse impacts. This policy recognizes that sites of local biodiversity importance are a vital part of the environmental systems and are significant importance for the county and further states that: “Natural assets cannot be easily re-created once lost. As such, in conjunction with protecting locally significant (i.e. designated) natural assets and resources, the main focus of seeking locally specific development management measures is to secure enhancement of those features. The possibility of significant environmental effects associated with any particular development site must be fully understood before consideration can be given as to whether the proposed development is acceptable at that location. Without this, there is the potential of permanently losing the ability to deliver priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, green infrastructure network linkages, or buffers to protect existing natural assets.

Biodiverse habitats, especially those that develop in very specific conditions, can be difficult to re-create (if at all). The presence of any important habitat type must be taken into consideration, as it may not be possible to regain the same level of biodiversity post-development through restoration measures. Therefore, where habitat creation is undertaken, the area created should be significantly larger than that lost in order to compensate for such difficulties. Proposals for minerals and waste development will be subject to an ecological evaluation where considered appropriate by the planning authority, and where necessary a programme of mitigation and / or compensation will be agreed in advance. Consideration should be given to how the site can contribute to the county’s identified green infrastructure networks, BAP targets, and the Environmental Characterisation Assessments (ECA). Proposals must also demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the county’s geological and natural assets, in particular the importance of underlying geological conditions on the local ecology in relation to the ability of the site to support specific vegetative communities and associated habitat. For example calcareous grassland (a BAP priority habitat) is mainly associated with the old ironstone quarries of the county where thin nutrient poor calcareous soils have been exposed by quarrying operations.” Also of relevance is the Development and Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document; September 2011, in which Box SPD3 presents the design principles for minerals and waste development to be incorporated into proposals; only those principles of relevance to nature conservation and biodiversity have been extracted below. “Environmental protection and enhancement – All design aspects (built form, site layout, lighting, access, landscaping, etc) should seek to avoid and where necessary mitigate adverse impacts on the surrounding environment and human health (including air, water, land, noise, odour, amenity, landscape, biodiversity, heritage assets, geodiversity, and flood risk) whilst maximising beneficial outcomes. Strategic site layout – Seek to reduce impact on both the immediate surrounds and the broader landscape level through strategic site layout. High quality landscaping and boundary treatments – High quality landscaping and boundary treatments that are in context with and complementary to the surrounding landscape character. Landscaping and boundary treatments should be maintained to a high standard and positively contribute towards amenity, biodiversity, heritage assets, and nature conservation where possible. Landscaping and boundary treatments should seek to balance the needs of both the historic and natural environment, and not compromise heritage assets. Effective buffers – Provision of adequate and effective buffers to reduce adverse impacts on sensitive receptors or areas. Buffers are to be in context with and complementary to surrounding landscape or townscape, and may include aspects of the built form, landscaping, and boundary treatments. Buffers should seek to positively contribute towards amenity, biodiversity, heritage assets, nature conservation, habitat enhancement, and catchment conservation where possible. Buffers should balance the needs of, and protect, both the

historic and the natural environment. Access opportunities within buffer areas should be maximised where safe. Lighting – Minimise light pollution (includes sky glow, glare, light spill, and trespass).” In addition, of relevance to this assessment are the environmental policies set out in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, adopted June 2008. The key objectives set out within the CSS include: “…Objective Two – Environment “Enhance and manage the built and natural resources of North Northamptonshire in a sustainable and integrated manner and in the context of major growth and the challenges of climate change. To bring about a step change in biodiversity management and a net gain in green infrastructure; retaining and enhancing landscape and townscape character and distinctiveness, through the opportunities afforded by development and investment…” The most relevant policy with respect to biodiversity is Policy 5: Green Infrastructure: “A net gain in green infrastructure will be sought through the protection and enhancement of assets and the creation of new multi functional areas of green space that promote recreation and tourism, public access, green education, biodiversity, water management, the protection and enhancement of the local landscape and historic assets and mitigation of climate change, along with green economic uses* and sustainable land management… Sub-regional green infrastructure corridors will connect locations of natural and historic heritage, green space, biodiversity or other environmental interest. They will be safeguarded through: a) Not permitting development that compromises their integrity and therefore that of the overall green infrastructure framework; b) Using developer contributions to facilitate improvements to their quality and robustness; c) Investing in enhancement and restoration where the opportunities exist, and the creation of new resources where necessary. Development will contribute towards the establishment, enhancement or ongoing management of a series of local corridors linking with the sub-regional corridors. Priorities for investment will be those areas where net gains in the range of functions can be improved, particularly those that improve access to the urban core and rural service centres and remedy local deficiencies in open space provision and quality”. The Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, adopted February 2009 outlines the principles for sustainable design within the

region, based on a set of seven principles and associated checklists, the most relevant of which for this assessment is: Principle 7: Adaptability, resilience and environmental sustainability, which states that: Developments should contribute towards resource and energy efficiency (production and use); environmental sustainability including flood risk management and biodiversity and species movement; and promote adaptability through development that can respond to changing social, technological and economic conditions. Furthermore; “The planning, design and management of green infrastructure in North Northamptonshire should incorporate native species, and traditional management approaches (such as meadow cutting and coppicing) within green space wherever this does not conflict with local character. Greenspaces should reflect the landscape and heritage character of the area and reflect design /style of the areas settlements. The incorporation of fine-grain elements of green infrastructure and other measures that contribute towards biodiversity enhancement, such as sustainable drainage systems, green roofs, allotments, orchards, edible landscaping are all ways in which new developments can contribute to the protection and enhancement of the green infrastructure network and biodiversity, as well as local character and distinctiveness. Such schemes should be designed with the community to encourage community cohesion and a sense of ownership, and co-located with other community infrastructure wherever possible.” Northamptonshire Environmental Character and Green Infrastructure Suite, launched November 2006:

Section 3: Biodiversity Character Assessment This section identifies generic Biodiversity Character Types, based on a range of climatic and edaphic and topographical conditions which have led to the development of particular ecological landscape. The application site lies within the urban area of Desborough and a biodiversity character has therefore not been applied to it. The closest type is that of Boulder Clay Woodlands, typified by habitats further to the north of the application site, through the network of woodlands that is seen here and identified as Biodiversity Character Area 3b: Pipewell and Brampton Woods. Key habitats of importance to this type are: Lowland mixed woodland; lowland wood-pasture; lowland neutral grassland, hedgerows and open standing water, all of which should be prioritised within proposals for this area.

Section 5: Green Infrastructure making the Connection This is a suite of documents indicating the Northamptonshire approach to GI, identifying the various facets of it, its role and purpose and how it is to be achieved at the sub-regional level. With respect to biodiversity, GI should: “Maintain and enhance the biodiversity of the sub region to ensure that development and implementation results in a net gain of BAP habitats; Be delivered through the enhancement of existing woodlands and also by the creation of new woodlands and forest areas.”

In addition key planning and delivery principles are as follows: “Ensure all new development avoids damage to existing designated sites and enhances them where possible; Seeks to halt and reverse habitat fragmentation and species isolation of existing biodiversity assets by buffering existing sites and creating new wildlife corridors between them; Identify areas for habitat restoration and re-establish them at a landscape scale; Integrate existing habitats into new development, ensuring development provides a green transition between existing and new habitats and landscape; and, Consider the appropriate management of wildlife corridors that are important for the migration and dispersal of wildlife and for linking of habitats.” The creation of new biodiversity assets should be sought:

• “Heathland and acid grassland restoration and creation

• Calcareous grassland restoration and creation

• Wetland restoration and creation

• Woodland re-creation and restoration” The provision of new woodland and improvements to existing woods must be focused on:

• “Individual sub areas, where significant new woodland areas must be created close to the community;

• Forest of Marston Vale, Rockingham Forest and Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge;

• Principal transport corridors; • Addressing local BAP targets, by expanding, buffering and linking areas of native woodland and the creation of new wet woodland for which the East of England is a priority; • Expanding the woodland/grassland mix; and

• Bringing existing woodland into positive management and increasing public access.” Figure 6 Northamptonshire Strategic Green Infrastructure Framework of this section of the GI Suite indicates key green infrastructure corridors, of which Sub-regional Infrastructure Corridor 12: Jurassic Way is the closest to the application site, located to its west. Sub-regional corridors: “… broadly follow strategic waterways and valleys such as the Nene. Other strategic corridors follow notable concentrations of biodiverse areas or well defined movement patterns and opportunities, including linkages between major settlements. The strategic level corridors are noteworthy for their mosaic of land uses, natural and built resources and settlements. They often function as

transportation routeways, support flood storage areas, or are rich heritage resources, and offer recreation and leisure opportunities. These corridors already function as Green Infrastructure resources, and provide GI related benefits. They therefore form a ‘backbone’ of sub-regional significance for the GI resource within the county. ….These Sub Regional Corridors are intended to become fully multi-functional zones with the ability or potential to deliver the following functions: • Access and Movement – linking settlements to their hinterland, destinations and the wider strategic Green Infrastructure Sustainable Movement Network; corridors provide sustainable links through attractive green routes with clear way marking and other relevant facilities; • Biodiversity – providing a focus for the enhancement and linkage of the biodiversity resource; • Enhancement of flood risk, water management and other natural process roles;

• Enhancement and promotion of environmental character to celebrate the distinctiveness of these different corridors;

• Enhancement and promotion of heritage and cultural assets; and

• Enhancement and promotion of recreation and leisure, providing the context for the county’s Sub-Regional Greenspace and other destinations. …Green Infrastructure related proposals are therefore likely to focus on the enhancement and restoration of the existing resource and assets in these corridors, as well as the creation of new resources.” Open Space Supplementary Planning Document, Kettering Borough Council, adopted September 2008. Six objectives are presented for open space within the borough, based on regional policy. Of most relevance to this assessment is Objective 5: “Deliver a wide range of high quality, sustainable open space that is fit for purpose; results in a net gain in biodiversity/green infrastructure throughout the Borough; and contributes to flood risk management.” Developers will be required to provide ten types of open space, of which the following have most relevance for biodiversity:

• “Parks and gardens

• Natural and semi natural greenspace

• Allotments and community gardens

• Green corridors”

7.3 Assessment Approach The assessment considers information and data identified during desktop and field surveys. All methodologies used followed the standard guidance as recommended by Natural England and the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM).

7.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work

Field Survey The following field surveys have been undertaken on the site in 2011: • Extended Phase 1 habitat survey;

• Hedgerow Survey; and

• Bat transect survey. The following surveys were undertaken on land to the immediate north and north-east by FPCR between 2008– 2011 in relation to the proposed ‘Grange II’ residential development, and have been used to inform this assessment: • Great crested newt surveys;

• Reptile surveys; and

• Bat transect survey.

Desktop Survey A desktop survey was undertaken in October 2011 for the local area to provide background information on existing biological data and nature conservation records, including the locations and citations for sites designated for their nature conservation interest, both statutory and non- statutory, according to the following parameters: • 5 km around the proposed development site for internationally designated sites; and • 2 km around the proposed development site for other statutory and non-statutorily designated sites and for records of protected and notable species. Species records have been restricted to those within the last 10 years. The following organisations were contacted for information on species and non-statutory sites:

• Northamptonshire Biological Records Centre (NBRC);

• Northamptonshire Bat Group;

• Northamptonshire Barn Owl Recorder;

• North Northamptonshire Badger Group;

• Northamptonshire Bird Group; and

• Northamptonshire Amphibian and Reptile Recorder.

The following website was also searched for relevant information on statutory sites: • The Multi-Agency Government Information for the Countryside (www.magic.defra.gov.uk). The desktop review has also considered existing available and published policy and guidance information as described above.

Field Surveys Habitats were surveyed in September 2011 using the standard Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2003). Hedgerows were surveyed using the Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS) (Clements and Tofts, 1992) and the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (SI 1160). Faunal surveys were completed during the appropriate seasons between 2008 and 2011 and all methodologies followed the published guidelines as accepted by statutory and non-statutory agencies, including Natural England. Where applicable the detailed field survey methodologies are provided in Appendices 7.2.

7.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment The scope of the assessment includes potential effects on the features of ecological interest (flora and fauna) on site or with the potential to be using the site. In addition, consideration has been given to any off-site features of interest which may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposals. The following points of relevance to the Ecology assessment have been noted from the Scoping responses received to date, each of which have been addressed in this assessment. Northamptonshire County Council (Tina Cuss, Senior Environmental Planner) 08/02/12:

• Desk study should consider protected species, designated sites, and species and habitats of principal importance. Study should not be limited to nationally available sources. Study should include ancient woodland which may not be designated;

• Consideration of significant adverse effects of air borne emissions; • Mitigation should seek to achieve a net gain in biodiversity and include proposals for enhancements and details of avoidance, mitigation and compensation. Natural England (Antony Mould, Land Use Operations) 08/03/12:

• Air quality assessments should consider impacts from both increase atmospheric concentrations and deposition of pollutants. In particular this includes assessment of these effects on Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods SSSI;

• Proposals should deliver net benefits for biodiversity and local green infrastructure as well as mitigating any identified impacts. Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust (Alan Smith, Planning and Biodiversity Officer) 08/03/12:

• Extended Phase 1 habitat survey, identification of all statutory and non-statutory sites and protected species in the area;

• Consideration of artificial lighting levels;

• Proposals for ecological mitigation during and post construction. Highlights attention to the Local BAP and the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document, ratified by North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Group; • Recommends a GI approach including the linking of existing or potential wildlife habitat on site and with the wider are, noting the Strategic Sub-regional GI corridor at this location;

• Consideration of management of long term management of green spaces and management for wildlife benefit;

• Use of native species, typical to the area and of local provenance;

• Consideration of cumulative effects of other developments in this area of the district;

• Notes the potential for invertebrate fauna at brownfield sites.

7.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology All assessments have been based on the methods and criteria set out by the Guidelines for Ecological Assessment in the United Kingdom, IEEM, 2006. Reference has been made to the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEMA) 1995.

Assessment of Value Each habitat type has been graded into one of seven categories according to the perceived nature conservation value and the presence of any features protected under statute or local policy guidance. The grading system applied assigns importance within a geographic frame of reference, from international to site level. However, in the case of evaluating the importance of individual species populations, consideration is also given to the distribution and status of the species and to nationally and regionally published guidelines or criteria. In addition to the above, the habitats and species have been assessed within the context of nature conservation policies and legislation.

Table 7.1 Assessment of Nature Conservation Importance

Level Examples

An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA, pSPA, SAC, cSAC, pSAC , Ramsar site, Biogenetic Reserve) or an area which meets the published selection criteria for such designation, irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.

A viable area of a habitat type listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring population of an internationally important species, which is threatened or rare in the UK (i.e. it is a UK Red Data Book species or listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10km squares in the International UK (categories 1 and 2 in the UK BAP)) or of uncertain conservation status or of global conservation concern in the UK BAP.

A regularly occurring, nationally significant population/number of any internationally important species.

A nationally designated site (SSSI, NNR, Marine Nature Reserve) or a discrete area, which meets the published selection criteria for national designation (e.g. SSSI selection guidelines) irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.

A viable area of a priority habitat identified in the UK BAP or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species which is threatened or rare in the

National region or county (local BAP).

A regularly occurring, regionally or county significant population/number of any nationally important species.

A feature identified as of critical importance in the UK BAP.

Viable areas of key habitat identified in the Regional BAP or smaller areas of such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole.

Viable areas of key habitat identified as being of Regional value in the appropriate Natural Area profile.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce which occurs in 16-100 10km squares in the UK or in a Regional BAP or relevant Natural Area on account of its regional rarity or localization Regional A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a regionally important species.

Sites which exceed the County-level designations but fall short of SSSI selection guidelines, where these occur.

Semi-natural ancient woodland greater than 0.25 ha.

County/Metropolitan sites and other sites which the designating authority has determined meet the published ecological selection criteria for designation, including Local Nature Reserves selected on County / metropolitan ecological criteria (County/Metropolitan sites will often have been identified in local plans).

A viable area of habitat identified in County BAP.

Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species which is listed in a

County / Metropolitan County/Metropolitan “red data book” or BAP on account of its regional rarity or localisation.

A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a County/Metropolitan important species.

Table 7.1 (continued) Assessment of Nature Conservation Importance

Level Examples

Semi-natural ancient woodland smaller than 0.25 ha.

Areas of habitat identified in a sub-County (District/Borough) BAP or in the relevant Natural Area profile.

District sites that meet the published ecological selection criteria for designation, including Local Nature Reserves selected on District/ Borough ecological criteria (District sites, where they exist, will often have been identified in local plans).

Sites/features that are scarce within the District/Borough or which appreciably enrich the District/Borough habitat resource.

A diverse and/ or ecologically valuable hedgerow network. District / Borough A population of a species that is listed in a District/Borough BAP because of its rarity in the locality or in the relevant Natural Area profile because of its regional rarity or localisation.

A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a District / Borough important species during a critical phase of its life cycle.

Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the context of the local parish (e.g. species-rich hedgerows).

Local Local Nature Reserves selected on local / Parish ecological criteria.

Areas of habitat which are considered to have value at an immediate level only and which are not

Site considered to be of value outside of their immediate zone of influence

Prediction and Characterisation of Ecological Effects Effects have been assessed in terms of their magnitude, extent, duration, reversibility, timing and frequency, confidence in predictions and whether they are positive or negative. The value of any feature that will be significantly affected is that used to identify the geographical scale at which the effect is significant. The value relates directly to the consequences in terms of legislation, policy and/or development control at the appropriate level.

Confidence in Predictions This assesses the likelihood that a change/ activity will occur as predicted and also the degree of confidence in the assessment of the effect on ecological structure and function. The following confidence levels have been used:

• Certain (near-certain): probability estimated at 95% chance or higher;

• Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%;

• Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%;

• Extremely unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

Positive or Negative Whether the effect leads to positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse) changes.

Magnitude The size/ amount of the effect, determined on a quantitative basis where possible, such as the total loss of an area of grassland or 50% loss of hedgerows.

Extent The extent is the area over which the effect occurs. In some instances magnitude and extent will be synonymous.

Duration The time for which the effect is expected to last considered with reference to the timeframe significant to the species/ habitats being considered.

Reversibility An irreversible (permanent) effect is one from which recovery is not possible within a reasonable timescale and for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A reversible (temporary) effect is one for which spontaneous recovery is possible and for which effective mitigation is both possible and an enforceable commitment has been made.

Timing and Frequency Changes are considered in terms of timing. Impacts may be licensed/ only occur if they coincide with critical life stages or seasons such as the bird breeding season. The frequency should also be considered, for example, effects may be much greater if the activity happens on more than one occasion.

Ecological Significance Significance can be positive or negative. An ecologically significant effect is defined as an effect (negative or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area. Integrity is taken to be the coherence of ecological structure and function, across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species present.

Conservation Status For habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the habitat and its typical species may affect its long-term distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within a given geographical area. For species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its population within a geographical area.

Residual Effects These have been assessed taking into account the proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement. The significance is assessed as referred to above following implementation of mitigation.

100

Assessment of Sensitivity In assessing sensitivity, each receptor’s determined value has been considered in respect of its extent, diversity, rarity and extent within the local context of the site and its surrounds. Therefore whilst some species or habitats may have a high/ medium geographic value as a result of their level of statutory protection or inclusion on a BAP, their sensitivity within the local context of the proposed development site may be different.

Assessment of Significance Significance has been assessed as a result of the sensitivity of a receptor and the magnitude of the change experienced by that receptor, according to Table 7.2 below. The magnitude of change considers the magnitude, duration of effect and its extent.

Table 7.2 Determination of Significance Level

Magnitude of Change Sensitivity

High Medium Low

High Substantial Moderate/ Substantial Moderate

Medium Moderate/ Substantial Moderate Slight/ Moderate

Low Moderate Slight/ Moderate Slight

Negligible Slight Slight /Negligible Negligible

Key: Significant Not Significant

7.3.4 Technical Consultations Tina Cuss at NCC was contacted in January 2011 to discuss preliminary findings and to note that further detailed surveys were not considered necessary given the limited value of the site and the earlier 2010/2011 surveys, such as great crested newts for the area.

7.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment The scope is as stated at paragraph 7.3.2.

7.3.6 Information Gaps It is considered that surveys undertaken have provided sufficient information on which to identify features of interest and make an assessment of the nature conservation value of the site and the effects of the proposals, based on a combination of the desk study, all the surveys undertaken, the proposed development and professional judgement.

101

7.4 Baseline Conditions The following provides the site’s ecological baseline and provides an assessment of the nature conservation value and sensitivity of the receptors, based on the following assessment.

7.4.1 Desk Study Results of the desk study are illustrated on Figure 7.1 with full results presented at Appendix 7.1. Table 7.3 indicates those BAP habitats or species which are of relevance to this assessment.

Table 7.3 UK and Local BAP Species of Relevance to this Assessment

Priority Habitat or Species UK BAP LBAP

Hedgerows √ √

Great crested newt √ X

7.4.2 Designated Sites No European protected sites of nature conservation importance fall on or within 5 km of the proposed development site. No statutory designations exist on the proposed development site. One Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies within the 2 km search area and is assessed as having national nature conservation value.

• Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods (SSSI) lies approximately 2 km to the north of the site, separated from it by open agricultural land, a minor road (Back Lane), and further open land with scattered residential accommodation. No sites with non-statutory designation exist on the proposed development site. Three non- statutory sites lie within 1 km and are assessed as having County nature conservation value.

• Brampton Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS) lies approximately 750 m to the north, partially separated from the site by Back Lane with open agricultural land between;

• One provisional Wildlife Site (pWS) Desborough Lodge Woodland pWS 818 lies 800 m to the north-east, partially separated from it by the recent industrial and residential development at the Grange, as well as open agricultural land;

• The Plens, including a non-statutory Wildlife Trust Reserve lies approximately 1 km to the east of the proposed development site.

102

7.4.3 Protected and Notable Species No records of protected or notable species were supplied for the proposed development site itself. The following records were supplied for the search area:

• Badger setts and road traffic accidents were returned for the local vicinity;

• Great crested newts at two locations: 900 m to the west and over 1 km to the south of the proposed development site and separated from it by Harborough Road; • Bat species records were supplied for the local area, predominantly within Desborough itself, with the closest being a common pipistrelle record located approximately 500 m west of the site along Harborough Road; • One grass snake record over 4 km to the north east beyond Pipewell Woods;

• Numerous protected or notable bird records were returned for a variety of local sites, including the Plens and Brampton Woods; • Dormice within Brampton Woods LWS, with the closest record being over 1 km away; and • A range of notable invertebrate records within Stoke & Bowd Lane Woods, Brampton Wood and Pipewell Woods, with one record at the Plens.

7.4.4 Field Survey

Habitats The site comprises a single linear shaped area of previously cleared land, adjoining recent industrial development to the south. Habitat diversity is restricted, with the site solely comprising ruderal-dominated vegetation and some areas of scattered scrub. A hedgerow is present along the western boundary with Stoke Road. Prior to clearance in the recent past the site comprised farmland. The site is largely isolated from other semi-natural habitats, located with new industrial to the immediate east and established industry to the west. The northern extent of the site has partial connections across a Public Right of Way (PRoW) to farmland habitats to the north. No evidence of species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), such as Japanese knotweed, were recorded on the site or within the visibly accessible adjoining land.

Trees No mature or semi-mature trees were present on site.

Scrub Small areas of bramble scrub Rubus fruticosus agg. extended a short way into the site from the western boundary. Cover was not particularly dense and was discontinuous along the boundary as well as colonising gaps within the hedgerow. This habitat is limited in size and extent and has a negligible value and sensitivity due to low diversity, limited extent, and widespread presence in the wider area.

103

Tall herbs and ruderal vegetation The site comprised recently disturbed ground previously cleared as part of ground preparations for the ‘Magnetic Park’ development, which was colonising with opportunistic and ruderal and short ephemeral type vegetation. Ground cover in the northern and southern sections was at least 80 - 90% vegetated with tall herbs, shading any barer areas, although the central section had some patches which supported less than 30% cover and was generally a little shorter. Species diversity across the site was typically moderately high as would be expected for this habitat type and stage of succession, with abundant bristly ox-tongue Picris echiodes and frequently occurring creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, curled leaf dock Rumex crispus and dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg.. Occasionally occurring species included colts-foot Tussilago farfara, common vetch Vicia sativa, common mouse ear Cerastium holeostiodes, knotgrass Polygonum aviculare, and black medick Medicago lupulina. As a whole the site comprised broadly similar species. An earth embankment was present, banking upwards to the western boundary which was well vegetated and included a higher proportion of coarse grass species, including cocks-foot Dactylis glomerata, Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus and false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius. Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris and hedge woundwort Stachys sylvestris were also recorded at this margin near the hedgerow. Self set seedlings of goat willow Salix caprea were scattered in rare numbers across the site. Target Note (TN) 1 indicates an area of damp substrate at the base of the western embankment. Small patches of locally occurring hard rush Juncus inflexus and bulrush Typha latifolia were noted within the vegetation suggesting some regularity of dampness collecting at the slope’s base but there was no standing water present. Although moderately diverse and covering the whole site, this vegetation is considered to be of value at a site level only and is of negligible sensitivity, due to the presence of common and typical species, with wide distribution across the country, where it naturally colonises bare and unmanaged ground. The site was contiguous with further similar habitat forming part of the same compartment to the south, which is outside the site.

Hedgerows Only one short section of mature hedgerow was extant, located along the western boundary. The hedgerow was unmanaged to a height of 4 m and was approximately 2-3 m in width, and was becoming straggly and gappy through lack of management. Bramble scrub was colonising within the gaps. The hedgerow was isolated from other hedgerows or other habitats in the wider landscape and supported only two canopy species: snowberry Symphoriocarpos albus and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna. The hedgerow is not classed as Important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, is not of nature conservation priority (scoring -3 under HEGS ) and does not meet UK BAP criteria as it does not comprise >80% native species, hawthorn being the only native component. The hedgerow is of low sensitivity and has been assessed as having value at a site level, providing a small area of mature habitat of value to some local fauna, such as birds and small mammals.

Fauna No evidence indicating the presence or use of the site by any species protected by statute, or otherwise notable species, was recorded at the time of survey and the limited range of habitats present, which are poorly connected to the wider area reduces the potential for such species to utilise those habitats which are present.

104

Bats No potential habitat for roosting bats was recorded at the site, with no structures present providing suitability and no mature trees recorded. The single section of hedgerow was unconnected to other boundary features, reducing its potential for foraging or commuting bats. A single bat transect undertaken in September 2011 recorded only two bat passes; a commuting common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus was heard and visually recorded commuting along an off-site hedgerow just to the north of the site at 8.12pm, with a common pipistrelle contact recorded in a similar location at 7.45pm, although no visual contact was recorded. Both contacts were at the northernmost extent of the site. Surveys of the adjoining land to the north and north-east of the site undertaken by FPCR in 2010 as part of the planning application for the ‘Grange’ development recorded bats commuting and foraging on habitats within the agricultural here where there is a more favourable habitat for bats than is present at this site, including a network of hedgerows and mature trees and open grassland. No roosts were identified as part of the desk study on or adjacent to the proposed development site. Pipistrelles have been recorded throughout Desborough town itself within residential properties, with a common pipistrelle record 500 m west of the proposed development site. Common pipistrelle bats are not a UK or local BAP species. Only bat roosts receive legal protection. The lack of suitable habitat on site, with generally poor connectivity and the very small numbers of bats recorded during the bat survey suggest that the proposed development site is of negligible value and sensitivity in relation to bats.

Great crested newts As a whole site, the site provides sub-optimal terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, with ground cover unlikely to provide sheltering or hibernating habitat, except along the hedgerow base, which is largely isolated from other suitable habitat. Connections with the wider environment are limited to a partial connection to the north. Some foraging habitat may be provided by the ruderal vegetation, but is considered to be minimal. The site provides no aquatic (breeding) habitat for this species. Four ponds lie within 500 m of the site. One of these ponds (P1) was surveyed for the presence of great crested newts in 2010. These ponds are illustrated on Figure 7.3. Pond P1 was a small pond located within an arable field adjacent at the intersection of two hedgerows and located 400 m north-west of the site, partially separated from it by Stoke Road. It was partially shaded with a blanket of moss and leaf litter over much of the pond and very little open water. This pond was assessed as having good suitability for great crested newts using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), and the aquatic survey results noted that the pond supports a very small non-breeding population of great crested newts, with a peak count of one newt over the survey season. Pond 2 was a small field pond located south of Harborough Road and 400 m south east of the site. Harborough Road and the new access road along the site’s southern boundary (Eagle Avenue) boundary are considered to provide a suitable barrier to the site from any population of newts which may be present here and no surveys were therefore conducted at this pond.

105

Pond 3 was a newly constructed balancing lagoon to the south west of the site across Stoke Road, supporting no open water, although with a damp substrate. There are partial connections to the site from this pond via habitats to the north, although Stoke Road provides a barrier where it abuts the site having raised kerbs. The pond is also considered to have only limited connections to P1 supporting great crested newts, with established industrial development largely providing a barrier to movement. The pond has been assessed as having below average suitability for great crested newts, with a HSI score 0.58. Given the distance and lack of direct connections to P1, which supports only a very small population of newts, it is considered highly unlikely that newts would have colonised this pond, which does not provide potential breeding habitat. Pond 4 was another newly constructed balancing lagoon to the south-east of the site, separated from the site by new infrastructure, with hardstanding and raised kerbs providing suitable barriers to other potential newt habitats and to the site itself. This pond supported a damp substrate at its base, and was less well established than P3 and had an HSI score of 0.53, indicating below average suitability for great crested newts. It is considered highly unlikely that newts would have colonised this feature given the barriers and distance present between this and any other pond supporting great crested newts with the lack of water indicating it is unlikely to provide potential breeding habitat. Desk study records show great crested newts in the local and wider area and other work around this part of Northamptonshire also indicates this species to be quite widely present (see Figure 7.1). Great crested newts receive UK and EU statutory protection and are a UK BAP, but not LBAP priority species. It is considered that the proposed development site is of negligible value to the very small great crested newt population recorded at P1, providing only very localised discrete areas of habitat suitable for newts to use during their terrestrial phase. Other more suitable and better connected habitat is located closer to this pond off-site. Although protected by law and a UK BAP species, this species is considered to have negligible sensitivity, given the site’s limited level of value to it and the generally frequent occurrence of this species within the local area and Northamptonshire as a whole.

Reptiles The site provides only limited suitability for reptile species, with the ruderal areas providing some opportunities for basking and foraging in close proximity, although sheltering and hibernating habitat was limited. However the relatively small size and isolation of the site reduces its suitability. Potential reptile habitat is also present on the open agricultural land to the east and south of the site, where some connections are present at the northern boundary to the site. It is reasonable to assume that any reptiles, in particular grass snake which have a large hunting range, present in these habitats could also be using any suitable habitats on this site via this partial connection. Reptiles surveys were undertaken on adjacent suitable off-site habitats in 2008 (habitats in these areas remain unchanged in 2012) to the north of the site, during which no reptiles were recorded. Only one record was returned for reptile species as part of the desktop survey, being a grass snake Natrix natrix, 4 km north east of the proposed development site close to Pipewell Woods. It is therefore considered highly unlikely that reptiles would be using the proposed development site and it is considered to be of negligible value and sensitivity to reptile species.

106

Breeding birds The site is considered to provide limited potential for breeding birds. The main site area was not considered to provide potential ground nesting habitat, with only the short section of hedgerow providing other potential nesting habitat. No evidence of nesting birds was recorded within this hedgerow. Desk study records indicate a number of notable red and amber listed species within the local area using habitats which are generally not present on the proposed development site. It is considered that the site is of limited value to nesting birds and is of negligible sensitivity, given the small extent of potential habitat and the abundance of more suitable habitat off-site in the local and wider area.

Over wintering birds The site is considered to provide limited habitat for overwintering birds and has negligible value and sensitivity to wintering birds.

Badgers The site provides limited potential habitat for badgers. No evidence of this species was recorded on site or within 30 m of it on accessible habitat, although surveys in 2010 and desk study records indicate that badgers use land to the east. This site is of negligible value and sensitivity to badgers.

Invertebrates The site provides sub-optimal habitat for invertebrate species, lacking the structural diversity preferred by invertebrates. It may however provide some localised habitat for a small number of locally notable or scarce invertebrates foraging within the ruderal species, but it is considered that such species would not be present in significant numbers. It has a largely homogenous vegetative structure, with only a small area in the central section, where there was a slightly shorter sward and less dense cover. Due to the lack of management, this area will quickly become vegetated, further decreasing its value to invertebrates, which prefer a habitat mosaic which includes bare ground (bare ground being important as it heats up quickly and provides nesting and burrowing habitat) combined with early succession stages of vegetative growth. Invertebrates, in particular bees and butterflies, prefer sites where there is also a greater abundance of wildflowers as a foraging source than was recorded at this site. The site itself, largely comprising a single flat area, does not have a diverse or interesting topography which would provide a range of macro and micro-habitats of value to a wider range of invertebrates and for different life-cycle stages. The only feature present was an earth bank along the western boundary which was well vegetated by grass species. Although this was south facing, vegetative cover comprised established coarse grass species, reducing its invertebrate interest. Furthermore, the proposed development site is small in extent and located at the edge of open farmland and urban development, which also provides limited potential habitat for a diverse range of invertebrates. Prior to clearance the site comprised agricultural land, as did the recently constructed industrial and residential development nearby which was similar to the farmland currently found to the north and north-east of the site. It is therefore considered unlikely that it would support any diverse relic population of brownfield specialist invertebrates which might remain on this small site, had both it and the now developed wider area formed a larger extent of long abandoned and more structurally diverse brownfield development historically.

107

Desk study records indicated a number of notable moth and butterfly species, all located at least 1 km from the site, with a range of UK BAP priority moth and butterfly species records within Brampton, Stoke and Bowd Lane Woods and Pipewell Woods, with one record for The Plens (see Figure 7.1). A nationally notable beetle and a nationally notable true fly species were also recorded within Stoke Woods SSSI. Similar habitats are not present on the proposed development site. The site is assessed as being value at site level at most to invertebrates and is of low sensitivity, with the botanical species which provide potential foraging and cover for invertebrates during their life cycles, being typically opportunistic plants which will readily colonise any cleared and unmanaged land.

Other species No evidence of other species protected by statute or otherwise notable was recorded at the site, which is largely considered to be unsuitable for other species not mentioned above. Other notable desk study records for the 2 km search area include records for brown hare in the wider area, approximately 2.5 km west; dormice within Brampton and Stoke Woods, with the closest record being 1.5 km from the northern boundary. Habitats suitable for these species are not present on the proposed development site.

7.4.5 Summary of Identified Valued Ecological Receptors A summary of the valued ecological receptors as identified above and their nature conservation value is provided in the table below.

Table 7.4 Summary of Nature Conservation Value

Valued Comments Approximate Nature Ecological Extent (ha) Conservation Receptor Value

Stoke & Bowd Lane 1.75 and 2.5 km north of site. Broadleaved 36.6 National Wood SSSI woodland. Supports notable butterfly species.

Pipewell Woods 3.5km west of site. Broadleaved woodland. Supports 81 National SSSI notable butterfly and moth species.

Brampton Wood 0.75km north. Broadleaved woodland. Supports County LWS several protected and notable fauna species.

Desborough Lodge 1.1km north east of site. Mixed woodland. 3.3 County Woodland - pWS

The Plens and 900 metres west of site. Scrub, grassland and good associated Wildlife - County bird diversity. Supports one notable butterfly. Trust Reserve

All over 1.5km from site Other LWS - County Various woodland, grassland and wetland habitats

108

Table 7.4 (continued) Summary of Nature Conservation Value

Valued Comments Approximate Nature Ecological Extent (ha) Conservation Receptor Value

Largely homogenous cover across whole site, moderate species diversity of mainly opportunistic and competitive species. All common and typical of Ruderal vegetation habitat type. Two small discrete areas of damp 1.8ha Site ground at base of embankment. Embankment increasingly colonised by coarse grasses and ruderal herbs less dominant.

Short section of unmanaged species poor hedgerow Hedgerow 200m Site (including one non-native species)

Site suboptimal due to lack of structural diversity and homogeneity of topography and vegetation; small size, recent clearance and prior use as farmland, located within developed and/or farmland context. Invertebrates May provide some localised interest to some - Site species.

Notable species present in wider area within woodland habitats, no similar habitat on site.

One very small Great crested newts recorded in one off site ponds non-breeding 500 metres from the site. Limited terrestrial habitat population Great crested newts extant. No breeding habitat on site. Site is unlikely to Negligible recorded 400 be of particular value to this species. Protected by metres from EU and UK law. UK BAP priority species. site

Very low numbers (2) of pipistrelle bats recorded using far north of site. Limited foraging or commuting Bats – foraging habitat present. No roosting habitat. All bat roosts 1 species Negligible protected under EU and UK law. Not a UK or local BAP species.

Limited suitable habitat and no evidence recorded.

Badgers Badgers present in local and wider area. Negligible

Protected by UK law. -

Potential habitat limited to hedgerow section present Breeding birds only. No evidence of nesting recorded. Not suitable - Negligible for ground nesting birds.

Winter birds Habitat not suitable. - Negligible

Scattered Scrub Scattered bramble scrub along western boundary. - Negligible

7.5 Proposed Mitigation Data concerning predicted emission levels and their effects on designated nature conservation sites has been collected as part of the air quality assessment and obtained from the standard predictive modelling techniques applied for this site and plant type/ process. For full details of the air quality assessment and its effects please refer to Chapter 11: Air Quality. A summary of the key findings in relation biodiversity and ecology is presented here.

109

7.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects Given the overall limited nature conservation value of the site and the flora and fauna using it, no direct significant effects on ecological features at the site requiring mitigation are anticipated. Potential adverse significant indirect effects could however be expected during the operation of the Energy Centre on sites designated for their nature conservation interest, from a national (statutory) to a county (non-statutory) level without mitigation, as a result of changes in air quality affecting the features of interest for which they were designated. A zone of influence of 2 km has been anticipated from this EfW facility in accordance with published Environment Agency guidance on air quality. Such potential effects could include deterioration of habitat quality and overall health as a result the deposition of particulate matter on flora and a decrease in the air quality and through increased concentrations of atmospheric pollutants. Effects would be both short and long term for those receptors in the expected zone of influence and could be a mix of reversible and irreversible effects depending on the timescales. They would be expected to affect all of the potential receptors within the 2 km zone. The EfW facility at the Magnetic Park Energy Centre has been designed to minimise all emissions from the outset to an acceptable level within the limits set by EC Directive 2000/76/EC for the incineration of waste. Design features are described in detailed elsewhere within the Environmental Statement (see Chapter 2) and Design and Access Statement. In summary, measures to mitigate potential significant effects of air pollutants on the surrounding nature conservation features include: the treatment of arising waste gaseous emissions to reduce pollutant content through use of flue gas recirculation only prior to emission into the atmosphere via the flue stack; optimal flue stack height for dispersion; the transfer of arising solid waste products (including fly ash and filter residues) via sealed piping into HGVs for off-site disposal in accordance with statutory regulations; and the use of an emergency shutdown system to secure the plant in the event of an emergency to avoid damage to the environment. A monitoring system will ensure flue stack emissions remain within recommended limits.

7.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 7.5 lists the receptors that could be affected by the proposed development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects on ecological receptors. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows:

• High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment;

110

Table 7.5 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Potential Incorporated Mitigation Likely Effects Effectiveness

All (2) statutory SSSI Poor overall tree health; abnormal Design and implementation of High designations within growth and branching; die back and all processes, systems and 2km crown reduction; leaf discolouration. plant to achieve emission limits Decreased tolerance of external set by European and UK All (9) LWS; pWS and stress factors (e.g. drought, frost). legislation and national and Wildlife Trust Decrease in quality and growth of local policy with respect to air Reserves within 2km bryophytes and ground flora; quality standards. increased euotrophication (nutrient enrichment leading to increases in nutrient tolerant and competitive species of less floristic value.

7.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects A number of other measures are recommended to mitigate to possible other effects which are not significant. These are described below.

Habitats Landscape proposals will create strengthened boundary corridors around the whole site, with a small range of native habitats created, including species rich (wildflower) grassland similar to a traditional hay meadow (MG5 type Cynosaurus cristatus – Centaurea nigra or similar); native shrub, tree and hedgerow planting close to the margins and at the northern and southern extents of the site; in addition more formal areas of shrub and tree planting will be created within the more central areas where possible. The increased diversity of habitats will increase the inherent biodiversity value of the site, despite their relatively small size. They will also provide enhanced linkages with off-site habitats in the local area and to the north in particular, helping to contribute to the overall functioning and role of the strategic sub-regional green corridor which this site lies in.

Great Crested Newts Whilst it is considered reasonably unlikely that great crested newts use the site, given its distance from the nearest pond supporting this species (approximately 500 m) and the overall lack of suitability this site offers, some small areas of habitat which have the potential to be used by very low numbers of newts are present. Loss of the habitat as result of construction is not considered to be significant and would not affect the favourable conservation status of this species. Great crested newts are however protected from harm by law under the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and as best practice due care will be taken in clearing suitable habitats, to ensure that this species is not inadvertently harmed during clearance. Mitigation will therefore involve the clearance of potential habitat (hedgerow bases and rootballs, damp areas and earth mounds) outside of the newt hibernating season (typically November – February inclusive). Hedgerow bases will be grubbed under supervision of an ecologist, with the upper layers of the earth mounds hand searched by an ecologist and cleared with care. The two small damp areas will be carefully scraped to a depth of 50 mm under ecologist supervision. In the unlikely event that a great crested newt is observed during these or any other works, works in the area will cease and FPCR or other relevant body will be contacted for advice. No potential refugia for great crested

111

newts will be created during construction adjacent to potential off-site habitats, with all rubble, loose top soil piles or materials stored away from the northern boundary, where links exist to suitable off-site habitats. Dead wood piles created within native scrub areas and/or at the interface between native hedgerows and informal grassland would provide additional habitat for amphibians and other herpetofauna generally.

Breeding Birds The single hedgerow provides potential habitat for nesting birds and may be lost during construction. All birds, including eggs and fledgling young are protected whilst on the nest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This habitat will therefore be removed outside of the nesting season (typically March – August inclusive) to avoid effects on nesting birds. Where this is not possible within work programmes and given the constraints of hedgerow rootball removal during the newt hibernating season, the hedgerow will either be checked for the presence of nesting birds by an ecologist prior to removal during the nesting season (and therefore outside of the newt hibernating season), or the canopy will removed over winter to approximately 50 cm above ground level, with the root balls grubbed out under supervision as above, once the newt hibernating season is over. The incorporation of bird boxes at the Visitor Centre would provide additional nesting habitat, particularly whilst the landscaping scheme matures.

Bats Overall design has incorporated a number of features to provide biodiversity mitigation and benefits once the site is operational. The site was considered to be of negligible interest to local bats, however, the new landscaping will provide enhanced habitats for foraging and commuting bats along the new boundary features along Stoke Road in particular. In order to minimise the potential adverse effects of artificial lighting on the local bat population once operational, lighting will be used only where absolutely necessary for health and safety/ security purposes and will be the minimum power required for its given purpose. Lighting will be downwardly directional, minimising light spill onto potential bat habitat. The site access will be located off Eagle Avenue to the south of the site. This boundary will not provide a key foraging route for bats, largely comprising amenity grass with scattered trees. Potential for bat collisions by foraging bats with any nocturnal vehicles using this access is therefore limited, with the western boundary providing a more valuable foraging and commuting feature. Any effects are therefore considered to be negligible. The incorporation of bat boxes/ bricks into the Visitor Centre will provide new roosting opportunities close to the local population of bats using habitats to the north of the proposed development site.

Other Dead wood piles created within native scrub areas and/or at the interface between native hedgerows and informal grassland would provide additional habitat for saproxylic invertebrate species. The provision of a number of insect houses adjacent to potential new habitat areas will increase opportunities for invertebrate species at the site.

112

Table 7.6 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Likely Potential Effects Effectiveness

All existing Total loss Wider range of new habitats created as part of soft High certainty habitats (ruderal landscaping scheme, enhancing links to existing vegetation, off-site habitats. scattered scrub and short hedgerow)

All retained or Decrease of habitat Best practice procedures, including damping down, High certainty adjacent habitats quality during safe storage and contamination/spill containment construction methods as well as emergency procedures. Retained habitats delineated by appropriate fencing, such as Heras or post and rail fencing, maintained in a good state of repair to ensure no accidental encroachment into these areas.

Great crested Potential harm to Clearance works of suitable habitats will be High certainty newts individuals during site programmed for outside of hibernating season with clearance. careful work practices to ensure no adverse effects on great crested newts

Breeding birds Potential harm to Clearance works of suitable habitats will be High certainty nesting birds during programmed for outside of breeding season and/or breeding season careful work practices to ensure no adverse effects

Bats Potential disturbance Appropriate design of lighting systems to minimise High certainty once external lighting effects of spill and illumination. regimes in place during operation

7.6 Assessment of Effects: Designated Sites

7.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase All designated sites at a local or national level are located at least 750 m from the proposed development site and are physically remote from it. There are expected to be no adverse effects on any such site as a result of the construction of the site.

7.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase Once operational, as an employment facility the Energy Centre would not be expected to create any increased visitor pressure at any designated site and there would be no associated effects on these as a result of development. Whilst the new Visitor Centre has some potential to increase visitor pressure at these sites, it is anticipated that any increase would be small and there would be negligible effects on these designated sites as result of development. A total of 11 statutory and non-statutory nature conservation designations lie within 2 km of the site and were identified within the Air Quality assessment (Chapter 11) as having the potential to be affected by deteriorating air quality once the site is operational. These are listed in the table below.

113

Table 7.7 Potential Ecological Receptors

Name Designation

Stoke & Bowd P1 SSSI

Stoke & Bowd P2 SSSI

Pipewell Woods SSSI

Alder Wood & Meadow SSSI

Brampton Wood LWS

The Plens LWS

Gultney Wood Ancient Woodland

11 Acre Spinney LWS

Tailby Meadow LWS

Rothwell Gullet LWS

Hermitage Wood Ancient Woodland

West Lodge Quarry LWS

The Air Quality assessment has identified the following pollutants as potentially affecting flora and fauna at the designated sites: • Nitrous oxides (NOx);

• Acid Gas (SO2 ); • Hydrogen Flouride (HF);

• Deposited Nutrient Nitrogen (N); and

• Deposited acid. Detailed information and calculated figures relating to effects of air quality as a result of the development are supplied within Chapter 11 Air Quality Assessment. A summary of this assessment is presented below.

For gaseous emissions from the EfW facility (NOx; SO2; HF), process contributions (actual emissions) and the Predicted Environmental Concentrations were within acceptable limits and not above the critical levels (Air Quality Standards) for these pollutants for all the receptors identified. Taking into account existing background pollutant levels at each receptor, all increases were considered to be insignificant and no adverse residual effects would be expected. Process contributions from the EfW facility for both deposited nitrogen and acid rates were predicted to be within acceptable limits. However taking into account existing background levels both pollutants would exceed the upper and lower critical loads at all receptors. Existing deposition rates at all sites is currently above the upper critical load and the cumulative increases in each identified by the air quality modelling is considered unlikely to create a discernable effect on the receptors quality or integrity above any decline already experienced. The residual effects were therefore not considered significant.

114

7.7 Assessment of Effects: Habitats and Flora

7.7.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Construction will lead to the inevitable permanent and total loss of all habitats and flora within the site of proposed development. Given the low value and sensitivity of these features, these effects are considered to be not significant. Following the implementation of mitigation as described to protect retained and adjoining habitats, there will be no residual effects on such habitats during the construction phase.

7.7.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase Once operational, the landscape scheme for the site (see Chapter 9 and Figure 9.15 for details) will lead to minor positive residual effects in the long term, with a more diverse range of habitats present around the site boundaries. This will create a wider habitat corridor around the site than currently present and provide more effective links with off-site habitats to the north in particular. New habitats will be managed to maximise their biodiversity value and ensure their long term health and viability. Beneficial, although not significant, residual effects are expected to be at a site, and possibly local level for habitats and flora. A small area of new planting could be lost in the future to accommodate a potential new access road to the adjoining land parcel to the south, should this be developed in the future. The effects of this loss are not considered significant and will be compensated for at the appropriate time by the proposals for any development in this area.

7.8 Assessment of Effects: Bats

7.8.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Given the low level of usage of the site by bats, with no roosting habitat and only limited foraging habitat there are considered to be no effects on bats during construction.

7.8.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase Upon maturation the new habitats created around the boundaries of the site will extend potential commuting and foraging corridors for bat species from suitable linear features to the north of the site in particular. Residual effects will be of site level benefit to species and are not significant.

7.9 Assessment of Effects: Great Crested Newts

7.9.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Following mitigation there are expected to be no significant adverse effects on the small local population of great crested newts during the construction phase.

115

7.9.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase New habitats will provide potential new movement corridors, foraging and sheltering habitat around the site boundaries which may potentially be used by small numbers of great crested newts present in the wider area. These beneficial effects are not significant, but will be of value at a site, possibly local level.

7.10 Assessment of Effects: Invertebrates

7.10.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Site clearance will lead to the loss of habitat which may be used by a small number of invertebrate species. The site is not considered likely to support a significant invertebrate population, given its general sub-optimal nature for invertebrate species. The low level of value and sensitivity of the site for invertebrate species means that the loss, which may be adverse at a site level for those invertebrates which may be attracted by the plant species currently present, is not considered to be significant, given that this habitat is widely distributed and quick to establish naturally on bare ground.

7.10.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase New habitats will provide a smaller area, but more diverse range of habitats including species rich grassland and scrub planting which will be of localised interest to other invertebrate species in the area, which prefer these habitats. These residual effects are not significant, but will be of minor biodiversity value.

7.11 Assessment of Effects: Other fauna

7.11.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Following mitigation there are expected to be no significant adverse effects during construction on any other fauna such as breeding birds, which may be using the site.

7.11.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase New habitats will provide potential new movement corridors, foraging, nesting and sheltering habitat around the site boundaries, linked to suitable habitats off-site which have the potential to be used by a range of other fauna, including breeding birds, other small mammals and herpetofauna generally. These beneficial residual effects are not significant, but will be of value at a site level.

7.12 Cumulative Effects Potential cumulative effects on ecological receptors have been considered in Chapter 14: Cumulative Effects, where it has been concluded that no significant effects will occur as a result of the proposed development.

116

7.13 Summary of Predicted Effects The following presents a summary of the identified effects on flora and fauna at the site.

Table 7.8 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Stoke & Bowd Lane Woods; Certain High Low Not significant There are no significant effects on these sites as a result of Pipewell Woods; Alder Wood & changes in air quality once the site is operational as design Meadow SSSI ensures legislative compliance, monitoring and emergency procedures.

Predictive modelling indicates increased pollutant levels below critical levels when considered in context of existing levels, or considered to be small enough to be insignificant in the context of already increased critical loads for deposition.

All LWS and pWS Certain Medium Low Not significant There are no significant effects on these sites as a result of changes in air quality once the site is operational.

All existing habitats Certain Low High Not significant All habitats to be lost are considered to be of limited ecological value and easily replaceable. Only common and typical species recorded.

117

Table 7.8 (continued) Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Great crested newts Certain Low Low Not significant Potential habitats sub-optimal and small in extent. Partially isolated and at distance from very small known population. Unlikely to be using site. Great crested newts widely present in local and wider area.

There will be no effects on the favourable conservation status of newts through habitat loss.

Disturbance effects during construction will be minimised through site programming.

Bats Certain Low Low Not significant Site used by low numbers of pipistrelle species in northern section only. Limited suitable habitat on site. No roosts present.

There will be no effects on the favourable conservation status of bats through habitat loss.

Disturbance effects of new lighting regimes once operation will be minimised through design.

Reptiles Certain Low Low Not significant Site of limited value to this species. Surveys on adjoining land did not record reptiles.

Breeding birds Certain Low Low Not significant Site of limited value with little potential breeding habitat.

Habitat loss would not affect breeding status of any local bird population.

Disturbance effects during construction will be minimised through site programming. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

118

7.14 Implementation of Mitigation Measures

Table 7.9 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism

Appropriate site clearance and timing to avoid Origin / Appointed Planning condition ecologically sensitive seasons contractor and appointed ecologists

Plant design, implementation and processing Origin Legal consents and legislation including monitoring

Landscape planting creation Origin Planning condition

Landscape planting management Origin / appointed Planning condition contractors

7.15 Technical References 1. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: a technique for environmental audit; JNCC; 2010 2. Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside website (www.magic.defra.gov.uk) 3. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment; Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM); 2006 4. Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment; Institute for Environmental Assessment (IEMA); 1995 5. National Planning Policy Framework; Department of Communities and Local Government; March 2012 and associated Circular Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, ODPM Circular 06/2005; 6. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; 2008 7. Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan; 2008 8. Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) for the East Midlands; Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM); March 2009 9. East Midlands Regional Environment Strategy, East Midlands Regional Assembly, adopted August 2002 10. North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, adopted June 2008 11. Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, adopted February 2009

119

12. Northamptonshire Environmental Character and Green Infrastructure Suite, Launched November 2006: 13. Local Plan for Kettering Borough, adopted 30th January, 1995 - saved policies 14. Open Space Supplementary Planning Document, Kettering Borough Council, adopted September 2008 15. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; ODPM; 2006 16. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); ODPM; 2010 17. Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System; Clements and Toft; 1993 18. Hedgerow Regulations SI 1160; ODPM; 1997 19. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); ODPM; 2010

120

121

8. Cultural Heritage

8.1 Introduction This chapter assesses the potential effects on archaeology and cultural heritage from the proposed development. The chapter should be read in light of the project description in Chapter 2. The objective of the assessment is to identify, evaluate and produce recommendations for further assessment and mitigation on the known and suspected archaeological remains, historic buildings and historic landscapes. The chapter has been produced by University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS) and is based on the evidence compiled in a desk-based assessment also prepared by ULAS (Hunt 2011). The chapter describes the assessment methodology, the baseline conditions currently existing at the site and surroundings and outlines mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects. The effects after these measures have been employed are also considered.

8.2 Context

8.2.1 Relevant Terminology There are a number of key terms that have been referred to in this chapter. For ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows: Cultural Heritage: Resources and material remains that our ancestors have created in the landscapes of town and countryside. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places over time. Cultural heritage guidance identifies three distinct subtopics - archaeological remains (including artefacts, field monuments, structures and landscape features either visible or buried), historic buildings (built heritage with a significant historic value of any date) and historic landscapes (including countryside, townscapes, industrial landscapes and designed landscapes such as parks and gardens). For the purposes of this ES Cultural Heritage is synonymous with Historic Environment. Designated Assets: These are heritage assets that have a formal protection by legal statute. This includes World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected wreck sites, Conservation areas, Registered Parks and Gardens. Registered Battlefields are designated by English Heritage on a non-statutory basis. Desk-based Assessment: a data collection and analysis exercise to identify relevant known cultural heritage resources, utilising existing sources of cultural heritage data. Heritage Assets: Elements of the historic environment that have value over and above their functional utility because of their contribution to society, knowledge and/or culture. This term

122

embraces all manner of features, including buildings, parks and gardens, standing, buried and submerged remains, areas, sites and landscapes, whether designated or not and whether or not capable of designation. Historic Environment: See Cultural Heritage. Historic Landscape Character: The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape shaped by human activity, and how this is perceived by people. They vary widely in character. Setting: Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral. Significance: Significance sums-up the qualities that make an otherwise ordinary place a heritage asset. The significance of a heritage asset is the sum of its architectural, historic, artistic or archaeological interest.

8.2.2 Technical Context The proposed development site lies to the east of Stoke Road to the north of Desborough. The site consists of a narrow strip of land, oriented broadly north-east to south-west, which lies along the eastern side of the B669 Stoke Road and adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Warehouse, approximately 1 mile (1.5 km) north of the town centre of Desborough at National Grid Reference SP 799 844. The development site comprises around 1.68 hectares and is currently vacant, having been prepared for development as part of the regeneration of land known as ‘The Grange’. The study area for the desk based assessment was 1.5 km surrounding the development site. Searches were undertaken for designated assets (e.g. Scheduled Monuments (SM), World Heritage Sites, Registered Battlefields and Registered Parks and Gardens) within a 5 km radius.

8.2.3 Planning and Guidance

Statutory Legislation The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 provides statutory protection for monuments of national importance (Scheduled Monuments or SMs) whilst the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides statutory protection for buildings on a list compiled by the Secretary of State. Other statutory protection for cultural heritage includes the Treasure Act 1996 and the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

National Non-Statutory Policies Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5): Planning for the Historic Environment and associated guidance (March 2010), sets out the Government's planning policies on the historic environment. The policy draws together all elements of the historic environment under the term ‘heritage assets’ whether designated or not and whether or not capable of being designated. Policy HE6.1 requires applicants to provide a description of the significance of all heritage assets affected by a scheme (including impacts to their setting). National legislation and policies are outlined in Table 8.1.

123

Table 8.1 National Legislation and Policy Context

Policy/Legislation Key Provisions

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological It is a criminal offence to carry out any works on or near to a Scheduled Areas Act 1979 Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Listed Building Consent is required for the demolition of a listed building or Conservation Areas) Act 1990 any alteration which would affect its historic or architectural character.

It also provides controls over demolition in designated Conservation Areas.

Historic Buildings and Ancient Historic Parks and Gardens are protected under this act. Monuments Act 1953

Treasure Act 1996 The Act defines what constitutes ‘treasure’. It states that treasure and associated objects must be reported to the local coroner.

Hedgerow Regulations 1997 This allows for the prevention of the removal of a hedgerow considered important on the grounds of historical or archaeological value or association.

Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) PPS5 sets out the Government's planning policies on the historic and associated guidance, March 2010 environment and emphasises the importance of the ‘Significance’ of a heritage asset and its setting to planning decisions.

Policy HE6.1 requires applicants to provide a description of the significance of all heritage assets affected by a scheme (including impacts to their setting).

Regional and Local Policies There are no local policies that are likely to impact on the assessment area.

Guidance Guidance relevant to, and used for, this assessment includes: • Codes of Conduct (Institute for Archaeologists 2010);

• Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessments (Institute for Archaeologists 2011); • Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluations (Institute for Archaeologists 2009); • Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Watching Briefs (Institute for Archaeologists 2008);

• Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation (Institute for Archaeologists 2008);

• Standard and Guidance for the Archaeological Investigation and Recording of Standing Buildings or Structures (Institute for Archaeologists 2008);

• Standard and Guidance for the Collection, Documentation, Conservation and Research of Archaeological Materials (Institute for Archaeologists 2008); • Standard and guidance for the creation, compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological archives (Institute for Archaeologists, Draft 2008);

124

• Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2 English Heritage 1991); and

• Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MoRPHE, English Heritage 2006).

8.3 Assessment Approach

8.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work A desk-based assessment of the study area has been compiled (Hunt 2011) to inform this assessment. The information arising from this study has been used to assess the potential effects of the proposed development on known cultural heritage assets within the area. The following data sources have been consulted in order to establish the baseline archaeological and historic conditions in the area:

• Historic Environment Record (HER) (previously Sites and Monuments Record (SMR)) for Northamptonshire;

• National Monuments Record (NMR);

• Rockingham Forest Project (http://resource.rockingham-forest-trust.org.uk);

• MAGIC (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/website/magic/);

• English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens; • English Heritage Register of Battlefields;

• Defence of Britain Database;

• World Heritage Sites (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list);

• Cartographic sources (Ordnance Survey historic maps, enclosure and tithe awards, geological maps); • Historic background material (documentary sources and previous work available from ULAS, local libraries and the records office); • Walkover Survey; and

• Consultations with English Heritage and the Northamptonshire Archaeological Advisor. All work follows the Institute for Archaeologist’s Code of Conduct (2010) and adheres to their Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-based Assessments (2011).

8.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment The content of this Cultural Heritage Assessment has been guided by Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to procedures (DCLG, 2000) and guidance in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2: Cultural Heritage (Highways Agency 208/02) and The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage, 2011).

125

Cultural heritage guidance identifies three distinct subtopics; archaeological remains (including artefacts, field monuments, structures and landscape features either visible or buried), historic buildings (built heritage with a significant historic value of any date) and historic landscapes (including countryside, townscapes, industrial landscapes and designed landscapes such as parks and gardens). Each of these receptors is considered in this assessment.

8.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology

Sensitivity of the Heritage Assets The value of an archaeological or historic resource can be assessed using a scale of criteria from Low to High as set out in Table 8.2. As historic and archaeological remains can be difficult to determine and assess without intrusive fieldwork there is also the option for them to categorised as Unknown.

Table 8.2 Sensitivity/ Value of the Cultural Heritage Assets

Receptor Sensitivity/ Description Importance

Very High Assets of acknowledge international importance or that can contribute significantly acknowledged research objectives.

For example World Heritage Sites, structures or landscapes of international importance.

High Assets of national importance or that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives.

For example Scheduled Monuments, Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas containing very important buildings, landscapes of outstanding interest or exceptional preservation.

Medium Designated or undesignated assets of acknowledged local importance or that contribute to regional research objectives.

For example Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute to historic character, historic townscapes, landscapes of regional sensitivity.

Low Designated and undesignated assets of local importance or with potential to contribute to local research objectives.

For example assets compromised by poor preservation, historic (unlisted) buildings, historic townscapes of limited historic integrity, historic landscapes with importance to local interest groups.

Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest.

Unknown Assets where the importance of the resource is hidden or cannot been ascertained.

Magnitude of Change The Magnitude of an effect is based on the extent to which elements of the heritage asset is changed by the scheme. Effects on the cultural heritage can be positive (Beneficial) or negative (Adverse) and can be assessed on a scale from High to Negligible as set out in Table 8.3. The magnitude of change does not take into account the value of the resource (e.g. the destruction of a Low Value site is the same magnitude as that of a High Value site). Consideration is also given to whether effects are direct or indirect, temporary or permanent.

126

Table 8.3 Definition of Magnitude Table

Magnitude Definition

High Change to most or all key elements, such that the resource being totally altered.

Extreme visual or aural effects.

Comprehensive changes to setting or character.

Medium Changes to many key elements, such that the resource is clearly modified.

Visual or aural change to key aspects.

Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset.

Low Change to key elements, such that the asset is slightly altered.

Slight visual or aural changes.

Slight change to setting.

Negligible Very minor changes to elements or setting.

Very slight visual or aural changes.

No change No change to elements.

Assessment of the Significance of Effects The significance is assessed using judgements regarding value, magnitude and significance of effect that are reasonable and balanced. Effects are considered to be significant, or not significant according to the matrix set out in Table 8.4.

Table 8.4 Significance of Effects

Magnitude of Change Sensitivity

High Medium Low

Very High Very Substantial Substantial Moderate/Substantial

High Substantial Moderate/Substantial Moderate

Medium Moderate/Substantial Moderate Slight/Moderate

Low Moderate Slight/Moderate Slight

Negligible Slight Slight/Negligible Negligible

Key: Significant Not Significant

8.3.4 Technical Consultations The Northamptonshire County Archaeological Advisor was consulted on 7 March 2012 and commented by email and letter (dated 7 March 2012) as follows:

127

“The scoping technical note 5.8 Cultural Heritage indicates that an archaeological desk based assessment will be produced. I assume that the information within this document will demonstrate that the site has a low archaeological potential and that no further archaeological investigation will be required as part of the EIA.” English Heritage commented on the need for a full assessment of the impact on all designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting particularly on the Anglican and Methodist Grade I listed Church of St Giles (letter dated 7 March 2012).

8.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment Following the consultations an assessment of potential effects on the following receptors has been undertaken based on the results of the desk-based assessment: • Archaeological Remains: There are 43 archaeological sites listed on the HER within the study area. There are six Scheduled Monuments within 5 km of the site; • Historic Buildings: There are eight listed buildings within Desborough either within or south of the Conservation Area; • Historic Landscapes: The Rockingham Forest Project identified a number of enclosed fields to the east of the site. The development site itself has been disturbed and exists within an industrial setting. A list of the assessed receptors is presented in Tables 8.5 and 8.6.

8.3.6 Information Gaps The assessment of the archaeological potential of the proposed development site is based on limited investigation that took place within it in 2007 and on records of known sites in the vicinity held by the Northamptonshire HER. Data from the HER and NMR consists of secondary information derived from various sources, many of which are old or vague in nature. In addition the archaeological resource is by its nature an incomplete record. Owing to the buried nature of most archaeological sites, there is always uncertainty regarding the survival, condition, nature and extent of the known identified sites. Where there are significant alluvial/ colluvial deposits, made ground or lack of archaeological fieldwork in an area, archaeological remains can remain undetected. Local knowledge has been utilised to assess the resources within the study area and to identify and assess areas of potential archaeological remains.

8.4 Baseline Conditions The description of the baseline conditions is based on information collated for the desk-based assessment (Hunt 2011). All the sites described below are shown on Figure 8.1.

128

8.4.1 Designated Features There are no designated heritage assets, either archaeological sites or historic buildings, within the site of proposed development.

8.4.2 On-site Features There are no known archaeological remains within the site of proposed development. The land has been stripped and only bare soil (which has been partially re-colonised by wild flowers and weeds) remains. There are no obvious signs of the buildings that previously occupied the site, but there is considerable disturbance from machinery. An archaeological watching brief was carried out on the northern and southern edges of the site by Northamptonshire Archaeology in 2007 (Jones 2007). The observations recorded no evidence of archaeological activity.

8.4.3 Archaeological Finds in the Surrounding Area There are no scheduled monuments (SMs), historic parks and gardens or battlefield sites within the proposed development or the immediate vicinity (within 2.5 km). There are six SMs within 5 km of the development area. These are a round barrow west of Pipewell (approx. 2.7 km to the north-east), Braybrooke Castle (approx. 3 km to the west), Rushden Triangular Lodge (approx. 3.4 km to the south-east), Stoke Albany Moated Site (approx. 3.6 km to the north), Pipewell Cistercian Abbey (approx. 4.2 km to the north-east) and the site of a manor house at Harrington (approx. 4.9 km to the south-west). A number of non-designated sites and findspots have been recorded in the vicinity and the following summarises the generalised archaeological potential of the surrounding area. These are summarised in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5 Known Archaeological Features

Reference No. Description Approx. Distance From Site Where Known

NN96/ 1003896 SM: Round barrow west of Pipewell. 2.6 km

21674/ 1016318 SM: Braybrooke Castle: the remains of a medieval moated manor and 3 km medieval settlement remains.

17159/ 1013826 SM: Rushden Triangular Lodge: an Elizabethan warrener's lodge and 3.4 km rabbit warren.

13629/ 1012162 SM: Stoke Albany moated site and fishponds. 3.6 km

30075/ 1017189 SM: Cistercian Abbey and medieval settlement at Pipewell. 4 km

NN133/1003875 SM: Site of manor house at Harrington. 5 km

NMR_NATINV-1029548 A Neolithic polished stone axe was found in a private garden. 1 km

NMR_NATINV-343944) Bronze Age to Anglo-Saxon finds including the ‘Desborough Mirror’ 1.5 km were recovered during ironstone workings. The Desborough bronze mirror is an outstanding example of Celtic art decorated in the 'La Tene' style and is now on display in the British Museum.

129

Table 8.5 (continued) Known Archaeological Features

Reference No. Description Approx. Distance From Site Where Known

NMR_NATINV-346082 Bronze Age pottery, possibly indicative of cremations, found in 1 km Paddock Lane in 1911.

NMR_NATINV-346083 Bronze Age pottery found within the area of Desborough. 1 km

4012 - MNN5730 Possible Roman settlement. 850 m

MNN15380 Possible Roman cemetery. 1.2 km

MNN23861 Roman burials. 1.2 km

MNN33030 Roman finds. 900 m

NMR_NATINV-343954 Roman coin found. -

NMR_NATINV-346107 A Roman building or structure, possibly a latrine, was identified during - iron working in 1874.

MNN136852 Unlocated Saxon Cemetery. 350 m?

MNN136851 Saxon Burials With Finds. 350 m?

NMR_NATINV-346097 Early Medieval inhumations and cremations, some with grave goods, - found in Desborough Parish.

MNN136853 Unlocated Saxon Cemetery. -

MNN133620 Open Fields Project: Areas of Survival of Ridge & Furrow. 960 m

NMR_NATINV-346097 Early Medieval inhumations and cremations, some with grave goods, ? found in the Desborough parish (location unclear).

MNN1545 Possible activity post medieval agricultural. 1.15 km

MNN142251 Post Medieval activity. 1.2 km

MNN23841 Possible post medieval rabbit warren. 1.15 km

MNN114214 Little Wood Close. 580 m

MNN114209 Great Wood Close. 340 m

MNN142249 Ironstone Quarry. 990 m

MNN142248 Smith/Walters Quarry? -

MNN36199 Ironstone mine 795 m

MNN17325 Wells/ Wheldon Quarry? 1.06 km

MNN7743 Desborough Quarries - Early Quarries (Ball, Wells, Smith, Walters). 1.06 km

MNN139895 Probable C19th Quarry Pits (RFP Quarry Survey). 1.2 km

MNN139894 C19th Quarry Pits (RFP Survey). 1.3 km

MNN17323 Late C19th Ironstone (Desborough Iron Ore Co, John Hickman; - Stanton Ironworks Co).

MNN141082 Sheepbridge Quarries Ironstone Tramway. 1.3 km

130

Table 8.5 (continued) Known Archaeological Features

Reference No. Description Approx. Distance From Site Where Known

MNN36205 Pipewell Quarry Pit (1929 to 1956). 1.5 km

MNN17327 C20th Ironstone Quarry (Glendon Iron Co.; E.Fisher; Sheepbridge 750 m Coal & Iron Co.Ltd; Staverley Minerals Ltd.).

MNN7744 Desborough Quarries (Glendon Iron Ore Co). 1.4 km

MNN132229 Mineral Railway Serving Desborough Quarries. 770 m

MNN132224 Mineral Railway for Desborough Cooperative Society Quarries. 770 m

MNN142250 Ironstone Railway. 1 km

MNN36844 Desborough Railway Bridge Road Block. 460 m

MNN7934 WWII Defences at Desborough. 460 m

NMM37089 Site of United Omnibus Bus Garage. 870 m

NMM134269 Undated ditch. 600 m

NMM138472 Undated ditch. 700 m

8.4.4 Historic Buildings Desborough Conservation Area lies 900 m to the south of the development area. There are no designated or non-designated historic buildings either within the site or within 1 km of the site. There are eight listed buildings within Desborough itself, all of which lie over 1 km south of the site. Three groups of post-medieval/ modern buildings (not listed) also exist within the study area. Details are provided in Table 8.6.

131

Table 8.6 Historic Buildings and Their Approximate Distance from the Development Site

Reference Description Approx. Distance No. From Site Where Known

398168 Anglican and Methodist Church of St Giles, 13-16th centuries (Grade I). 1.4 km

398170 Mid-18th century chest tomb in Church of St Giles (Grade II). 1.4 km

509192 King’s Arms Public House, 1700, but additions and alterations from the 1.15 km 19th-20th centuries (Grade II).

398223 Church House, Lower Street, 18th century (Grade II). 1.43 km

509103 Joseph Cheaney & Sons boot and shoe factory, 1896 (Grade II). 1.4 km

398166 18th century milestone, 12 High Street (Grade II). 1.13 km

398169 Monument dating from 1835 in the churchyard (Grade II). 1.4 km

398167 Services Club, High Street, 1920 (Grade II). 1.3 km

MNN31522 Three Probable WWII Huts. 650 m

MNN31523 Probable WWII Workshop. 650 m

MNN31518 Pre-fabricated building possibly associated with Wilbarston airfield. 1 km

The area around Desborough contains a number of features dating from WWII. Around 600 m north of the assessment area are three ruinous WWII huts, now used as garages (ENN14854; MNN31522); a workshop lies nearby (ENN14854; MNN31523). Further to the north, around 1 km from the assessment area is a further partially ruined pre-fabricated building possibly associated with Wilbarston airfield (ENN14854; MNN31518). There are several buildings within the town associated with the shoe and boot manufacturing industry, which are of historic interest. These were catalogued in 1998-1999 during the Northamptonshire Boot and Shoe Survey carried out by English Heritage. The value of the Grade II Listed Buildings is Medium. The Church of St Giles is Grade I Listed and considered to be of High value. The unlisted buildings are of Low value.

8.4.5 Historic Landscapes There are no areas of National Forest or Ancient Woodland within the site. The closest ancient or replanted Ancient Woodland is at Brampton Wood, which lies around 550 m north-west of the site.

Rockingham Forest Project Rockingham Forest is a former Medieval Royal hunting forest most of which was in the county of Northamptonshire but also extended slightly into the neighbouring counties of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. The forest has gradually dwindled since the Medieval period and the Rockingham Forest Project was an attempt to map the extent of the forest over time, funded by the National Lottery Fund and other organisations. In the area to the east of the assessment area there were a number of small closes, which were enclosed during the late 18th century.

132

Although the application site lies on the edge of the Rockingham Forest, it also falls within the urban context of Desborough. Magnetic Park comprises a number of modern industrial buildings of various size and height and the site, although the proposed development site is located on an open area of cleared land within this industrial landscape.

Historic Parks and Gardens There are no historic parks or gardens within the site of proposed development. The closest historic park is Rushton Hall which lies approximately 3 km south-east of the site. The Park and Garden at Harrington is 5 km away.

8.4.6 Baseline Value of the Cultural Heritage This section lists the known archaeological remains, buildings and landscapes, grouped into sites and assesses their value following the methodology outlined above. Only known archaeological and historical sites have been assessed. It is possible that other unidentified sites exist in the study area.

Archaeological Remains The archaeological remains in the vicinity are considered to be of Low–Medium value, with the exception of the ‘Desborough Mirror’ which is of National interest and therefore considered to be of High value. Previous investigation on the site revealed no evidence of archaeological remains (Jones 2007) and the ground is also known to have been recently stripped. There is therefore little potential for previously unknown archaeological remains and these are likely to be of Low/Unknown value.

Historic Buildings There are a number of Listed and other historic buildings within Desborough itself. The value of the Grade II Listed Buildings is Medium. The Church of St Giles is Grade I Listed and considered to be of High value. The unlisted buildings are of Low value.

Historic Landscapes The value of the closes is considered Medium. The proposed development site exists within an industrial setting and is of Low Value.

8.5 Proposed Mitigation

8.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects The recommendations for further assessment have been guided by discussion with the Northamptonshire County Council Planning Archaeologist.

Archaeological Remains The archaeological desk-based assessment and the site inspection suggests that the area has been stripped of its upper soils recently and was the subject of an archaeological watching brief in 2007, which produced entirely negative results. In view of the low potential for

133

archaeological remains, previous disturbance and the comments of the archaeological adviser to the planning authority, no archaeological mitigation measures are proposed.

Historic Buildings There are no historic buildings that would be affected by the development, therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.

Historic Landscapes Given the existing industrial nature of the proposed development area no mitigation measures are proposed.

8.6 Assessment of Effects

8.6.1 Predicted Effects and Their Significance: Construction Phase Effects are likely to arise from demolition that may include disturbance of the ground surface and groundworks associated with the development. This includes the breaking of slabs, excavation for foundations, drainage, services and also temporary access, storage or compound areas. Potential effects to the setting of cultural heritage assets include visual disturbance, noise, dust and vibration. There are no scheduled monuments or listed buildings within 1 km of the development site and there will therefore be no significant effects on any known designated assets. The proposed haulage route will ensure that development-related traffic will avoid Desborough town centre and the Conservation Area; it is therefore considered that there will be no significant effects from construction traffic on heritage assets within the town itself. There are no known non-designated archaeological or historical resources within the proposed development area. There will therefore be no significant effects on any of the identified cultural heritage assets (see Tables 8.5 and 8.6). As much of the site has been previously disturbed the potential for any unknown archaeological remains is poor. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any significant effects on unknown archaeological resources within the site as a result of the proposed development. The historic landscape character of the development site is a cleared site within an urban and industrial setting and there will be no significant effects on the historic landscape character.

8.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase It is considered that there will be no effects on heritage assets after the development becomes operational. Given the industrial nature of the land surrounding the site and the distance of the site from the historic buildings within Desborough, including the Grade I Listed Church of St Giles (masked from the development by the recently constructed Grange housing development to the south and the railway line), it is considered that there will be no significant effects on their setting. Is considered that the development is unlikely to affect the settings of Scheduled Monuments and there will be no effect on the historic landscape character. The views to historic buildings within Desborough and the closest scheduled monuments will be unchanged at Year 10 (see Landscape and Visual assessment, Chapter 9).

134

8.7 Summary of Predicted Effects No cultural heritage assets have been identified within the proposed development area. As the site has been disturbed and previous fieldwork has identified no on-site features, the potential for unknown archaeological sites is Low. The impact on historic buildings and historic landscape character and their setting is Neutral. Table 8.7 shows the identified cultural heritage effects of the proposed development and assesses their significance.

Table 8.7 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Known archaeological Certain Low-High None Not There will be no effects on any remains within Significant known archaeological remains assessment area due to their distance from the proposed development.

Unknown Unlikely Low/ Negligible Not Previous investigation suggests archaeological Significant low potential for archaeological remains within Unknown remains on the site. development area Listed (designated) Certain Medium-High None Not There are no historic buildings Historic Buildings Significant on the site or in the immediate within assessment vicinity. The setting of those in area Desborough will not be affected. Other non-designated Certain Low None Not There will be no effects on the Historic Buildings Significant setting of historic buildings. within assessment area Historic Landscapes – Certain Low None Not There will be no effects on the Industrial landscape of Significant character of the historic the area landscape. Historic Landscapes – Certain Medium None Not There will be no effects on the enclosed land to the Significant character of the historic east landscape or its setting. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

8.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed.

135

8.9 Technical References 1. DMRB Volume 11, Section 1, 2 and 3, Part 2 HA208/07. Cultural Heritage. Highways Agency. 2. Hunt L, 2011. An archaeological desk-based assessment for land at Eagle Avenue, Magnetic Park, Desborough, Northamptonshire (SP 799 844). ULAS Report 2011-153. 3. Jones C, 2007. An archaeological watching brief at Grange Park, Desborough, January 2007. Northamptonshire Archaeology Fieldwork Reports. 4. PPS5 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. TSO, Belfast. 2010. 5. HER Historic Environment Record for Northamptonshire (Sites and Monuments Records, Northamptonshire County Council). 6. Rockingham Forest Project (http://resource.rockingham-forest-trust.org.uk). 7. NMR National Monuments Record, English Heritage, Swindon. 8. CUCAP Cambridge University Committee for Aerial photography. 9. Kettering Borough Council website: http://www.kettering.gov.uk 10. Natural England website: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk 11. OS MAPS: 25 inch series sheet XVI.15 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, 1929 Edition, 1:10 000 SP88nw 1958 Edition. 12. Geological Survey of Great Britain, Sheet 170 (Market Harborough). 13. Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) online database, accessed October 2010 (http://www.magic.gov.uk/). 14. National database of Historic Parks and Gardens accessed October 2010 (http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/landscapes/ukpg/database/). 15. The World Heritage List, accessed October 2010 (http://whc.unesco.org/heritage.htm and http://www.thesalmons.org/lynn/wh-england.html).

136

137

9. Landscape and Visual Assessment

9.1 Introduction This chapter of the ES assesses the potential landscape and visual effects resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed development. The chapter describes the methods used to assess the effects and determines the baseline conditions currently existing at the application site and surrounding area. Mitigation measures are detailed, where required, to prevent, reduce or offset the potential effects. This chapter has been prepared by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd.

9.2 Context

9.2.1 Relevant Terminology There are a number of key terms that have been referred to in this chapter and for ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows: • Enhancement: Landscape improvement through restoration, reconstruction or creation; • Landcover: Combinations of land use and vegetation that cover the land surface;

• Landform: Combinations of slope and elevation that produce the shape and form of the land; • Landscape: Human perception of the land conditioned by knowledge and identity with a place; • Landscape capacity: The degree to which a particular landscape character type or area is able to accommodate change without unacceptable adverse effects on its character. Capacity is likely to vary according to the type and nature of change being proposed;

• Landscape character: The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how this is perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement. It creates the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape;

• Landscape effects: Change in the elements, characteristics, character and qualities of the landscape as a result of development. These effects can be positive or negative;

• Landscape feature: A prominent eye-catching element, for example, wooded hilltop or church spire;

138

• Landscape quality/ condition: This is based on judgements about physical state of the landscape, and about its intactness, from visual, functional, and ecological perspectives. It also reflects the state of repair of individual features and elements which make up the character in any one place; • Landscape sensitivity: The extent to which a landscape can accept change of a particular type and scale without unacceptable adverse effects on its character;

• Visual amenity: The value of a particular area or view in terms of what is seen;

• Visual effect: Change in the appearance of the landscape as a result of development. This can be positive (i.e. beneficial or an improvement) or negative (i.e. adverse or a detraction);

• Visual envelope: Extent of potential visibility to or from a specific area or feature;

• Zone of theoretical visibility: Area within which a proposed development may have an influence or effect on visual amenity.

9.2.2 Technical Context The application site is located within an industrial context between modern large-scale distribution units at Magnetic Park and older industrial buildings that are accessed from Stoke Road. This employment area, along with adjacent established residential areas and the newer Grange residential development are located on a plateau of land at the north western edge of Desborough. Within the 5 km study area elevated and heavily wooded undulating farmland lies to the north. This forms part of the Rockingham Forest. Within the landscape to the north there are several country houses within established wooded landscapes close to the distant settlements of Stoke Albany and Dingley/ Brampton Ash and a scheduled monument at Pipewell Hall to the north-east. To the west the landscape comprises relatively open undulating farmland; the settlement of Braybrooke is within this landscape area located approximately 3 km to the west of the site and the A6 passes through this area. The landscape to the west includes a number of small settlements. There are scheduled monuments at Braybrooke and Harrington. The Harrington site is also designated as a Registered Park and Garden. To the south, the settlement of Rothwell is located beyond the Desborough urban area and the Ise Valley. Within the Ise Valley to the east of Desborough the landscape setting of Rushton Hall is designated as a Registered Park and Garden.

9.2.3 Planning and Guidance This section considers the relevant planning and legislative framework in the context of the landscape and visual issues. Not all policies are referred to or listed in full but those of greatest relevance to the application site and nature of the proposed development are included. The following Planning Policy guidance documents have been referenced in the design of the scheme and to inform the assessment of landscape and visual issues:

• The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012);

139

• Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (30 March 2011); • Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) for the East Midlands (March 2009);

• Northamptonshire Council Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) - Core Strategy, adopted 20 May 2010; • The Control and Management of Development DPD, adopted June 2011;

• Development and Implementation Principles SPD, adopted September 2011;

• North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, adopted June 2008;

• Local Plan for Kettering Borough, adopted 30 January 1995 - saved policies.

National Policy National planning policy contains a number of relevant general policy references within the Planning Policy Statements (PPS) documents. The most relevant to landscape and visual issues are: • The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012);

• PPS 10 : Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. The guidance within these documents is not considered in any detail here as they provide the basis for the more detailed County and District policies described below.

Regional Policy The following relevant policies have been identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) for the East Midlands: • Policy 26: the protection and enhancement of natural and cultural assets;

• Policy 28: priorities for environmental and green infrastructure;

• Policy 30: priorities for managing and increasing woodland cover;

• Policy 31: enhancement of the region’s landscape County (Waste) Policy. The Northamptonshire Council Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) suite of documents includes the Control and Management of Development DPD. This DPD sets out various policies on Waste and Minerals developments and includes the following relevant policies:

• CMD8: Landscape character;

• CMD10: Layout and design quality. With regard to Policy CMD8 this landscape and visual assessment considers the character of the landscape and urban context of the proposed development and the character of the setting for the development proposal has been a key consideration for its selected location. With regard to Policy CMD10 the proposed development site is positioned to relate to neighbouring

140

employment buildings within its urban context and the associated proposed landscaping will provide green infrastructure to the heart of this employment area. The MWDF Development and Implementation Principles SPD sets out design principles for minerals and waste development within Policy SPD3: Design principles for minerals and waste development. This includes policy on landscaping measures. There is a requirement for “High quality landscaping and boundary treatments that are in context with and complementary to the surrounding landscape character” and “Provision of adequate and effective buffers to reduce adverse impacts on sensitive receptors or areas. Buffers are to be in context with and complementary to surrounding landscape or townscape, and may include aspects of the built form, landscaping, and boundary treatments”. These principles have been considered and incorporated as part of the design for the scheme. Refer to Section 9.5 for the proposed mitigation and Figure 9.15 for the Landscape Proposals Plan.

Local Policy The broad policies within the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy that have been identified as being of relevance to landscape matters are listed below.

Policy 5: Green Infrastructure This policy seeks a net gain in green infrastructure and for development to contribute towards the establishment, enhancement of ongoing management of local and sub-regional green infrastructure corridors.

Policy 13: General Sustainable Development Principles This policy sets out design principles including ‘secured by design’ and high standards of design, creating a sense of place and conserving and enhancing landscape character and environmental assets. The Policies draw attention to the Northamptonshire Environmental Character and Green Infrastructure Suite which is considered and reviewed as part of this chapter. No Policies of relevance to the development proposals were identified in the Local Plan for Kettering, saved policies.

Summary of Planning Policy Framework The relevant policies identified encourage the enhancement of Green Infrastructure, landscape character and high quality design within new developments. Development proposals should protect existing built and natural assets and reference is made to enhancement of the Rockingham Forest and to various Strategy documents, which are considered further within this Chapter.

9.3 Assessment Approach

9.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work The landscape and visual assessment approach combines information and desktop reviews with on-site surveys and appraisals. The site based assessment involves the recording of both

141

objective descriptions and subjective impressions of the landscape, as well as details of the existing landscape condition. The assessment of visual effects includes a site based assessment of the likely effects from each of the identified receptors. In addition to the planning policy documents listed in Section 9.2.3, the desktop review has considered existing available and published information and data and includes the following documents: • Ordnance survey maps;

• Aerial photographs;

• www.magic.gov.uk;

• Character Map of England, Sub Areas 92: Rockingham Forest and 89 Northamptonshire Vales, published by Natural England; • The East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment, April 2010;

• Northamptonshire Environmental Character and Green Infrastructure Suite, Launched November 2006: - The Northamptonshire Current Landscape Character Assessment: Landscape Strategy and Guidelines;

- Green Infrastructure making the Connection. The results of the baseline data collection are used in the assessment process as outlined in Section 9.3.3 below. The assessment methodology used in the preparation of this chapter has been developed in accordance with guidance given in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Second Edition) and Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland. In summary, the assessment process comprises: • Establishment of existing or baseline conditions, including identification of landscape character types, planning designations relating to the landscape, identification of visual receptors and the recording of landscape features on the application site and in the vicinity of the proposed development;

• Description of the proposed development;

• Assessment of the effects of the proposed development on baseline conditions;

• Recommendations for design and mitigation measures to offset or reduce identified impacts;

• Continual reassessment of impacts based upon the evolving design and mitigation measures being in place, to determine final impact levels. Two assessments have been conducted for the proposed development. The first assessment relates to short-term effects arising from the construction and operation of the proposed development. The second assessment considers the longer term effects arising from the operation of the proposed development once planting has been allowed to establish. Each assessment seeks to identify the magnitude and significance of changes to the character of the existing landscape and visual resources, which would arise from the construction and operation

142

of the proposed development. Within each assessment a clear distinction is drawn between effects on landscape character and effects on visual resources.

9.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment The proposed scope of the assessment as set out within the Scoping report is as follows:

Context “The Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) essentially consists of two related assessments which look at the effects on the landscape as a whole, as well as those of potential visual receptors located in the vicinity of the site. The LVA will be conducted in accordance with the ‘Guidelines on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition’ (GLVIA) produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002, and the ‘Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland’ (Countryside Agency/ Natural England, 2002). The assessment will be prepared with reference to the following publications and guidelines: • Ordnance Survey Maps;

• Kettering Borough Council Development Plan;

• North Northamptonshire Environmental Character & Green Infrastructure Plan;

• Character Map of England;

• The East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment, April 2010;

• www.magic.gov.uk; and

• Aerial photographs. The study area for the project will be based on a minimum 2 km radius circle, which will be centred within the application boundary. Consultation will be undertaken with the relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees and key viewpoints and sensitive receptors agreed with the Local Planning Authority Landscape Officer.

Landscape The proposed development site is situated on the northern outskirts of the town of Desborough. The site itself has been prepared for development as part of the regeneration of land known as ‘The Grange’, and contains no landscape features of note. The proposed development is therefore unlikely to result in the loss of any naturalistic landscape elements. A review of the proposals map on the Kettering Borough Council website indicates that there are no local landscape designations that could potentially have their settings affected by the proposed development. A Country Park is proposed for land ~850 m to the east of the proposed development, beyond the existing Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse. This will be designed for casual recreation with emphasis on diverse habitat creation. The landscape assessment will consider the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed development on existing landscape character and patterns within the defined study area.

143

Visual The assessment of visual effects will quantify the effect of the construction and operation (or occupation) of the proposed development on the views potentially available to key receptors within the study area. The assessment will consist of a desk study and fieldwork to identify potential visual receptors. The assessment will include mapping of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the taller element of the proposals; specifically the top of the stack for a minimum 2 km radius, extending beyond this radius where any potentially sensitive receptors may be identified outside of this zone. Photomontages will be prepared (3 No.) of the proposed development from locations to be agreed with the local Landscape Officer. The assessment will determine the visibility of the proposed development and its effect on the identified receptors and will consider the daytime and night-time scene and the effects of the development over the short term (at year 1 in winter) and long term (at year 15 in summer once any landscaping has established). Visual receptors include: users of recreational landscapes/public footpaths, bridleways and cycleways; residents; visitors; users of public sports grounds and amenity open spaces; users of public roads and railways; and people employed in Desborough. Potential receptors identified at this stage include residents of Desborough such as those around Desbeau Park, Ironwood Avenue and Braybrooke Road. Further potential receptors include users of the PRoW network in the local area including the Brampton Valley Way and Macmillan Way/Midshires Way/Jurassic Way long-distance footpaths to the north of the site, and users of amenity spaces such as the proposed Country Park to the east, Desborough Town Cricket Club to the northeast and Desborough Town Football Club to the south. Receptors will be finalised based on final designs for the scheme and consultation with the local authority.” (pages 22 and 23)

9.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology The significance of landscape and visual effects is defined separately as follows. Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape which may give rise to changes in the character and quality of the landscape. These could include direct effects upon specific landscape elements (such as loss of woodland or hedgerows) or effects on landscape character and designated areas of landscape. Visual effects relate to specific changes that arise in the character of views and the effects of those changes on visual receptors (e.g. users of roads or public Rights of Way and residents or users of recreational facilities). Visual effects on views of or from within valued landscape features of cultural heritage are also considered (e.g. Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens, Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas) as these interests are protected by planning policies. In order to determine the significance of any potential effects, the sensitivity of an area or receptor is considered alongside the magnitude of change. Sensitivity predicts the degree to which an area can accommodate change without detrimental effects on its character and the degree to which individual receptors will be affected by the change. Sensitivity varies between receptor types, for example, a small-scale rural landscape may be more sensitive to change than an urban fringe landscape which has been modified by man-made detractors; views from Public Rights of Way would normally be more sensitive to change than views from roads, given the relative speed at which the observer moves.

144

Magnitude of change predicts the degree to which change to landscape character, landscape features or change in the character of a view would occur as a result of the proposed development. Magnitude of change is assessed as high, medium, low or no discernible change. By combining the assessment of sensitivity and magnitude it is possible to predict the significance of the impact, which may be negligible, slight, moderate or substantial. The landscape or visual effect can be either beneficial or adverse depending on the nature of the proposed development and the design and mitigation measures proposed. Assessment of visual effect on property is carried out on the basis of predicted effects on views (including garden views). It should be noted however, that the assessment of views from properties is based on a best assumption from publicly accessible locations close to the properties. Where it has not been possible to sufficiently assess the potential effects on properties from public viewpoints or where confidence in predictions are low this is stated within the text. The assessed effects will be summarised within the Chapter as either “significant” or “not significant” as set out in the table below.

Table 9.1 Significance Matrix

Magnitude of Change Sensitivity

High Medium Low

High Substantial Moderate/ Substantial Moderate

Medium Moderate/ Substantial Moderate Slight/ Moderate

Low Moderate Slight/ Moderate Slight

Negligible Slight Slight/ Negligible Negligible

Key: Significant Not Significant

9.3.4 Technical Consultations In preparing the assessment consultation has been undertaken with Northamptonshire’s Environment Officer and Natural England. Kettering Borough Council declined to respond directly on specific matters but advised they would provide their comments on the Scoping Report directly to the County. The Photograph Viewpoints (Figures 9.5 and 9.6) and three of the four Photomontage locations (Figures 9.9-9.11) and have been agreed with the Northamptonshire County Council in order to provide a comprehensive assessment. The photographs have been taken during the winter months in order to assess the worse-case scenario in terms of visibility for the assessment. During the course of the assessment it was determined that an additional photomontage from Viewpoint 5 would further assist the assessment and this is now included as Figure 9.12. However this additional viewpoint has not been consulted on.

145

9.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment The final scope of the assessment has been undertaken as set out within the scoping report. The Study Area was proposed as a minimum 2 km radius centred within the application boundary. In refining the assessment the study area within this report has been set at 5 km. This wider radius was agreed with Northamptonshire County Council.

9.3.6 Information Gaps No information gaps have been identified.

9.4 Baseline Conditions

9.4.1 Topography The following should be read in conjunction with Figure 9.1. The application site is located on the southern side of a plateau of land which curves from the south-west through the western edge of Desborough, and back to the north-west. The eastern part of Desborough descends into the Ise Valley at around 90 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and the west into the Jordan Valley. The ridge as it passes through Desborough lies at around 140-145 m AOD rising to over 155 m AOD as it continues to the north-west and south-west. A high point on the ridge to the northwest, near the Hermitage and Eckland Lodge is at 154 m AOD. The application site itself is flat at around 140-142 m AOD. Locally the landform appears flat and the plateau continues to the east, beyond the Great Bear Distribution Centre and through the adjacent Grange residential area at around 140-144 m AOD. To the west adjacent industrial buildings along Stoke Road are also located at around 140-143 m AOD. The wider landscape context comprises an undulating series of ridges and valleys that vary between around 90 and 155 m AOD (see Figure 9.1).

9.4.2 Landscape Character and Context Landscape Character Assessment guidance has been published at National, Regional and County-wide scales establishing the landscape context in relation to the application site in sequentially more detailed assessments. Please refer to Appendix 9.1 for the relevant identified extracts from these documents. The following text provides a summary of the key salient points from the published documents in order to define the character of the broad landscape context within the defined 5 km radius assessment area of the application site. The application site itself lies within an industrial area adjacent to the north-western urban area of Desborough. The site is therefore contained by industrial uses and detached from the rural landscape described within the following published documents. However given the nature of the proposed development the character of the wider landscape context has been reviewed to establish its character and potential sensitivity to large scale development.

146

National - The Character Map of England The broad landscape character and context surrounding the application site is described within the Countryside Agency, 'Character Map of England' (2006). The application site lies at the boundary between the western edge of the ‘Rockingham Forest’ Regional Character Area (No.92) and the eastern edge of the ‘Northamptonshire Vales’ (No.89). Land to the west of the application site comprises gentle clay ridges and valleys with little woodland and an open character, settlement comprises frequent small towns and large villages. This area falls within the ‘Northamptonshire Vales’ Regional Character Area. The character description recognises that frequent large settlements can dominate the landscape and refers to a number of settlements that have prominent built up edges by name but does not specifically mention Desborough. Major towns, trunk roads and urban residential, commercial and industrial uses are identified as significant land uses within this area. It recommends equally large-scale landscaping measures to address the large-scale nature of recent developments. The application site and land to the north and east lies on an elevated and heavily wooded plateau. The application site lies at the western edge of this plateau within an industrial area adjacent to the urban edge of Desborough. The rural area to the north comprises predominantly large undulating arable fields interspersed with large scale woodland blocks and frequent country houses with mature landscape parks. There are relatively enclosed areas of pasture within the valleys. Settlements lie within the valleys and are often surrounded by pasture land with a more intimate character. This area is defined as the ‘Rockingham Forest’ Regional Character Area. The character description recognises that there is little modern development that influences this character area. The description provided in the ‘Character Map of England’ covers an extensive area of land. The details contained therein, therefore, only describe the very broad landscape context to the landscape context of Desborough. No points or details are included within this description that relate more specifically to the landscape of Desborough or to the application site itself.

Regional - the East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment (EMRLCA), April 2010 This document has been prepared to support the work of the East Midlands Landscape Partnership. The purpose of the document is to provide a regional overview “to help ensure that there is a more coherent, consistent and integrated approach to landscape planning, protection and management across the East Midlands”. The following landscape character types lie within the 5 km assessment radius:

• Woods and Forests: 10a Forest Hills and Ridges (north and east of Desborough - the application site lies within the western edge of this area). The description for this area broadly reflects the Character Map of England description for ‘Rockingham Forest’; further detail is given on the rural character of the landscape and the relative intimacy of the valleys and the sense of exposure and openness of the more elevated areas, with views of wooded horizons;

• Village Farmlands: 5a Undulating Mixed Farmlands (west of the application site and Desborough). The description for this area is similar to the Character Map of England description for the ‘Northamptonshire Vales’. The document however places greater emphasis on the quiet rural character away from the main settlements and infrastructure and the overlapping nature of hedgerow trees,

147

copses, small woodlands and watercourse vegetation that collectively filter views and combined with the undulating nature of the landform create a strong sense of enclosure in places, but with relatively wide panoramas from elevated areas across wide valleys with church spires/ towers as prominent landmarks on the horizon; • Clay Wolds: 8a Clay Wolds (south of Desborough). The description for this area is similar to the Character Map of England description for the ‘Northamptonshire Vales’, but suggests a well treed character despite limited areas of large woodland. The area is described as quiet and remote with an often empty character and expansive views that contrast with intimate and intricate areas close to villages. Large scale modern mixed-use development causing visual intrusion at fringes of larger settlements is referenced (although there is no specific mention of Desborough). As noted above, the character descriptions are similar to those of the Character Map of England and given the extensive area covered by each character description here is no specific reference to the application site or to Desborough within any of the above Character Descriptions. The EMRLCA goes into some detail in identifying “forces for change” for each character type and provides additional guidance on “shaping the future landscape”. The relevant recommendations identified within the EMRLCA for all three character areas generally recommend protection of the rural character of the landscape and to limit the visual impact of any new development, making specific recommendations for appropriate design and scale of new development, preparation of Design Statements for settlements and eco-friendly and high quality innovative design that draws upon local distinctiveness and character. Reference is made to the pressure for wind farms and that new schemes should be appropriately sited and designed. It is recognised that woodland is a significant component of ‘Forest Hills and Ridges’ landscape and new planting schemes are encouraged here, elsewhere tree and woodland planting is recommended to minimise adverse impacts around settlement edges. Again the EMRLCA provides the very broad landscape context to the landscape around Desborough and therefore as such it is not particularly relevant to the local industrial context of the application site. More detailed and application site relevant landscape character assessments are contained within the countywide assessments as outlined below.

County - The Current Landscape Character Assessment for Northamptonshire In November 2006 Northamptonshire County Council published a suite of data sets that provide a more detailed assessment of the landscape surrounding Desborough, as well as a Historic Landscape Character Assessment, a Biodiversity Character Assessment, a Green Infrastructure Strategy and Physiographic and Land Use Studies. This suite of data sets builds on the information published in the Countryside Character Initiative. The Northamptonshire Environmental Character Study provides guidelines to illustrate how development should work with the landscape not against it. The approach is objective rather than providing a judgement of landscape value or quality. Although not a material planning document, it is stated on Northamptonshire Council’s website… “In progressing development framework documents or in drawing up and determining planning applications made to the county council, regard will be had to these assessments and the advice contained within them”. The ‘Current Landscape Character Assessment for Northamptonshire’ (CLCAN) subdivides the county into 20 landscape types resulting in 79 distinct landscape character areas. The

148

application site lies within the ‘Desborough Urban Area’. To the north, east and west the surrounding rural area lies within character area the ‘Wooded Clay Plateau’ Landscape Type. To the south of Desborough, land falls within the ‘Rolling Ironstone Valley Slopes’ Landscape Type. To the north and west beyond the Wooded Clay Plateau but within the 5 km study area are parts of the ‘Undulating Hills and Valleys’ and ‘Broad Unwooded Vale’ landscape types towards Market Harborough. The CLCAN includes ‘Landscape Strategy and Guidelines’. The following summaries from the document set out the broad character and landscape strategy for each landscape Type; • The Wooded Clay Plateau (adjacent to the application site); the description for this area reflects that of the ‘Rockingham Forest’ Regional Character Area (No. 92) and the EMRLCA ‘Forest Hills and Ridges’. Within the landscape strategy recommendations are again made to control development, change and land management to conserve and enhance this historic wooded landscape. With regard to the larger settlements that fringe the plateau it is recommended that the marked distinction between urban and rural is conserved by seeking to avoid urban influences extending into the wider landscape;

• The Rolling Ironstone Valley Slopes (south of Desborough); the description for this area reflects that of the ‘Northamptonshire Vales’ Regional Character Area (No.89) and the EMRLCA ‘Undulating Mixed Farmlands’ and ‘Clay Wolds’. The landscape strategy recommends that new development, change and land management should be controlled or encouraged to conserve and enhance the diversity and richness of the landscape. The proximity of urban areas is recognised and therefore the report recommends that where development is considered, its integration with the local landform is carefully considered along with its wider setting and relationship with existing built areas and reference made to the locality in terms of building materials and layout; • The Undulating Hills and Valleys and Broad Unwooded Vale (further north and west within the 5 km study area). Although within the study area these areas are remote from the application site and the character is therefore not of notable relevance to the development proposals and is not discussed here. However extracts are included within Appendix 9.1 along with the applicable extracts identified here.

Local Landscape Character A detailed assessment of local landscape character was carried out during February 2012, using field evaluation and analysis of maps and other published data based on Countryside Agency guidance. Local landscape character is described below and should be read in conjunction with the Local Landscape Character Plan (Figure 9.2) and Aerial Photograph (Figure 9.3). This provides a site specific and finer level of assessment than those included within the National, Regional and County tiers of landscape character assessment. Although the application site and its local landscape context lie on the edge of the Rockingham Forest and as such reflect some of the characteristics described within the published Landscape Character Assessment documents, the local landscape is heavily influenced by the urban context of Desborough. A complex mix of land uses prevails within this local context. The local landscape context of the application site has been divided into four distinct character areas to

149

assist the description of local character and two further landscape character areas which describe the wider landscape context of the application site.

1. Magnetic Park/ Industrial Area This area comprises a mix of large scale modern industrial units at Magnetic Park and older brick built industrial buildings adjacent to Stoke Road of various size and height. The application site comprises an open area of cleared brownfield land located between the newer and older industrial buildings. This area is accessed via a new roundabout at the Stoke Road Harborough Road junction. Recent landscaping associated with the modern industry, including a planted bund, is yet to mature and soften views of the built development. The industrial area is located at the western edge of an elevated plateau and is visible from the elevated parts of the landscape to the west adjacent to the Desborough settlement edge in the approach to Desborough. The combination of large industrial buildings and busy roads dominates the local landscape and gives this area a strong urban character. No landscape features of significance have been identified within this area. There are a number of public cycleway routes through the area associated with recent built development and several other Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) connect to the area from adjacent character areas. The site is located within the centre of this area. Landscape sensitivity is assessed as very low.

2. Dob Hall Farm - Wooded Farming and Industry Adjacent to Magnetic Park, this area comprises a complex mix of smaller industries, farmsteads and some properties within a patchwork of small fields contained by overgrown hedgerows and woodland blocks. Some of the industry is screened but the area includes a dilapidated collection of buildings and storage yards adjacent to Stoke Road and these create a general sense of neglect and dereliction. The single field to the north of Magnetic Park is enclosed by overgrown hedgerows used for grazing horses. There is currently a planning application for development of properties and public open space on this land (‘the Grange II’ development). Within the field are a collection of derelict farm buildings including Pantile House. Several PRoWs pass north-south through this area, but appear unused and are difficult to access between industrial buildings. Landscape features within this area include the field boundary hedgerows and peripheral woodland blocks that provide containment. The landscape condition is assessed as low due to the presence of dilapidated or derelict buildings and external storage areas. Given the industrial uses of this area landscape sensitivity is assessed as low, although the sensitivity of the individual landscape features is higher.

3. Desborough Residential Areas - Harborough Road and Grange Park To the south-east of the application site and Magnetic Park are established residential areas of Desborough and the more recent residential development at the Grange. Older brick built predominantly semi-detached properties front the southern side of Harborough Road, to the south east of Magnetic Park. The industrial and commercial buildings at Magnetic Park form a significant visual component within the local context. The northern side of Harborough Road is fronted by properties at the Grange residential development which comprises predominantly two storey detached brick properties with some terraced/ flatted and taller properties in places. The main entrance is from a new roundabout on Harborough Road. At the western edge of the development properties back onto a recently constructed and planted bund that provides separation from the Magnetic Park development.

150

No sensitive landscape features have been identified. Landscape sensitivity is assessed as low, with the local urban context defining the character of this area.

4. Desborough Fringe Mixed Open Space To the east of the application site and Magnetic Park is a generally flat area of land that is contained and separated from the wider countryside to the north by tall hedgerows and woodland. This forms the landscape setting to the Grange residential area and is currently the subject of an outline planning application for residential development (the ‘Grange II’). The area comprises a large open field currently utilized for rough grazing immediately to the east of Magnetic Park with a series of smaller fields further to the east that are contained by hedgerows and woodland and are proposed as a Country Park. These in turn connect into the Plens. The Plens is a valley with wooded former quarried areas and is managed by the Wildlife Trust. The Plens and Country Park are relatively contained visually but are bordered and overlooked by the Grange residential properties. The open field is visually dominated by the Great Bear Distribution Centre within Magnetic Park adjacent to this character area. Planting on a recently constructed intervening bund is yet to mature. A PRoW passes centrally through the large field. Landscape features within this area include the Plens and areas of woodland and small fields enclosed by hedgerows within the Country Park. The landscape sensitivity is assessed as low-moderate overall due to the influence of the adjacent Grange residential development and of the large modern Great Bear Distribution Centre to the west. Sensitivity of the landscape is low to the west of this area and increases to the east where it is relatively contained within a more established landscape structure containing more notable landscape features.

5. Rockingham Forest - Mixed Farmland and Woodland This comprises an open, undulating rural plateau of large arable and pastoral fields divided by low trimmed hedgerows and with extensive areas of woodland, which often appear on the skyline. Although wide open views are possible, the presence of woodland and the undulating landform provides separation from Desborough, although the Great Bear Distribution Centre has some limited influence at the edge of this area during winter vegetation cover. A number of small lanes and scattered farmsteads permeate the landscape. Often the farmsteads comprise larger complexes of farm and industrial buildings with storage areas. Closer to the application site the West Lodge Rural Centre includes visitor facilities and the Desborough Cricket Club grounds and is accessed from Back Lane. A number of PRoWs pass through this rural landscape. A former airfield is located on the highest part of the plateau. Landscape features within this area predominantly comprise the many woodland blocks. The landscape is a managed rural landscape subject to intensive arable farming, and as such the landscape condition has been assessed as medium. The sensitivity of this landscape has been assessed as medium - high due to its open character and intrinsically rural nature.

6. Braybrooke Valley The landscape to the west of the application site and Desborough comprises open mixed arable farmland and pastoral farmland. The A6 bisects this area separating the landscape around Desborough from the wider countryside to the west. Scattered settlements including Braybrooke, Arthingworth and Harrington lie within the wider landscape to the west, with Market Harborough located some distance to the north-west lies just outside the 5 km study area. This valley landscape is undulating, with little woodland. From busy rural roads which follow the ridgelines above the valley there are far reaching panoramic views across the

151

landscape and towards the western edge of Desborough. The Great Bear Distribution Centre and the residential edge are a distant element in these views. However within the valley overlapping trees and hedgerows provide some containment and limit the perception of openness. Landscape features within this area include the network of hedgerows and trees and the historic settlement pattern of the villages. At Harrington and Braybrooke (site of a former castle) earthworks are designated as Scheduled Monuments. The landscape is a managed rural landscape subject to intensive arable farming, and as such the landscape condition has been assessed as medium. The sensitivity of this landscape has been assessed as medium - high due to its open character and intrinsically rural nature.

Landscape Designations Landscape designations identified within the 5 km radius study area are identified at Figure 9.4 and comprise: • Registered Park and Garden at Rushton Hall;

• Registered Park and Garden at Harrington - remains of formal garden of former manor house (also Scheduled Monument); • Scheduled Monument - site of former Abbey at Pipewell Hall;

• Scheduled Monument - remains of Castle at Braybrooke. A number of PRoWs pass through the study area and include the Macmillan Way, Midshire’s Way, Jurassic Way and Brampton Valley Way long distance trails. A linear route along a former rail line (located outside of the 5 km study area radius) to the west is designated as a Country Park; this designation was included within the assessment at the request of the NCC landscape officer.

9.4.3 Visual Receptors and Existing Views A detailed visual appraisal has been undertaken for the proposed development. The baseline appraisal seeks to explore the nature of the existing visual amenity of the area and to establish the approximate visibility of the site from any surrounding receptors. This section provides a baseline analysis of the available views and amenity and is supported by a series of Photo Viewpoints (Figure 9.6). An assessment of the visual effects of the proposed development upon the receptors is detailed in the subsequent effects section. Figure 9.5 details the location of the photo viewpoints. All viewpoints are described within the table below.

152

Table 9.2 Photograph Viewpoints

Viewpoint Approximate Direction Description No. Distance from the from the Site Site

1 1.3 km North west Taken from the entrance to Eckland Lodge Business Park on Harborough Road this shows the view on the approach to Desborough from the north-west. Properties along the western edge of Desborough are visible on the skyline, along with the water tower, flood lighting at the football club ground and industry on the north- western edge of Desborough including the Great Bear Distribution Centre.

2 200 m South west From the approach to the roundabout junction at Magnetic Park on Harborough Road the site is visible to the north between older industrial areas on Millbuck Industrial Estate along Stoke Road and newer distribution units at Magnetic Park.

3 450 m South west From the public byway to the south-west of the application site, industrial and residential areas of north-west Desborough are visible on the near horizon. The site is screened from view beyond hedgerow boundaries with the older industrial units on Stoke Road and Great Bear Distribution Centre visible adjacent to the site.

4 450 m South From the north-western edge of the Desborough residential area on Harborough Road the view includes the Grange residential area to the north and Great Bear Distribution Centre to the north-west with older industry on Stoke Road beyond. The site lies between these industrial areas with views filtered by the roadside trees.

5 750 m East From the public footpath to the north of the Grange residential area (this land is the subject of a planning application for residential development) the view west includes the properties at the northern edge of the Grange and the Great Bear Distribution Centre on the near skyline. The site is screened from view just beyond the distribution centre.

6 1 km South east From the western edge of the Plens Nature Reserve, within the Grange residential area, intervening landform and properties screen views of the site and industrial areas to the north-west of Desborough.

7 1 km North east From the car park at the West Lodge Rural Centre, adjacent to the Desborough Cricket Ground, the view south-west towards the application site and the northern residential and industrial areas of Desborough is screened by intervening woodland cover.

8 1 km North east From the access to West Lodge Rural Centre residential properties at the Grange on the northern edge of Desborough and the Great Bear Distribution Centre are discernible through the winter vegetation cover. The site is screened from view by the Distribution Centre and intervening woodland.

9 800 m North east From the access to the public footpath on Back Lane peripheral vegetation screens much of the view, however there is a channelled open view to residential properties on the northern edge of the Grange and there is a filtered view through vegetation of the Great Bear Distribution Centre in the direction of the site.

10 10 m West From Stoke Road, the site is across the road from the viewpoint behind a verge with scrub vegetation. Magnetic Park business units lie beyond the site on the near skyline and older industry along Stoke Road adjacent. The site comprises an area of open ground.

153

Table 9.2 (continued) Photograph Viewpoints

Viewpoint Approximate Direction Description No. Distance from the from the Site Site

11 10 m West The view north from Stoke Road shows the hedgerows and woodland to the north that contain the industrial area. The site is across the road beyond scrubby roadside vegetation and in front of the Magnetic Park employment unit.

12 1.1 km North east From a track (public right of way) accessed from Stoke Road and leading to areas of agri-industry and farmsteads, the view south-west includes West Lodge Rural Centre and associated car parking. Desborough settlement edge is screened from view by the landform and intervening trees and woodland. In the direction of the site the Great Bear Distribution Centre is just discernible through the winter vegetation cover.

13 1.8 km North east From a public right of way on the former airfield, Desborough is screened from view by intervening trees and woodland. In the direction of the site the Great Bear Distribution Centre is just discernible above the winter vegetation cover. Numerous large scale agricultural buildings are present within the foreground.

14 3.5 km North This photograph represents a typical view from Stoke Albany further to the north towards the site. Intervening landform and woodland cover screen views towards Desborough and the site.

15 2.75 km North From Stoke Road/Desborough Road, adjacent to Stoke House (the property itself is behind a tall brick wall and faces westwards away from the site) views towards the site and Desborough are screened by intervening woodland.

16 3 km North From Stoke Hill (A427) there are elevated views towards the south. Views towards Desborough and the site are screening by intervening landform and woodland.

17 3.5 km North west From Midshire’s Way PRoW and road (long distance trail) intervening woodland screens the site and Desborough from view. Hermitage Cottages close to the A6/Harborough Road are discernible on the skyline.

18 2.5 km North west From Midshire’s Way close to the junction of the A6 and Harborough Road the panoramic view south-east includes urban elements of the western edge of Desborough on the distant horizon; street lighting at the A6 roundabout, residential properties at the settlement edge, floodlighting columns at the football ground and the water tower. In the direction of the site the Great Bear Distribution Centre is visible above intervening trees and hedgerows.

19 2.5 km North west From further south along Braybrooke Road the view towards the settlement edge becomes more open and this extends across the distant skyline. Residential properties at the edge of Desborough, water tower and floodlighting columns at the football ground in the direction of the site and employment at Magnetic Park can all be seen on the horizon.

20 3 km West From the PRoW within the Braybrooke Valley, close to the scheduled monument at Braybrooke, the Great Bear Distribution Centre is just distantly discernible in the direction of the site above the winter vegetation. The Desborough settlement edge is not visible.

21 5.7 km West From the Brampton Valley Way Country Park, there are occasional views towards Desborough and the site however they are too distant to clearly discern individual built elements. The church spire at Braybrooke is discernible on the skyline nearer to the viewpoint.

154

Table 9.2 (continued) Photograph Viewpoints

Viewpoint Approximate Direction Description No. Distance from the from the Site Site

22 5.2 km West From this elevated viewpoint on Midshire’s Way adjacent to Braybrooke Road the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre is visible on the distant skyline in the direction of the site adjacent to the residential edge of Desborough.

23 3.5 km South west From Braybrooke Road on the southern ridge above the Braybrooke Valley the Great Bear Distribution Centre is visible on the distant skyline in views towards the site, however the Desborough town itself is screened from view by intervening vegetation.

24 4.6 km South west From Midshire’s Way adjacent to Arthingworth the intervening ridge of land screens views towards Desborough and the site from view.

25 6.7 km South west From Brampton Valley Way Country Park views towards the site are screened by intervening vegetation and landform.

26 5 km South west From the Scheduled Monument and Registered Park and Garden at Harrington in the direction of the site Great Bear Distribution Centre and the residential edge of Desborough are visible on the distant horizon.

27 5 km South From Main Street, Orton, Desborough is screened from view by an intervening ridge of land and vegetation. Rothwell is located on this ridge. However in the direction of the site the Great Bear Distribution Centre is just discernible beyond the winter vegetation on the ridgeline.

28a and b 3 km South east From an elevated position on Rothwell Road, Desborough is visible to the north. The water tower and spire of the Church of St Giles provide vertical elements on the skyline and the Great Bear Distribution Centre is visible with the direction of the site just to the west. Viewpoint 31a shows that the northern edge of Rothwell lies beyond the crest of the ridge, the clearest public view towards Desborough and the site being from Rothwell Road as it dips towards Desborough.

29 1.4 km South east From Dunkirk Avenue, Desborough, views towards the site are screened by intervening residential development.

30 3.1 km North east From the road close to White Lodge Farm the site is screened from view by the intervening landform and woodland in views to the south- west.

31 3.5 km East From the lane near to Rectory Farm and west of Desborough, the site is screened from view by the intervening landform and woodland in views to the west.

32a and b 3.3 km South east From Desborough Road adjacent to Triangular Lodge and the Registered Park and Garden there are no views of the site. Viewpoint 32a shows the Triangular Lodge and Parkland beyond.

33 1 km South west From Braybrooke Road there is a glimpse view through a security gate across the football ground towards the site. Residential properties contain the football ground and there are no views beyond of the industrial areas adjacent to the site.

34 1.5 km South west From the A6 overbridge on Arthingworth Road, the Great Bear Distribution Centre is visible in the view towards the site, beyond residential properties on the western edge of Desborough.

155

9.5 Proposed Mitigation

9.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects Landscape and visual mitigation is an integral part of the overall design strategy and is used to minimise the significance of any effects, particularly if these cannot be ‘designed out’ during the earlier development design process. Mitigation follows a hierarchical strategy of avoidance, reduction and remediation, whereby the project design team seek in the first instance to avoid potential impacts, to reduce those that remain, and where no other measures are possible, to put forward remedial measures.

Construction The construction period is scheduled to last for approximately 24 months. During this time many of the potential construction mitigation measures would involve small-scale site management issues regarding the detailed location of construction activities. Individually these may have only very minor effects, but cumulatively these could have an influence upon the intrusiveness of the construction activities. Examples include:

• The selective and sensitive location of temporary storage of materials and plant within the proposal site;

• Erection of temporary screen fencing along Stoke Road and the southern boundary to limit views into the proposal site; • Using designated routes around the site for construction vehicles and operation of construction plant such as cranes; • Implementation and monitoring of site management procedures including regular litter sweep of immediate environs for litter arising from the construction site. In addition, general landscape mitigation measures also include the retention of existing vegetation alongside Stoke Road to provide some limited screening.

Operation Given the scale and context of the proposed development, there are only a limited number of realistic mitigation measures which could be introduced during the operational phase. However, where available, opportunities to reduce potential effects in the design and layout have been taken forward. A summary is described below and includes:

• Choice of materials: The surface material for the proposed buildings and stack would be carefully chosen to ensure it is a neutral, unobtrusive colour (to be agreed with the planning authority) with a matt, non-reflective finish that fits with the context of the existing industrial buildings and surrounding landscape;

• Landscape works: In order to minimise the perception of the overall scale of the development and to soften the visual effect of the buildings/vertical structures, consideration has been given to appropriate methods of screening, particularly in respect of views experienced by visual receptors in close proximity to the site. Vegetation cover across the site and around its boundaries is currently sparse. A comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed (at Figure 9.15) to provide screening and softening of the building from nearby receptors and to introduce

156

green infrastructure to the heart of the industrial area. High quality planting with some semi- mature trees will be implemented to provide some immediate visual benefits. It is proposed to retain recent off-site hedge planting on Stoke Road wherever possible and replace any hedgerow lost along with gapping up the older overgrown section of hedgerow along this boundary. Off-site landscaping alongside Stoke Road would be subject to potential future road widening works.

9.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 9.3 summarises the potential environmental changes caused by the proposed development in respect to the identified landscape and townscapes receptors and highlights the consequent effects of these changes. The table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects and how effective these are likely to be as follows:

• High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment;

• Medium certainty of effectiveness: The measure can reasonably be expected to be effective based on the available information (and so can be relied on in assessment), although additional data may require review of the measures; • Uncertainty of effectiveness: The measure may be beneficial but cannot necessarily be relied on and therefore should not therefore influence the assessment of the effect. However, the measure has been incorporated into the design of the scheme on the basis that, despite its potential ineffectiveness, it is worthwhile.

Table 9.3 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Likely Potential Effects Effectiveness

Construction Phase

Landscape element: Any loss of existing Retain perimeter hedgerow on Stoke High vegetation vegetation would represent Road where possible. Protect from the loss of a beneficial accidental damage via temporary landscape element and fencing. furthermore potentially increase the visibility of site Compensatory additional planting to be infrastructure. performed during subsequent landscape works.

Landscape element: Potential for litter/debris to Implement site management procedures High litter/debris arise during the course of including regular litter sweep of site and the construction works. immediate environs.

Visual receptors in Construction phase will All necessary site infrastructure to be High wider study area require the continued strategically located in suitable areas of presence of machinery/ the site in order to maximise the heavy plant at the site, effectiveness of the existing screening. representative of new elements within the Minimise the length of time required for landscape. crane activity and ensure that the cranes are maintained in good order.

157

Table 9.3 (continued) Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Likely Potential Effects Effectiveness

Operational Phase

Landscape element: Initial reduction in vegetation New planting to be carried out as part of High vegetation following the construction Landscape Scheme. Use primarily phase. native species to maximise habitat benefits.

Enhance screening along the northern and southern perimeter of the proposal site - filling in gaps through additional planting.

Enhance the visual character of the Stoke Road and Eagle Avenue frontage through high quality landscaping.

Employ long term management plan to maximise establishment and condition.

Visual receptors in New buildings/vertical Careful consideration of materials, High wider study area structures onsite represent chosen to help assimilate the facility into new elements in the local its surrounding context. landscape. The colour of the taller/vertical elements (such as the EfW stack) should be selected to reduce the contrast with the background sky.

9.6 Assessment of Landscape Effects

9.6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology The assessment of landscape effects is based upon the information provided within the published landscape character studies, an assessment of local landscape character, condition and sensitivity and the identified sensitive landscape features within the 5 km radius of search. Reference is made to the Local Landscape Character Plan (Figure 9.2), the Landscape Designations Plan (Figure 9.4) and Landscape Proposals Plan (Figure 9.15).

9.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase The site is currently cleared brownfield land and as such contains no landscape features. No vegetation was identified on site other than a strip of scrub along the western boundary. A recently planted hedgerow is located off site along a post and rail fence on Stoke Road. Existing site vegetation would be removed during the construction phase. Should it be possible to retain the peripheral off-site hedgerow protective fencing and measures in accordance with BS5837 (trees in relation to construction) would be implemented as required to protect this, however should this be removed to facilitate the development replacement planting would be undertaken. Any protective fencing would be implemented prior to the commencement of construction work within the vicinity of the hedgerow. The removal of any mature trees or

158

vegetation would be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (or would otherwise if unavoidable, be inspected prior to removal by a suitably qualified ecologist and only removed following confirmation that there are no nesting birds present). The surrounding industrial context is of low landscape sensitivity and forms part of the setting of the adjacent residential area and fields to the south. In landscape terms, given the cleared brownfield landscape character of the site, and its containment within an urban and industrial context, there would be at worst a negligible to slight adverse and therefore not significant effect on the landscape during construction.

9.6.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase The predicted effects are considered with reference to planning policy and landscape designations, landscape character assessments and landscape features and components. The immediate context of the site is urban. The site is surrounded by large scale industrial units on Stoke Road and at Magnetic Park. Adjacent to the site Stoke Road and Harborough Road are busy urban roads. Away from the immediate surrounds of the site residential properties at the north-western edge of Desborough including the Grange residential development provide the adjacent urban character. Rural areas are relatively detached, separated to the north by intervening woodland blocks and open in character to the west beyond the urban edge of Desborough. The site landscape itself comprises an open area of brownfield land in poor condition with small patches of scrub along the western boundary. At the heart of the industrial area, overlooked from Stoke Road, it imparts a negative perception on the character of the immediately surrounding townscape. The overall sensitivity of the site landscape and its immediate context has been assessed as Low indicating that it is an area with a weak character, evidence of degradation and relatively few features of value. The proposed development would result in significant changes to the character and use of the site landscape. Significant and large scale new building units with associated roads, service areas and some car parking would occupy the site with soft landscaping providing some containment around the site perimeter. The magnitude of change is assessed as high across the site. The new planting proposals would extend around the site and establish a green infrastructure framework to both the development and the core of the industrial area (as illustrated on Figure 9.15). In landscape character terms, the nature of the change within its site context would be from an area of apparent derelict land to large scale industry. Given the industrial surrounds of the site context this would result in a slight change in character at a local level, although the nature of the change and the effects upon the townscape character in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development are not necessarily adverse. At a site landscape scale, the proposed development would include benefits arising from the new landscape planting, which would provide a green frontage to Stoke Road and the general improvement to the site’s condition and appearance. At this scale, the proposed development would result in a slight beneficial landscape effect upon the site (where the benefits of the proposed soft landscaping would offset potentially adverse effects on the local landscape resulting from the introduction of buildings). No landscape features of significance exist on the site and there is limited vegetation adjacent to the western site boundary along Stoke Road in the form of a gappy hedge (northern section) and

159

recent hedgerow planting (southern section). This will be retained where possible/ appropriate and where removed replacement boundary planting would be undertaken. Therefore implementation of the landscape proposals associated with the development within the site would result in moderate beneficial, though not significant, effects resulting from the introduction of a green infrastructure framework to the site. Away from the immediate landscape context of the site the local context comprises residential areas of Desborough to the south and south-east, open land (currently the subject of a residential planning application - ‘the Grange II’) to the east and wooded areas with agri-industry to the north. These areas are strongly influenced by large scale industrial buildings at Magnetic Park and along Stoke Road and as such their landscape sensitivity has been assessed as low. The proposed development would be seen within this context and the magnitude of change as a result would be low-medium depending on the angle of view and the resultant apparent scale of the proposed buildings relative to adjacent industry. The results upon landscape character within the local context have been assessed as slight adverse and not significant. The peripheral landscaping proposed for the development, although beneficial within the immediate industrial setting of the site would have none or little influence on the wider landscape. Within the wider rural setting the proposed development would result in some indirect effects. Within the landscape to the west it would form part of wide panoramas which include the settlement edge on the skyline and would increase the massing of industry which already forms part of this context. To the north the Desborough settlement edge currently does not feature as part of the wider setting of this area although the Great Bear Distribution Centre is a distant built element within the woodland that frames this area, the presence of the proposed development and the stack would increase the perception of distant urban uses slightly but would still be a small element within the wider rural context which includes areas of agri-industry and some large scale farm buildings. Therefore the magnitude of change on the wider rural landscape has been assessed as low and the resultant effects as slight adverse and not significant. In the context of the Northamptonshire Landscape Character Assessment Strategy and Guidelines, the proposed development has been assessed in terms of the defined Landscape Character Areas (LCAs). The site is located within the Desborough Urban Area. Two LCAs, ‘Wooded Clay Plateau’ and ‘Rolling Ironstone Valley Slopes’ lie to the north/east/west and south respectively. The proposed development site lies within an industrial area at the edge of the Desborough urban area which already has some bearing on the setting of both of these LCAs, however the presence of the proposed development would increase this influence slightly and the magnitude of change would be low and the resultant effect slight adverse and not significant. There are two further LCAs within the 5 km study area, these are ‘Undulating Hills and Valleys’ and ‘Broad Unwooded Vales’, the magnitude of change as a result of development on these distant and wooded landscapes is negligible and the resultant effect no change, and therefore not significant.

9.6.4 Conclusions A summary of the landscape effects is included in the Summary tables at Section 9.9. The site lies within an area of industrial character and is bounded to the west and east by large scale industrial units. Consequently although the proposed building and stack are large in scale they will result in little change to the industrial character of the immediate site context. Some landscape benefits will be provided with development of the site as a result of the proposed

160

landscape planting that will provide green infrastructure and enhance the frontage of the site with Stoke Road. The effects on the surrounding landscape context are limited as a result of the position of the proposed unit adjacent to large scale industrial units that already form part of the backdrop to the wider landscape.

9.7 Assessment of Visual Effects

9.7.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology A comprehensive visual appraisal of the proposed development has been undertaken to determine the potential effects upon surrounding receptors. Using the methodology outlined at the beginning of this Chapter receptors with potential views to the proposed development have been assessed in terms of sensitivity, proposed changes to view and resulting overall significance. Two assessments have been conducted for all receptors. The first considers the effects upon completion of the proposed development and in the winter period (i.e. the screening effects of any deciduous foliage is not taken into account) and the second predicts the effects 10 years after completion and in the summer period (thus enabling the effectiveness of any planting to be evaluated). Figures 9.7-9.14 illustrate the results of the Visual Impact Assessment and Appendix 9.2 includes the full Visual Effects Table. The description of existing views is outlined earlier in this chapter and the accompanying Photo Viewpoints (Figure 9.6) should also be referred to in conjunction with the following descriptions. Two Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) figures have been prepared; the first (Figure 9.7) shows the ZTV of the 53 m stack alone and the second (Figure 9.8) the ZTV of the building with tower but not stack. In addition to aid the assessment four photomontage views (Figures 9.9-9.12) were prepared to more clearly demonstrate the visibility of the proposals in views from the adjacent urban area, the rural area to the north and the rural area to the west. The ZTV plans and photomontages were prepared using height data and accurate modelling of the proposed building and stack. The modelled building height is as set out on the architect’s drawings submitted with the planning application and for the purposes of the assessment is shown as a maximum ridge height of 165.13 m (AOD) for the building and 170.73 m (AOD) for the tower below the stack. The height data utilised in preparing the ZTV plan does not take into account surface features on the land, therefore the restrictions to views from intervening woodland and buildings is not considered. However ridge height topographical survey data on the surrounding industrial units was included to demonstrate the level of visual containment these might provide. The results of the visual effects assessment are described and summarised below.

9.7.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase The location and design of temporary site compounds, lighting, signage and perimeter screen fencing, combined with effective project management would seek to ensure that the potential landscape and visual effects are mitigated and minimised during the construction phase and are likely to be subject to a planning condition. It is anticipated that the construction working methods would seek to adopt best practices wherever practicable and be agreed with the Local Planning Authorities and Statutory Bodies where necessary.

161

The following activities and construction features are anticipated to result in the most notable effects: • Earthworks operations;

• Movement and storage of on-site material;

• Construction traffic;

• Construction and erection of the building units. Construction activities and plant movements within the site would generally only be visible from the visual receptors identified at the site peripheries. The clearest views towards the activities and plant movements would be experienced by residents of a limited number of properties at the north western edge of Desborough with views of the site, peripheral industry and roads, and adjacent public footpaths and cycleways. The peripheral industrial buildings along Stoke Road and at Magnetic Park would screen lower level construction activities from view from most receptors including properties at the Grange/ Grange Park to the east. As construction of the development is reaching completion or if taller equipment such as cranes are required for construction more distant and restricted views towards the construction of the development may be possible from receptors within the surrounding landscape and generally reflecting the ZTV (shown on Figures 9.7 and 9.8). During the construction period, which is expected to last up to 24 months, the significance of the visual effects would vary both between receptors and over time. These effects would generally increase at the peak of construction activity and with the primary structure of the built units (to their maximum heights) in place. At this time, the visible extent of the activities and the significance of the effects would generally reflect those detailed in the Operational Effects section and Visual Effects Table (Appendix 9.2). For some receptors, the visual effects experienced during this peak period would be more severe than those experienced during the operational period, due to the presence of cranes and other construction equipment, yet would be limited to a period of time of approximately 24 months. Opportunities to undertake some advance structural planting around the perimeter of the site (primarily along the southern boundary towards Harborough Road) would be pursued if this is practicable. In combination with temporary screen fencing this could offer some targeted visual mitigation to some of the immediately surrounding receptors. Overall, following the incorporation of mitigation measures, the construction effects on the close-by surrounding visual receptors would vary from slight to moderate adverse, and would therefore not be significant in EIA terms. Those receptors with the clearest views towards the site would experience the most substantial effects during the peak of construction activity. Generally the brownfield nature of the site and its urban/industrial context combine to lessen any resultant effects during this period. The significance of the visual effects during the construction period are considered to be generally comparable with levels of significance determined for the various receptors during the Operational period, as described in the subsequent section and detailed in the Visual Effects Table (Appendix 9.2). In some cases, the potential significance of the effects may be temporarily worse or more likely better than those stated for a period of time during construction. Overall however, it is considered that there would be no significant adverse visual effects during the construction period of the proposed development.

162

9.7.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase

Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) The ZTVs (included on Figures 9.7 and 9.8) depict the area from within which firstly the stack, at 53 m AOD, and secondly the other built elements of the proposed development would be potentially visible. It should be noted that the ZTV is not an indicator of the level of significance of the impact in the view but the potential extent of visibility. The ZTV for the proposed development is approximate and should only be used as a guide in understanding the potential visible extent of the proposals. The ZTVs only illustrate the general topographic constraints on the visual influence of a proposed development. Other than the mapped ridge heights of peripheral industrial buildings on Stoke Road and at Magnetic Park, they do not take into consideration any localised topographical variation such as recently engineered landforms, built elements or vegetation, all of which can significantly reduce the area and extent of actual visibility. Figure 9.7 shows the ZTV of the proposed stack is locally screened by surrounding industrial buildings; further a field the undulating landform of ridges and valleys means that even without taking into account intervening woodland, trees, hedgerow and buildings the stack would not be visible from some locations as a result of the angle of view. This includes parts of the Ise Valley to the south, including the settlements of Arthingworth and Rushton, and the valley to the south of Rothwell. To the north land around and including Stoke Albany and Dingley and to the north-west Market Harborough is excluded from the ZTV. Figure 9.8 shows that the potential ZTV for the other built elements of the proposed development covers a smaller area of land as would be anticipated and the distribution of areas with potential views is similar.

Effects upon Visual Receptors The effects of the proposed development upon visual receptors are set out in the Visual Effects Table in Appendix 9.2. Receptor references included below refer to this table.

Settlement and Properties Summary Within the 5 km search area a number of settlements and scattered properties have been identified that have views towards the proposed development.

Harborough Road Within the adjacent residential area only properties at the north-western settlement edge and fronting Harborough Road (receptor 1) would have views of the main façade of the proposed building and the stack. Intervening trees on Harborough Road soften the view and new landscape planting (including proposed semi-mature trees) would further soften the view of the built development at low levels. The proposed development would be set back in the view beyond existing large scale industrial buildings from certain properties on Harborough Road, however some would experience unobstructed, albeit oblique views of the Energy Centre. The resultant effect with mitigation has therefore been assessed as moderate-substantial, and significant, adverse. It should however be noted that the plot on Eagle Avenue immediately between Harborough Road and the Magnetic Park Energy Centre site is available for development, and should this be taken forward in the future it would provide some screening of the development from this viewpoint, albeit the stack is still likely to be visible.

163

Photomontage 2 (Figure 9.10) is representative of views from residential properties on Harborough Road.

The Grange From properties within the Grange residential area (receptor 2) to the east of the proposed development the Great Bear Distribution Centre currently dominates any view towards the west and would screen the majority of the proposed Energy Centre from view (as shown by Photomontage 4 (Figure 9.12), with only the stack or the roofline of the tower of the main building likely to be visible above the line of the distribution centre in any views towards the proposed development. The resultant visual effect has been assessed at worst as slight adverse.

Desborough and Surrounds From the remainder of residential areas within Desborough (receptor 3) no views of the existing industrial buildings at Magnetic Park and Millbuck Industrial Estate were identified during the site visit. Intervening buildings and the angle of view may prevent any views towards the proposed development, although the stack element is more likely to be visible in any open views towards the site and this would likely be seen in the context of residential properties within the foreground. The resultant effect has been assessed as negligible to slight adverse. In more distant views from scattered properties in the rural area to the north (receptor 4) intervening woodland screens the settlement edge but there may be a view of the proposed Energy Centre filtered by woodland adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre. The stack would protrude above the woodland. This would appear as a distant element within wide open views that include large agri-industry buildings and the resultant effect has been assessed as negligible to slight adverse and will depend upon the level of visibility from each property. Photomontage 3 (Figure 9.11) represents the view from the elevated rural area to the north.

Other Residential Receptors From the settlement of Braybrooke (receptor 5) and scattered properties (receptor 6) in the Braybrooke valley to the west of the application site there may be views from properties towards the Desborough settlement edge on the skyline at the head of the valley. This edge includes vertical elements such as a water tower, floodlighting at the Desborough Town Football Club ground, a chimney at the works on Stoke Road and lighting columns around the A6 roundabout junction. In the direction of the site the Great Bear Distribution Centre can be seen on the horizon. Braybrooke is approximately 3.3 km from the proposed development and other properties 1.75-3 km, at increasing distance and depending upon the extent of visibility from each receptor the visual effects have been assessed as slight to negligible adverse. More distantly to the south-west the settlements of Harrington (receptor 7) and Orton (receptor 8) lie at the 5 km boundary of the area of search. From both settlements there are likely to be glimpsed views of the distant proposed development adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre. The proposed development will be a tiny element within a wide panorama and as such the effect on these receptors has been assessed as negligible. To the south of the application site, Rothwell (receptor 9) is orientated away from the proposed development; only the northern-most properties where views might breach the ridgeline towards Desborough are likely to have a view of the proposed development, this would be seen in context adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre with the townscape of Desborough itself in the foreground. The visual effect on this receptor has been assessed as negligible.

164

To the east there are a number of scattered farmsteads and properties within the rural area (receptor 10). There are currently no views from these properties of Desborough town itself, there is the potential however that the top of the stack may be distantly visible above intervening woodland. Should the stack be visible it would be one single small element within wider panoramic views. The visual effect has been assessed as negligible.

Public Rights of Way summary There are a number of public footpaths and cycleways in the area surrounding the site from where there are already unobstructed, albeit oblique views of the industrial buildings on Stoke Road and at Magnetic Park, and the residential settlement edge (receptor 11). Some of the local rights of way currently provide connections around the industrial area and are therefore assessed as low sensitivity. From all the local public footpaths the proposed development would be seen within the existing industrial context and therefore although the receptors are in relative close proximity the visual effect on users would range from negligible to slight adverse. Photomontage 4 (Figure 9.12) represents the view from the eastern-most local public footpath. From more elevated PRoWs within the rural area to the north (receptor 12) intervening woodland screens views of Desborough but there may be a view of the proposed development, filtered by woodland adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre. The stack would be visible above the woodland. This would appear as a distant element within wide open views that include large agri-industry buildings and the resultant effect has been assessed as negligible to slight adverse. Photomontage 3 (Figure 9.11) represents the view from the elevated rural area to the north. To the west there are a number of connected long distance trails (Macmillan Way, Midshires Way, Jurassic Way (receptors 13) and Brampton Valley Way (the latter is also a linear country park) (receptor 14). These routes follow undulating landforms and therefore the visibility of the proposed development will vary along each route. From elevated locations where there are open views towards the Desborough settlement edge, the Great Bear Distribution Centre is distantly seen in the direction of the site. The visual effect on users of these receptors has been assessed as negligible to slight adverse depending on proximity and extent of the view; the distance of the receptors from the site ranges from approximately 2.5 km to 5 km (and beyond 5 km for the Brampton Valley Way Country Park), the level of the effect decreasing with distance.

Roads and Areas of Employment Summary From peripheral roads (Stoke Road and Harborough Road adjacent to the site) and Stoke Road/Magnetic Park employment areas the likely visual effect of the proposals would be slight adverse initially becoming negligible as landscaping associated with the proposed development establishes. The current view includes large scale industry and cleared areas of brownfield land. Therefore although the proposed development would dominate the view it would be seen within the context of adjacent industry and the proposed landscape would offset adverse effects with visual benefits for some ground level views. Photomontage 2 (Figure 9.10) represents a local view of the proposed development. In the approaches to Desborough from the west users of the A6 (receptor 15) and Harborough Road (receptor 16) and people at work at Eckland Lodge Business Park would experience slight adverse effects depending upon the proximity to the receptor and the extent of visibility (parts of the A6 are within cutting). The proposed development would be clearly visible between existing industrial buildings on Stoke Road and the Great Bear Distribution Centre; this would

165

be seen within the context of the wider panorama at the edge of Desborough which includes residential properties and vertical elements such as an industrial chimney on Stoke Road, a water tower and floodlighting at the Desborough Town Football Club. In the approach to Desborough from Stoke Road to the north (receptor 17), travellers would have a transient glimpse view towards the development as the road dips from higher land towards Desborough. There may be a glimpse of the roofline of the main building of the proposed development adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre and the stack would protrude above the woodland. This would form a single vertical element within a wide panoramic view which includes agri-industrial buildings. In summer months visibility would be reduced. At worst, users of the road would likely experiences slight adverse effects. Photomontage 3 (Figure 9.11) represents a similar viewpoint. In the approach to Desborough from Arthingworth Road (receptor 18) from the south the roofline and stack of the proposed development would be seen occasionally in the context of the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre, the view softened by intervening vegetation, establishing vegetation on the A6 embankment as it matures would further filter or screen the view. The effect on users of this road is assessed as low adverse to negligible. At a greater distance from the site users of the lane on the southern ridge above Braybrooke Valley (receptor 19) in transient views driving towards the site would have a view of the development proposals on the distant skyline (3.5-5 km) adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough. At this distance the visual effects would be difficult to discern as part of the wider view and have been assessed as negligible.

Recreational Facilities and Heritage Sites Views from three existing and proposed recreational facilities have been assessed within 1.2 km of the proposed development. Users of Desborough Town Football Club (receptor 20) may have views of the roofline and stack of the development; if visible the likely effect would be slight to moderate adverse with the development seen as part of the urban context which includes floodlighting, water tower and residential properties and therefore the visual effects have been assessed as slight adverse. From the Desborough Town Cricket Club and White Lodge Rural Centre (receptor 21) there may be views of the end profile of the building adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre through intervening woodland during the winter months, the stack would likely be visible above the woodland, during the summer months only the stack would likely be visible, the visual effects have been assessed as slight adverse. Within the proposed Country Park (receptor 22) to the east of the proposed development, views towards the development are generally screened by intervening hedgerows. The intervening Great Bear Distribution Centre would screen most of the proposed development from view and only the top of the tower and stack would be visible as shown by Photomontage 4 (Figure 9.12). The visual effect has been assessed as slight. Public viewpoints close to or within Heritage Sites have also been assessed. From the road adjacent to the Triangular Lodge and Rushton Hall Registered Park and Garden (receptor 23) approximately 3.4 km to the east of the proposed development, there is currently no view of Desborough and therefore at worst only the top of the stack would likely be visible as a distant element on the skyline. Woodland encloses the Hall and most of the grounds however only one field (not publicly accessible and in arable use) within the Registered Park and Garden is

166

orientated towards the proposed development. The assessed effect is therefore considered to be negligible. Pipewell Hall and the adjacent scheduled monument (receptor 24) are positioned within a dip in the landform approximately 4 km from the proposed development, with intervening woodland on higher land, and no view is anticipated of the proposed development. Should the top of the stack be visible above woodland it would be at such a distance as to be barely discernible, and the visual effect has therefore been assessed as negligible. From the public right of way within the designated scheduled monument at Braybrooke the proposed development would be visible partially filtered by intervening vegetation adjacent to the Great Bear Distribution Centre. The stack would form an additional vertical element on the skyline in the context of the floodlighting and water tower at the Desborough urban edge and as such the visual effect has been assessed as slight adverse. Similar views from the scheduled monument and Registered Park and Garden at Harrington are at a greater distance (approximately 5 km) and as such the effect on the view would be negligible.

Summary The development proposals are located within an existing industrial area containing large scale buildings and the proposed development will be viewed within this context. Locally the Great Bear Distribution Centre screens much of the proposed development from view. Around the periphery of the site users of roads and industrial receptors would at worst experience slight adverse effects resulting from the development and as peripheral planting associated with the development establishes the effects would lessen to negligible with the visual effects of the maturing landscape offsetting the adverse effects of built development. Only the residential properties at the north-western edge of Desborough that face the site would experience moderate to moderate-substantial visual effects with intervening landscape planting filtering ground level views of the building. Within the wider context in views from the east the Great Bear Distribution Centre would screen all but the stack and roofline of the tower from view. In views from elevated areas to the north intervening woodland screens much of the proposed development from view and where visible it would be seen as a small element within a wider panorama that includes the adjacent Great Bear Distribution Centre and agri-industrial buildings in the foreground. To the west the proposed development would be seen in front of the Great Bear Distribution Centre as part of Desborough on the skyline and the stack would be seen within the context of other vertical elements including the water tower, floodlighting at the football club and an existing tall chimney within the works on Stoke Road. To the east it is likely that intervening landform and woodland would prevent even the top of the stack being visible. The resultant effects have been assessed as slight adverse at worst, decreasing to negligible with increasing distance from the proposed development.

Night Time Visual Effects A night-time visual impact assessment has been conducted to assess the development proposals in relation to existing lighting levels in proximity of the site. The assessment was conducted at night to assess the site context and the interrelationship and visibility of the existing light sources. This has been compared with the anticipated lighting that will be generated by the proposed development. Within this chapter, the general lighting for the proposed development as outlined in the following section has been considered. All subsequent detailed lighting

167

proposals will be based upon the latest best practice guidelines, including ‘Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’ (Institute of Lighting Engineers, 1995). The following factors largely influence the extent of the night time visual effects: • Adoption of best lighting design practice;

• Existing and future potential ecological receptors on site;

• The existing extent and levels of lighting in and around the application site;

• The number of receptors with views to the proposals. Photographs (Figure 9.14) have been undertaken to illustrate the light sources within the site context. Due to the existing industrial context of the application site, existing light sources occur adjacent to the site at Magnetic Park and industry on Stoke Road and associated street lighting providing the main light sources. Residential properties also provide light sources in views from the rural area to the north. In longer views from the north, east and west there is sky glow above Desborough. Within the rural area north of the application site, residential properties and employment areas provide scattered light sources, the most notable being the West Lodge Rural Centre. To the east the night sky is lit by a larger distant light source which may be associated with the town of Corby. There are no proposed operational areas outside the buildings at night therefore proposed lighting as part of the development includes the following:

• A marker on the stack to provide protection from low flying aircraft;

• Low lux down-lighting at street level around the building car parking areas;

• Low level security lighting. It is anticipated that this light source will have a negligible effect on the already well lit industrial context of the site and given the built up nature of its surrounding environment the low level lighting would result in no change to the wider context and the visual effect has been assessed as negligible. The marker on the stack would be visible from the identified receptors that have been assessed as having a view of the stack. This single light would be seen above the overall night glow created by Desborough. The light on the stack will add a new element within the night sky in views towards Desborough with the effect assessed as slight adverse given the urban lighting context of the proposals, which also includes flood lighting at the football ground. Sensitive design of lighting around the building periphery will be undertaken to avoid unnecessary lighting and minimise light spill through sensitive down lighting or other means. The strategy is to avoid unnecessary lighting and internalise lighting and activities where possible; these will be screened by the buildings to minimise light spill. The proposed development will seek to adopt best practice guidelines in the design and use of lighting to minimise any potentially adverse effects.

168

9.7.4 Possible Other Mitigation No other potential opportunities for mitigation have been identified.

9.7.5 Conclusions The assessment findings indicate that views of the proposed development would be substantially limited in most areas by intervening vegetation and built form, including the Great Bear Distribution Centre and other units at Magnetic Park and the Millbuck Industrial Estate off Stoke Road, as well as existing built development at the Grange and Desborough. Clear views of the site are primarily limited to receptors in close proximity to the west and south of the site which have limited intervening elements. A relatively small number of visual receptors would have some filtered and/or partial views of the stack element (at a maximum 53 m) and rooflines of the proposed development (such as users of PRoW in more elevated locations within the surrounding landscape) although these are likely to be influenced by seasonal variations in foliage cover. A small number of residential receptors in properties within the Grange and Desborough may also have partial views of the upper portions of the EfW stack above, or through gaps between the intervening industrial/ commercial units. The proposed development would be seen from most receptors within the context of existing industry at Magnetic Park and the Millbuck Industrial Estate. The selected viewpoints have been chosen to represent a range of receptors within the 5 km area of search and to include the most sensitive identified landscape receptors (Figure 9.4). From these receptors; Triangular Lodge/ Rushton Hall Registered Park and Garden, Pipewell Hall and Scheduled Monument, remains of castle Scheduled Monument at Braybrooke and the Registered Park and Garden and Scheduled Monument at Harrington no significant visual effects were identified. Given the scale of the proposed development potential for mitigation is limited. Landscape planting will only have effects at a local level. Distant views have been mitigated by the location of the building adjacent to the large scale Great Bear Distribution Centre building and the choice of materials of a comparative colour designed to be sympathetic with the surrounding built elements and environment.

9.8 Cumulative Effects The proposed development is located centrally within the industrial area at the north-western edge of Desborough. The massing of the existing industrial buildings has a visual presence within the landscape context to the west and dominates the local urban context. The addition of the proposed development within this context would not significantly alter the presence of this industrial area and therefore would not result in any cumulative adverse effects of significance.

9.9 Summary of Predicted Effects A summary of the landscape and visual effects as analysed in Sections 9.6-9.8 and an evaluation of their significance are provided in Tables 9.4 and 9.5 below.

169

Table 9.4 Summary of Landscape Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Landscape Probability Value/ Magnitude Significance Receptor Sensitivity Level Rationale

Site landscape Certain Low High Not There would be a slight character and significant beneficial effect as a result of immediate surrounds the introduction of landscape structure to the site periphery. Adverse effects as a result of the development would be slight to negligible given the industrial context and current character of the site.

Site landscape Certain Low High Not The site has no landscape features significant features at present and would benefit from the introduction of a landscape framework / Green infrastructure Local Landscape Character

Local landscape Likely Low Low – Not The setting of this character character – residential medium significant area is already influenced by the context industrial surrounds to the site and large scale industrial buildings and effects of further development would be slight adverse at worst. Local landscape Likely Medium – Low Not The industrial context of the site character – rural high significant already has some influence on context the wider landscape context, the effects with development would be slight adverse at worst. Northamptonshire Landscape Character Assessment LCAs

Wooded Clay Plateau Likely Low Negligible Not There will be no effect on the LCA significant character of this landscape. Rolling Ironstone Likely Low Low Not The industrial context of the site Valley Slopes LCA significant already has some influence on the wider landscape context, the effects with development would be slight adverse at worst. Undulating Hills and Likely Low Negligible Not There will be no effect on the Valleys LCA significant character of this landscape. Broad Unwooded Vale Likely Low Negligible Not There will be no effect on the LCA significant character of this landscape. Key: Probability Value/ Magnitude Significance Sensitivity Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely Negligible

170

Table 9.5 Summary of Visual Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Visual Probability Value Magnitude Significance Receptor Level Rationale

1 Certain High Medium Significant Some residential receptors in close proximity will have unobstructed, albeit oblique views of the proposed development. As landscape planting associated with the development establishes this would filter and mitigate lower level views.

2 Likely Medium Low Not significant Intervening Great Bear Distribution Centre would screen much of the view. 3 Possible Medium Low Not significant Intervening buildings likely to screen most views. 4 Possible High Low Not significant Development would be largely screened by woodland, distant and in context of other buildings of industrial character. 5 Possible High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of the Great Bear Distribution Centre & Desborough urban areas. 6 Possible High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas. 7 Possible High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas. 8 Possible High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre. 9 Unlikely Medium Low Not significant Views thought unlikely due to the angle of view, may be possible from upstairs windows of northernmost properties. 10 Unlikely High None Not significant Only top of stack may be visible above woodland but unlikely. 11 Certain Medium Low Not significant Roofline and stack visible above Great Bear Distribution Centre and seen in this context. 12 Certain - High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in unlikely context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas and subject to elevation and location of viewpoint along the route. 13 Certain - High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in unlikely context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas & subject to elevation and location of viewpoint along the route. 14 Possible - High None Not significant At distance greater than 5 km. unlikely Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas and subject to elevation and location of viewpoint along the route.

171

Table 9.5 (continued) Summary of Visual Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Visual Probability Value Magnitude Significance Receptor Level Rationale

15 Certain Low Low Not significant Development would be seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas and subject to location of viewpoint along the route. 16 Certain Low Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas. 17 Certain Low Low – high Not significant Development would be seen in the context (depending of adjacent industry. on proximity) 18 Likely Low Low Not significant Development would be seen in the context of the Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough settlement edge. 19 Certain Low Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas and subject to elevation and location of viewpoint along the route. 20 Likely Medium Low Not significant Development would be seen in context of urban area, water tower and floodlighting. 21 Possible Medium/ Low Not significant Development would be seen adjacent to high Great Bear Distribution Centre if not screened by intervening woodland, stack visible above woodland. 22 Possible High Low Not significant Top of stack may be distantly visible above view of Great Bear Distribution Centre 23 Unlikely High Low Not significant Top of stack may be distantly visible. 24 Unlikely High None Not significant Top of stack unlikely to be distantly visible. 25 Certain High Low Not significant Development would be distant and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre and Desborough urban areas. 26 Certain High Low Not significant Development would be distant (5 km) and seen in context of Great Bear Distribution Centre & Desborough urban areas. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

9.10 Implementation of Mitigation Measures Table 9.6 sets out the mitigation measures and proposals for compliance monitoring that have been incorporated into the proposals to mitigate the effects on receptors. It also includes details of who would be responsible for the implementation of the measures, and the suggested mechanism of compliance to ensure that the proposals would be carried out as envisaged.

172

Table 9.6 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism

Erection of screen fencing along the proposal site’s Site management By planning condition drafted and western boundary and southern boundaries at the monitored by Northamptonshire start of the construction phase, combined with the County Council. strategic location of necessary site infrastructure and contractor’s compound to minimise visibility.

Appropriate site management during the Site management By planning condition drafted and construction phase, including regular litter sweeps. monitored by Northamptonshire County Council.

Sensitively designed lighting to reduce light spill Developer By agreement with (during both construction and operational phases). Northamptonshire County Council.

Sensitive selection of colours/ materials for the Developer By agreement with proposed development buildings to reduce contrast Northamptonshire County with those characteristic of the local area. In the Council. case of the stack, the colour should be selected to reduce the contrast between this element and the sky.

Protection of existing boundary hedgerow to be Site management By agreement with retained on Stoke Road where possible by Northamptonshire County appropriate demarcation and/ or use of protective Council. fencing.

Long term maintenance of site to enhance Developer By agreement with establishment of new planting and appearance of Northamptonshire County the site throughout the operational phase. Council.

9.11 Technical References 1. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Second Edition, April 2002) published by The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). 3. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (30 March 2011). 4. Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS8) for the East Midlands (March 2009). 5. Northamptonshire Council Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) - Core Strategy, adopted 20 May 2010. 6. The Control and Management of Development DPD, adopted June 2011. 7. Development and Implementation Principles SPD, adopted September 2011. 8. North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, adopted June 2008. 9. Local Plan for Kettering Borough, adopted 30 January 1995 - saved policies.

173

10. Character Map of England, Countryside Agency (2006). 11. The East Midlands Regional Landscape Character Assessment, April 2010. 12. Northamptonshire Environmental Character and Green Infrastructure Suite, Launched November 2006: - The Northamptonshire Current Landscape Character Assessment: Landscape Strategy and Guidelines; - Green Infrastructure making the Connection. 13. www.magic.gov.uk.

174

175

10. Noise

10.1 Introduction The proposed development will lead to changes in existing noise sources and will introduce some new sources of noise into the local area. This chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES), which should be read in conjunction with the development description presented in Chapter 2 and also the Planning Statement, assesses the magnitude and significance of these effects by reference to relevant planning policy, British Standards, and other guidance documents. For the purposes of the assessment, it has been assumed that all of the incorporated mitigation measures will be fully implemented, and the predictions and conclusions presented in this ES are based on this assumption. Mechanisms to ensure the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures are presented at the end of the chapter.

10.2 Context

10.2.1 Relevant Terminology The ratio between the quietest audible sound and the loudest tolerable sound is a million to one in terms of the change in sound pressure. Due to the wide range, a scale based on a logarithmic basis is used in noise level measurement. The scale used is the decibel (dB) scale which extends from 0 to 140 decibels (dB) corresponding to the intensity of the sound pressure level. The ear has the ability to recognise a particular sound depending on the pitch or frequencies found at the source. Microphones cannot differentiate noise in the same way as the ear; and to counter this weakness the noise measuring instrument applies a correction to correspond more closely to the frequency response of the ear. The correction factor is called ‘A Weighting’ and the resulting measurements are written as dB(A). ‘A Weighting’ refers to the noise level that represents the human ear’s response to sound. The dB(A) is internationally accepted and has been found to correspond well with people’s subjective reaction to noise. Typical dB(A) noise levels for familiar noises are given in Table 10.1. The noise levels given in Table 10.1 are sound pressure levels (SPL) and describe the noise level at a point in space. Sound Power Levels (SWL) are used to describe the noise output of a noise source. Noise levels vary over time depending on noise generating activities. The following indices are used to take account of these variations:

• LAeq is the equivalent continuous sound level and is the sound level of a steady sound having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over the same period. It is possible to consider this level as the ambient noise encompassing all noise at a given time. LAeq is considered the best general purpose index for environmental noise;

176

• LA90 index represents the noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period and is used to indicate quieter times during the measurement period. It is usually referred to as the background noise level;

• LA10 refers to the level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. LA10 is widely used as a descriptor of traffic noise; and

• LAmax is maximum recorded noise level during the measurement period.

Table 10.1 Typical Noise Levels

Approximate Noise Level dB(A) Example

0 Limit of hearing.

30 Rural area at night, no wind or adverse weather conditions.

40 Library.

50 Quiet office without noisy machinery, such as typewriters.

60 Normal conversation.

70 In car noise without radio.

80 Household vacuum cleaner.

100 Pneumatic drill.

140 Threshold of pain. Source: AMEC.

10.2.2 Technical Context Noise can have an effect on the environment and on the quality of life enjoyed by individuals and communities. The effects of noise can therefore be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The proposed development will introduce new noise sources into the area, although it should be noted that there are a number of commercial and industrial noise sources already present in the area. A noise assessment has therefore been undertaken to determine the effects of noise at the nearest neighbours to the proposed development site. Future noise levels are predicted and compared to noise limits imposed by British Standards to determine whether significant adverse effects are likely to occur.

10.2.3 Planning and Legislative Context

Legislation In preparing this chapter of the ES, account has been taken of relevant legislation and regulations, namely:

• Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part III (as amended by Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993);

177

• Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010;

• Control of Pollution Act 1974;

• Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended by The Noise Insulation (Amendment) Regulations 1988); and • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.

National Policy National policies relating to noise provide a framework for the assessment and consideration of noise issues. Relevant national policies are listed in Table 10.2, along with an outline of the issues included in these policies that need to be considered when undertaking the EIA process. A fuller policy review can be found in the Planning Statement.

Table 10.2 Policy Issues to be Considered in Preparing the ES

Policy Reference Policy Issue

National Planning Policies

Planning Policy Guidance: Sets out guidance on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse Planning and Noise impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development. It outlines (PPG 24 1994)1 the main considerations which local planning authorities should take into account when determining planning applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources. Reference is made to other documents for guidance on the assessment of certain types of noise sources.

Noise Policy Statement for Sets out the long-term aims of Government noise policy. The Noise Policy Aims, as England (NPSE 2010)2 presented within this document, are:

“Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development: • avoid significant adverse effects on health and quality of life; • mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life; and • where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.”

The NPSE draws on two established concepts from toxicology that are currently being applied to noise effects, for example, by the World Health Organisation, namely NOEL – No Observed Effect Level and LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. The NPSE extends these concepts and introduces the concept of a Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL). This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life are understood to occur.

The second aim of the NPSE refers to the situation where the effect 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 of the NPSE). This does not mean that such adverse effects cannot occur.

The third 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, 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.

178

Regional and Local Policy Regional and local policies provide a local perspective of noise issues and the management and control thereof. Relevant policies are listed in Table 10.3, along with an outline of the specific issues included in these policies that need to be considered when undertaking the EIA process. A fuller policy review can be found in the Planning Statement.

Table 10.3 Policy Issues to be Considered in Preparing the ES

Policy Reference Policy Issue

Regional Planning Policies – East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy

Policy 1 Regional Core Objectives, k) To minimise adverse environmental impacts of new developments and promote social and economic benefits through promotion of sustainable design and construction techniques.

North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy

Policy 13 General Sustainable Development should... Not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities Development Principles, l) of neighbouring properties or the wider area, by reason of noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution, loss of light or overlooking.

British Standards and other Guidance Documents PPG24 makes reference to a number of separate documents which contain advice on the assessment of noise from different sources, or appropriate internal noise levels for different rooms or activities. These are summarised along with other relevant guidance documents in Table 10.4 below. Where documents cited by PPG24 have been superseded since its publication, the current version is detailed.

Table 10.4 Noise Guidance Documents

Guidance Document Summary

BS5228:20093 Code of practice for noise This document provides guidance on the assessment and control of and vibration control on construction and noise and vibration on construction and open sites, in two separate open sites volumes, along with suggestions for the derivation of guideline noise and vibration limits.

BS4142:19974 Method for rating industrial This British Standard provides a methodology for determining whether a noise affecting mixed residential and new or existing noise source is likely to cause noise complaints by industrial areas comparing the operational noise level (noise due to the industrial source) with the background level (noise level without the industrial source).

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Vol Contains advice on the assessment of noise from road traffic, 11 Environmental Assessment5 (Nov 2011) particularly that from new/altered roads.

BS8233:19996 Sound insulation and noise Residential: presents ‘good’ and ‘reasonable’ design criteria for internal reduction for buildings – a code of practice noise levels in living rooms during the day, and in bedrooms at night.

World Health Organisation Guidelines for Presents guideline noise levels for community noise in specific Community Noise (1999)7 environments e.g. outdoor living areas and outside bedrooms.

179

10.3 Assessment Approach

10.3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Survey Work At the scoping stage, preliminary data gathering involved a review of the Environmental Statement for The Grange II, Desborough (Application No. KET/2011/0235), and in particular Chapter 10 of that ES, ‘Noise’. This is an approved outline planning application for a residential development to the north and west of the proposed development site, comprising up to 700 dwellings and community facilities. A review of relevant ordnance survey mapping and aerial photographs was undertaken in order to identify current noise sources affecting the local area, and the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the site. A shortlist of background monitoring locations was compiled for consideration by Kettering Borough Council.

10.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment

Potential Receptors The existing noise sensitive receptors which have the potential to experience significant noise effects are primarily residential dwellings located in proximity to the development site. Existing industrial and commercial properties in the surrounding area are not identified as potential receptors, as they are likely to be significant noise producing developments themselves, and are thus considered unlikely to experience significant noise effects from the proposed development. Seven locations were identified which were considered representative of the sensitive receptors in the area (see Figure 10.1): R1. Residential properties on Bestwood Close, approximately 440 m southwest of the development; R2. Residential properties on Harborough Road and Gapstile Close approximately 320 m south of the development; R3. Residential property at Dob Hall Farm approximately 300 m north of the development; R4. North-western area of proposed residential development (The Grange, Phase II) approximately 130 m northeast of the development; R5. Southern area of proposed residential development (The Grange, Phase II) approximately 350 m southeast of the development; R6. Western area of proposed residential development (The Grange, Phase II) approximately 270 m east of the development; and R7. Residential properties on Ironwood Avenue, Mulberry Close, Buttercup Road and Wood Avens Way approximately 300 m southeast of the development.

180

Potential Significant Effects Potentially significant noise effects could result from the construction and/or operation of the proposed development as follows:

• Increases in ambient noise levels during the construction period have the potential to affect the amenity of existing noise sensitive receptors;

• Increases in ambient noise during the operational phase due to activities and plant at the EfW may have the potential to affect the amenity of nearby existing noise sensitive receptors. An increase in local road traffic flows as a result of the development has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts on receptors aligning these routes. However, between the site access roundabout and the A6 Harborough Road to the north (the primarily proposed haulage route), the road traffic volume is predicted to increase by less than 1.4% (18hr weekdays) and less than 12% (peak 1hr period 07:00-08:00) on Saturdays (the traffic data is provided in the Traffic section of this report). According to the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), an increase of 25% is required to trigger a 1dB increase in the base traffic generated noise. 1dB is considered to be the minimum perceivable increase in noise to the human ear. The impact of road traffic noise due to the development has therefore been scoped out of further assessment.

10.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology

Construction Noise PPG24 recommends the use of the guidance presented in BS5228-1:2009, and this British Standard has been used to carry out predictions of construction noise. The predictions are based upon information on the likely plant to be involved in the construction process. An indicative plant list has been formulated based upon experience of other similar scale projects by AMEC. The final plant list would be determined by the contractor, and could vary significantly from that used for this assessment, hence the predicted noise levels should be used as an indication of the possible noise levels. More detailed information on construction noise management would be agreed with Kettering Borough Council prior to commencement of development. As the precise makes and models of equipment are not known at this stage, typical noise data for the construction plant have been obtained from BS5228-1:2009 which gives an indication of noise levels from construction plant taken from measurements at various sites. Predictions of construction noise have been undertaken using spreadsheet techniques, for the nearest receptors to the site. The noise modelling process is complex, but in simple terms it takes into account the following data:

• Noise source location - based on the development Masterplan as provided by RDC Development Consultants, with an allowance made for mobile sources (e.g. mobile plant) which move around the site and would be at differing distances from the receptor;

• noise emission data - sound power levels or sound pressure levels taken from published sources, field measurements or data supplied by manufacturers;

181

• noise source on-time - this reflects the operational hours and duration of intermittently operating noise sources; • distance between noise source and receptor - based on the development Masterplan and OS digital data; • receptor locations - based on OS maps;

• building heights;

• locations and dimensions of barriers between noise source and receptor; and

• ground attenuation - related to the type of ground cover between the source and the receptor. The calculations have utilised the assumed noise emission data detailed in Table 10.5 below.

Table 10.5 Noise Emission Data for Construction Plant

Plant Item Sound Pressure Level On Time (%) at 10 m (dB(A))

Access and Hardstanding Areas

Backhoe with breaker 88 86

Wheeled excavator 73 86

Dozer 82 86 Dump truck 81 86

Roller 80 86

Asphalt spreader 77 86

Groundworks

Excavator 79 86

Dumptruck 78 86

Dozer 81 86

Generator 74 100

Foundations

Concrete Batching plant 80 100

Dump truck 81 86

Excavator 79 86

Grinders 80 86

Compressor 77 100

Generator 74 100

Crane 76 50 CFA Piling rig 80 50

182

Industrial Noise Predictions of operational noise from the facility itself and on-site HGV movements have also been carried out using a methodology based upon guidance in BS5228-1:2009. In addition to the data inputs described above for the construction noise calculations, the operational noise calculations have used data describing the noise emissions from the noise sources operating within the EfW and turbine hall/boiler buildings to calculate internal reverberant noise levels using standard acoustic formulae. Since the exact materials used to construct the building have not been confirmed, in calculating the reverberant level it was assumed that the building had a reverberation time of 3 seconds. The breakout of noise from within the building was calculated from the reverberant level using standard acoustic formulae and assumed that the building walls are constructed from 18g steel fluted panels and the roof construction is 22g galvanised steel sheet (or materials of similar sound reduction performance). In accordance with BS4142, predicted noise levels have been calculated for a 1hr daytime period, and a 5 minute night-time period. The sound power levels and operational on-times used in the calculations are based on survey measurements, information from the facility’s designers and plant manufacturers. This data is presented in Appendix 10.1. The plant list is not exhaustive. Other items of plant may be used on site which would have little effect on noise levels at individual receptors due to their low noise emissions, high mobility or short duration of use. For example, cars accessing, leaving or moving around the site have not been included since they are unlikely to significantly influence 1 hour averaged noise levels experienced at any receptors.

10.3.4 Significance Criteria

Overview The determination of significance has largely been based on the magnitude of effect, and therefore the relevant noise criteria drawn from the guidance documents detailed in Section 10.2.3, some of which include reference to existing ambient or background noise levels. These noise criteria are not directly related to the categories of ‘significant’ and ‘not significant’ that underpin EIA. The determination of significance in EIA is based on the sensitivity of a particular receptor (which depends on local circumstances and the type of receptor), as well as the magnitude of change in noise levels (which is related to existing background or ambient noise levels and predicted noise levels due to the development). The actual noise level (i.e. the predicted future noise level) would also influence the determination of significance, since it may either exceed or comply with relevant guideline noise limits, irrespective of the amount of change predicted. The determination of significance also takes into account the duration and frequency of occurrence of the noise effect, as well as the time of day or night at which it occurs. For example, a particular noise level considered to result in significant effects if it is due to a permanent noise source which operates frequently for long durations may be considered to result in no significant effects if it occurs infrequently for short periods; a noise level which is considered to result in no significant effects if it occurs during normal work hours of a weekday, may be considered to result in significant effects if it occurred on a Sunday evening.

183

Noise Sensitivity PPG24 focuses on residential properties as being noise sensitive, although it does cite developments such as offices, hospitals and schools as containing buildings and activities that are potentially noise sensitive. PPG24 does not differentiate between these uses in terms of the degree of sensitivity to noise, however the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines does introduce such a concept. Residential properties are recognised as being noise sensitive, but since it is assumed that they are occupied by members of the general population, they are considered less sensitive than patients of hospitals etc. Residential properties have therefore been assigned a sensitivity of medium. Many commercial and industrial premises would normally be considered to be of a low sensitivity. This designation recognises that these premises are often considerable sources of noise in themselves.

Magnitude The magnitude of effect has been based on the noise predictions that have been undertaken in Section 10.6. However, since the noise predictions have been based on conservative assumptions, it would be inappropriate to conclude that a high magnitude has arisen simply because the relevant noise limits have been predicted to be breached. The amount by which the limits are predicted to be breached, along with the duration of the effect should also be taken into account. The apportionment of a magnitude rating has therefore taken this situation into account by applying an element of professional judgement. Whilst there are many guidance documents which provide guideline noise levels for various noise sources or receptors, few address the topic of frequency and duration of noise effects. With respect to individual noisy events at night, the WHO guidelines recommend that they do not exceed a certain criterion more than 10-15 times per night. With respect to noise from minerals workings, Minerals Policy Statement 2 (Annex 2, 2005) allows for a higher than normal noise limit to apply for up to eight weeks per year, and recognises that for shorter periods, an even higher limit may be acceptable. With these example guidelines in mind, the frequency and duration of noise effects are included in the professional judgement exercised in the assignment of magnitude and the determination of significance. In terms of the amount of change in noise levels, this would only potentially become significant if the change is perceptible. Table 10.6 summarises typical responses to changes in steady noise levels, based on laboratory conditions. It is considered likely that changes in a variable or moving noise source would be perceived at lower levels. For example DMRB 11, which presents guidance on the assessment of traffic noise, states that a 1dB(A) change in noise is the minimum which can be detected by the human ear in the short term.

184

Table 10.6 Perception of Changes in Steady Noise Levels

Change in Noise Level dB(A) Response

< 3 Difficult to perceive

> 3 Perceptible

<10 Up to a doubling of perceived loudness

> 10 Over a doubling of perceived loudness

Construction With respect to the assessment of construction noise, BS5228-1:2009 presents possible methods for determining assessment criteria for construction noise. The first is based on guidance first presented in Advisory Leaflet 72 Noise Control on Building Sites (AL72), published by the Department of the Environment. The maximum tolerable noise levels for construction sites located in a rural or suburban environments such as the development site at Magnetic Park are normally related to potential periods (or times) of operation. The relevant criteria from AL72 for the assessment of construction noise effects are summarised in Table 10.7.

Table 10.7 Relationship between the Period of Construction Operation and Noise Threshold

Operations Period Working Hours Construction Noise Limit

Daytime (08:00-18:00) 70 dB(A) LAeq 10 hour

Evening (18:00-22:00) 60 dB(A) LAeq 4 hour

Night time (22:00-08:00) No construction operations

Alternative methods take into account the existing (preconstruction) ambient noise levels. Using the data reported in Table 10.10, for the 10 hr weekday period and Saturday morning period (i.e. likely construction hours), the guidance in BS5228-1:2009 suggests that a significant effect is likely to occur if the total ambient noise level (i.e. existing plus construction noise levels) exceeds 65dB(A). The magnitude criteria developed for this project combine these two approaches.

Industrial Noise The determination of the magnitude of effect for industrial noise is based on BS4142:1997, which provides a methodology for determining whether a new or existing noise source is likely to cause noise complaints by comparing the operational noise level (including any penalty applied to reflect certain acoustic features) with the background level, (i.e. the level that would occur in the absence of the noise from the development). A difference of more than +10dB(A) indicates that complaints are likely, whilst a difference of -10dB(A) indicates that complaints

185

are unlikely. A difference of around +5dB(A) suggests that the likelihood of complaint is marginal. For the purpose of this assessment the guidance has been interpreted as: • a difference between -10dB(A) and 0dB(A) indicates complaints are unlikely;

• a difference of 0 to +10dB(A) suggests the likelihood of complaint is marginal; and

• a difference of over +10dB(A) is a positive indication that complaints are likely. BS4142:1997 acknowledges that response to noise is subjective and the likelihood of complaints depends on a number of additional factors, as well as the overall noise level. For example, the time of day or night when the noise occurs, a change in the noise environment and also attitude to the noise source.

Summary A summary of the noise magnitude criteria used in this assessment is shown in Table 10.8. These criteria apply to permanent changes in the noise environment, resulting from noise sources which occur frequently, or for long durations. These criteria would be relaxed for noise sources which operate temporarily, infrequently or for very short durations in order to take into account the duration and frequency of occurrence of the noise effect.

Table 10.8 Summary of Noise Magnitude Criteria Applicable to Long Term Noise Effects Which Occur Frequently or For Long Durations

Noise Issue Low Medium High

Construction Total ambient noise level Total ambient noise level Total ambient noise level <65dB. 65-75dB. >75dB. Daytime (0700-1900)

Industrial Sources Industrial noise levels are Industrial noise levels are Industrial noise levels are >10dB(A) less than existing <10dB(A) above existing >10dB(A) above existing background noise levels. background noise levels; background noise levels;

OR AND

Industrial noise levels are Exceed the reasonable >10dB(A) above existing criteria specified in BS8233. background noise levels but below the reasonable criteria specified in BS8233.

Summary of Determination of Noise Significance As stated previously, significance is related to sensitivity and magnitude. Table 10.9 presents a matrix which shows the interaction between sensitivity and magnitude, and how this has been used to determine the significance of any noise effects.

186

Table 10.9 Significance Matrix

Magnitude Sensitivity

High Medium Low

High Significant Significant Not Significant

Medium Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Low Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

The significance evaluation methodology set out above has been used to guide the determination process. However, throughout the assessment professional judgement has been used to ensure that all effects which are considered to be a material consideration in determining planning permission are identified as significant.

10.3.5 Technical Consultations Discussions were held with Kettering Borough Council (KBC) Environmental Health department in January 2012, regarding scope of the baseline noise monitoring survey. The number, location and duration of monitoring positions were agreed in principle prior to commencement of the survey. The use of appropriate impact assessment methodologies and guidance used in this chapter was also agreed.

10.3.6 Final Scope of the Assessment The scope of the assessment is largely as described by the Scoping Report i.e. construction noise effects are predicted and assessed in accordance with BS5228 and operational noise effects are assessed in accordance with BS4142 and guidance in BS8233 and WHO ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’. Detailed impact assessments have been undertaken at the seven closest noise-sensitive receptor locations identified in Section 10.3.2. To facilitate this, baseline noise monitoring data was obtained for each location primarily via the survey undertaken between 26 January and 1 February 2012, as well as a review of survey data recorded for the neighbouring proposed housing development (The Grange, Phase II). A number of potential effects have been scoped out during the EIA process, which were not explicitly addressed during the scoping stage. These are detailed below, along with the reasons why the effects are considered unlikely to be significant:

• Increases in vibration levels experienced by existing sensitive receptors due to construction related activities - the precise construction methodology and likely plant complement is not available at this stage and based on the assumed plant list in Table 10.5 above, the only construction plant capable of producing potentially significant vibration levels is the backhoe with breaker attachment, and the piling rig. Taking into account the relatively large distances between the site and receptors, the availability of lower vibration plant options (e.g. cast in-situ piles rather than vibratory piling techniques) and the temporary nature of construction works, it is considered unlikely that there will be any significant vibration effects;

187

• Increases in vibration levels experienced by existing sensitive receptors due to development related activities other than construction – taking into account the relatively large distances (more than 350 m) to the existing sensitive receptors, no on-site sources of vibration have been identified which are considered likely to result in significant vibration effects; • Increases in vibration levels experienced by existing sensitive receptors due to development related traffic – taking into account the relatively small change in traffic flows due to the development and the fact that, according to DMRB, normal use of a building such as closing doors and operating domestic appliances can generate similar levels of vibration to that from traffic, it is considered that the additional development related traffic is not likely to result in significant vibration effects;

• Increases in ambient noise levels experienced by existing sensitive receptors due to construction related traffic - since construction activities will occur over a relatively short period i.e. they are not permanent and it is considered highly unlikely that construction traffic would lead to an increase in traffic volumes of more than 25%, it is considered unlikely that significant traffic noise would occur.

10.3.7 Information Gaps The EfW plant is being designed specifically for the Magnetic Park project. Therefore it has not been possible to undertake noise measurements of identical operational plants. As an alternative, the noise assessment utilises a mixture of measurements and manufacturer’s data for similar individual items of machinery. This technique makes the best use of the available data. With respect to construction noise and vibration, the details of the plant complement, (both in terms of number and types of machines), along with their working location and likely utilisation have not been finalised. Hence accurate predictions of construction noise cannot be undertaken at this time. As an alternative, indicative calculations have been undertaken using a generic plant list based upon AMEC’s experience of similar projects. This approach is sufficient to estimate likely construction noise levels.

10.4 Baseline Conditions

10.4.1 Baseline Monitoring Locations Baseline noise monitoring locations were identified and agreed with Kettering Borough Council Environmental Health department prior to the survey. Baseline monitoring was undertaken at five locations (see Figure 10.1), in addition to which a review was undertaken of the baseline noise data presented in the ES that accompanied the outline planning application for The Grange II, Desborough development. The final monitoring locations were: M1. 43 Bestwood Close - approximately 440 m southwest of the development boundary. The acoustic climate at this location was considered to be representative of residential properties on Bestwood Close.

188

M2. 42 Gapstile Close - approximately 320 m south of the development boundary. The acoustic climate at this location was considered to be representative of nearby residential properties on Gapstile Close and Harborough Road. M3. Dob Hall Farm - The residential dwelling on this property is approximately 300 m north of the development boundary. As there was no access to the property or its immediate surroundings available during the survey visit, the sound level meter was positioned on Dob Hall Farm land on the opposite side of Brampton Wood Lane. The acoustic climate at this location was considered to be representative of that at the Dob Hall Farm dwelling. M4. The Grange, Phase II, future housing development (northwest) - approximately 130 m northeast of the development boundary, and fully screened by the Great Bear distribution buildings. The acoustic climate at this location was considered to be representative of the north-western and western areas proposed for residential development. M5. 9 Wood Avens Way - approximately 350 m southeast of the development boundary, and fully screened by the Great Bear distribution warehouse. The acoustic climate at this location was considered to be representative of the other residential areas including, Ironwood Avenue, Buttercup Road and Mulberry Close. The ES submitted with the outline planning application for The Grange II, Desborough development describes baseline noise levels and conditions at seven locations (four long-term (5 days), and 3 short-term (15 min) monitoring positions). Of most relevance to the EfW development were the long-term monitoring sites U1 and U2 which represent the location of the nearest proposed residential properties to the east of the EfW site (and east of the existing Great Bear distribution depot). Table 10.10 provides a summary of the results at each of the long-term baseline monitoring locations as presented in the ES for The Grange II, Desborough.

Table 10.10 Reproduced Baseline Monitoring Results - The Grange II, Desborough ES (2011)

Monitoring Period Free-field LAeq Principal Noise Sources Location Noise Levels [dB]

Daytime Night-time

U1 48 44 Distant road/rail traffic, activities at Great Bear had minimal influence on measured levels.

U2 49 44 Distant road/rail traffic, activities at Great Bear had minimal influence on measured levels.

U3 51 45 Distant road/rail traffic. Industrial uses west and north audible at times.

U4 64 56 Road traffic on Stoke Road/.peration of Albany Sheds. Source: ANV, Proposed Development at The Grange II, Desborough (March 2011).

10.4.2 Data Collection Unmanned sound level meters were left to continuously monitor noise levels at the agreed locations between Thursday 26 January and Wednesday 1 February 2012. The locations were

189

agreed with Kettering Borough Council’s representative prior to the work commencing and were selected to characterise the baseline noise levels at the nearest, worst affected noise sensitive receptors. The five monitoring locations used in the survey are detailed in Section 10.4.1 above. Rion NL-31 sound level meters (SLM) conforming to Class 1 as defined by BS EN 61672: Part 1: 2003 (Electroacoustics, Sound Level Meters, Specifications) were used during the survey. Measurements were taken in accordance with BS7445: Part 1: 2003 ‘Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise’. The microphone heights were between 1.2 and 1.5 m above ground level and where possible (to minimise the influence of reflections) at least 3.5 m from any reflecting surface other than the ground. The SLMs were field calibrated before and at the end of the survey by applying an acoustic calibrator or piston-phone, conforming to the latest version of BS EN 60942:2003 (Electroacoustics - Sound Calibrators), to the microphone to check the sensitivity of the measuring equipment. Calibration levels were taken upon collection with no significant drift noted. Battery levels were also checked upon collection and were found to be within acceptable operating limits. Equipment used for the noise monitoring has undergone extensive tests of the performance of the system within a period of 2 years prior to use. For all locations, the SLMs were placed within environmentally sealed housing, locked and secured in a safe position, to avoid any tampering. To minimise the impact of extraneous noise sources the microphone was fitted with a suitable foam windshield. Weather conditions were taken from www.weatherunderground.com (Kettering, Station: INORTHAM22) as well as detail observations during both setup and retrieval of noise monitoring equipment. The wind direction was primarily from the south-east, with an average wind speed below 5 m/s. Rain occurred on 26 January between 1900-2100 hrs, on 27 January between 1600-1700 hrs, 1800-1900 hrs and 2100-2300 hrs and finally on 30 January between 1200-1300 hrs. Recorded data during these periods was excluded from use in this study. Full details of the equipment used are given in Appendix 10.3.

10.4.3 Baseline Monitoring Results A summary of the baseline noise monitoring results is presented below in Table 10.11, and the full results are presented in Appendix 10.2. The results are reported for the various different time periods required by the construction, industrial and traffic noise assessments.

190

Table 10.11 Summary of Baseline Noise Monitoring Results (dB)

Monitoring Location Period, T LAeq T LAmax, T LA10* LA90 T

M1. Bestwood Close Day 0700-2300 hrs 49.5 83.7 45.6 41.2

Night 2300-0700 hrs 43.3 76.5 39.8 33.1

M2. Gapstile Close Day 0700-2300 hrs 49.5 79.5 49.1 43.2

Night 2300-0700 hrs 43.4 74.1 43.4 36.2

M3. Dob Hall Farm Day 0700-2300 hrs 48.1 80.1 48.5 39.9

Night 2300-0700 hrs 38.8 68.3 35.7 30.9

M4. Housing site (Northwest) Day 0700-2300 hrs 46.7 89.3 46.0 39.7

Night 2300-0700 hrs 40.4 71.6 38.7 33.1

M5. Wood Avens Way Day 0700-2300 hrs 46.5 79.2 44.0 37.2

Night 2300-0700 hrs 38.7 68.7 36.6 30.0 * Period is 0600-2400 hrs for day and 2400-0600 hrs for night-time in accordance with Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, DoT, 1988). Data collected at location M4 correlates well with that determined at location U2 (Table 10.10), and similarly, location M5 and U1 are also similar. The greatest difference appears to have occurred at night, with 4-5dB higher LAeq level determined in 2011. This is likely to be due to the difference in wind direction between the two surveys. During monitoring at locations U1 and U2, the wind was predominantly from the west (i.e. from the A6 and industrial activities on Stoke Road). During the recent survey as part of this study, the wind was predominantly from the southeast, where there are no significant noise sources in the proximity. During the daytime, wind effects have less significance as local noise sources become dominant (road traffic on local roads, activities at the Great Bear depot - see commentaries in Section 10.4.4 below).

The average background noise levels, LA90, at locations U1 and U2 are also comparable with those measured at locations M4 and M5, respectively. The background noise levels used in the assessment (see Table 10.14) are average LA90,5min values over specific periods of the day or night, and also consider weekdays and weekends. The respective values determined at location U1 and U2 are typically higher than those determined at M4 and M5, primarily due to the variation in wind direction discussed above. The LA90 values used in Table 10.14 were therefore determined to provide a worst-case, conservative assessment.

10.4.4 Commentary

Location M1, Bestwood Close At this location, the SLM was located in a free-field position within the rear garden of No.43 Bestwood Close (northern aspect). The dominant noise source identified during the survey visit was distant road traffic, primarily from the A6 to the west. Other identified noise sources included occasional passing trains on the Kettering to Market Harborough line to the south and west, birdsong, wind in trees and HGV movements and forklift reversing alarms at the Great Bear distribution depot. At night-time the dominant noise source was the Rigid Plant (factory

191

exhaust, fans) on Stoke Road to the north. Occasional HGV movements and forklift reversing alarms were also observed at the Great Bear depot at night.

Location M2, Off B576 The SLM was located in a free-field position within the rear garden of No.42 Gapstile Close, (north-west aspect). The dominant noise source identified during the survey visit was distant road traffic, primarily from the A6 to the west. Other intermittent noise sources included HGV movements and forklift reversing alarms at the Great Bear distribution depot, wind in trees and birdsong. The dominant noise source at night was the Rigid Plant (factory exhaust, fans) on Stoke Road to the north. Other night-time noise sources included occasional HGV movements, forklift reversing alarms and wood pallets being dropped on the ground (hardstanding) at the Great Bear depot.

Location M3, Dob Hall Farm The SLM was located in a free-field position within land north of Brampton Wood Lane, approximately 120 m northwest of Dob Hall Farm (on land owned by Dob Hall Farm residents). The dominant noise source identified during the survey visit was the Rigid Plant (factory exhaust, fans) on Stoke Road to the south. Other noise sources identified during the survey visits included distant road noise, primarily from the A6 to the west, HGV movements and reversing alarms at the Great Bear distribution depot, wind in trees and birdsong. At night, the Rigid Plant was the dominant noise source at this location.

Location M4, Housing Site (Northwest) At this location the SLM was located in a free-field position on a public footpath on the north- east corner of the Great Bear distribution depot site boundary. The dominant noise source identified during the survey visit was distant road noise, primarily from the A6 to the west. Other noise sources identified during the survey visits included HGV movements and reversing alarms at the Great Bear depot and the Rigid Plant (factory exhaust, fans) on Stoke Road to the west. At night the dominant noise source was the Rigid Plant, with other noise sources including distant road noise and HGV movements and reversing alarms at the Great Bear depot.

Location M5, Housing Site (South) The SLM was located in a free-field position outside No.9 Wood Avens Way, east of the Great Bear distribution depot. The dominant noise sources identified during the survey visits at this location were HGV movements and reversing alarms at the Great Bear depot. Other daytime noise sources included distant road noise primarily from the A6 to the west, and a nearby residential building site. Noise measurements recorded during construction activities on the site were excluded from the determined acoustic baseline data used in this assessment (the periods between 09:00-15:40 Monday 30 and 08:40-14:20 Tuesday 31 January 2012 were excluded). During the night-time, the dominant noise was the Great Bear depot operations, including HGV movements and reversing alarms. Distant road traffic noise was also audible.

192

10.5 Proposed Mitigation

10.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects

Construction Construction works involved in the development are likely to be characterised by temporary increases in ambient noise levels which may result in short-term disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors. Disturbance experienced by a particular receptor is likely to be intermittent within the construction period as the nature and location of construction activities change. The potential for disturbance can be reduced through use of noise management measures. The following measures can be used to manage construction noise effects:

• use of equipment fitted with effective silencers/ insulation;

• use of SMART or “broadband” reversing alarms to reduce the effect of reversing bleepers on site vehicles;

• all plant to be regularly serviced, maintained and operated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. Machines that are intermittently used would be shut down in the intervening periods between work or throttled down to a minimum;

• specification of noise limits;

• regular routine monitoring of noise levels at selected sensitive receptors, with additional monitoring undertaken during particular activities considered likely to generate elevated noise levels; • specification of actions to be undertaken if noise limits are exceeded;

• appointment of site contact to whom complaints/ queries about construction activity can be directed. Any complaints to be investigated and action taken where appropriate; • all construction activity to be undertaken in accordance with good practice as described by BS5228; and • routing of HGVs to be agreed with local authority. The site would be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme, which is a Government endorsed scheme which encourages good practice on construction sites. Registered sites provide a commitment to comply with a Code of Practice which details how the construction site should present itself to, and interact with, the general public. In addition to guidance on cleanliness, safety, responsibility and environmental issues, a specific commitment to keep noise from construction operations to a minimum at all times is included in the Code of Practice. Membership of this scheme (or similar scheme) ensures that noise effects during the construction phase would be effectively managed. Construction activities would be restricted to 0800-1800 hrs Monday to Friday and 0830-1330 hrs on Saturdays in accordance with KBC requirements. Particularly noisy activities would be further restricted to only sociable hours. Work would not normally be carried out during the evening, night or on Sundays or Bank Holidays. If work during any of these periods

193

is required to meet specific demands, consultation with Environmental Health Officers at Kettering Borough Council would be undertaken in advance, with the purpose of seeking appropriate agreement and identifying the means of noise control.

Industrial Noise The plant complement used during the operational phase will be modern machinery designed to reduce noise levels that are generated during operations. The plant will also be properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions to ensure that the occurrence of malfunctions that can give rise to elevated noise levels is reduced, and any malfunctions that do occur are swiftly repaired. SMART, warbling or broadband reversing alarms will also be fitted to all mobile plant to reduce the intrusive nature of such sources. Each of the facilities has been designed to reduce noise emissions. Wherever possible noise sources have been located within buildings in order to ensure noise emissions are attenuated by the building envelope. Electrically operated access points will ensure that the building envelope remains intact unless a vehicle is passing through, thus maximising attenuation. The EfW building incorporates a number of acoustically treated rooms including those that house the generator and turbine, compressors and various pumps.

Noise Management Plan A Noise Management Plan (NMP) will be submitted to Kettering Borough Council, prior to the commencement of any works on-site. The NMP will detail the locations, frequency and methodology of the routine noise monitoring which will be undertaken by the site operators. It will also present the actions to be undertaken by operators in the event of a breach of the relevant noise limits. The NMP will also contain contact details for member(s) of staff who will be appointed to deal with any complaints, and specify the actions to be undertaken on receipt of a complaint.

Limitations to Hours of Operations Whilst the nature of the proposed processes will require the operation of some plant items on a continuous basis during daytime, night-time, weekday and weekend periods, delivery of waste and the despatch of materials will be restricted to 0800-1800 hrs on weekdays and 0800-1300 hrs on Saturdays. No materials will enter or leave the site during the most sensitive times of late evening, night, Saturday afternoons, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

10.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 10.12 lists the receptors that could be affected by the proposed development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows:

• High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment;

194

Table 10.12 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Likely Potential Effects Effectiveness

Residential receptors Increase in ambient noises Use of modern well maintained High in close proximity to levels due to construction machinery in accordance with the site. activities. manufacturer’s instruction.

SMART, warbling or broadband High reversing alarms.

Construction Noise Management Plan to High identify actions to be taken in response to noise limit exceedances and/or complaints.

Residential properties Increase in ambient noise Mobile plant to be fitted with Smart, High in close proximity to levels due to plant noise and warbling or broadband reversing alarms. the site. internal vehicle movements. Noise sources located within buildings High where possible. Closed door policy to minimise noise breakout.

Acoustically treated rooms to house key High noise sources such as EfW turbine and generator.

Use of modern well maintained High machinery in accordance with manufacturer’s instruction.

Noise Management Plan to specify High noise monitoring and complaint handling protocols.

10.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects No additional measures incorporated to mitigate possible other effects have been identified.

10.6 Assessment of Effects

10.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase The construction noise calculations have been undertaken for three separate stages of construction, which are considered to involve the noisiest activities:

• Access and Hardstanding;

• Groundworks; and

195

• Foundations. As stated in Section 10.3.3, for the purposes of these calculations it has been assumed that all plant involved in each of the three stages of construction is located at the closest approach to each receptor. The predicted noise levels at selected sensitive receptors from each construction stage modelled are presented in Table 10.13.

Table 10.13 Construction Noise Levels (dB)

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

Construction Noise

Access and Hardstanding Areas 56.2 60.9 52.9 59.5 51.8 54.1 53.2

Groundworks 52.1 55.5 45.9 48.9 46.9 47.6 47.7

Foundations 55.4 58.2 48.3 51.6 49.8 50.5 50.5

Existing ambient LAeq 10hrs 51.5 50.6 49.4 47.9 49.2 47.9 49.2

Total Noise (existing ambient + construction)

Access and Hardstanding Areas 57.5 61.3 54.5 59.7 53.7 55.0 54.6

Groundworks 54.8 56.7 51.0 51.4 51.2 50.8 51.5

Foundations 56.9 58.9 51.9 53.1 52.5 52.4 52.9 Receptors: R1 - Bestwood Close. R2 - Gapstile Close and Harborough Road. R3 - Dob Hall Farm. R4 - The Grange Phase II, housing development (northwest). R5 - The Grange Phase II, housing development (south), Wood Avens Way and Buttercup Road. R6 - The Grange Phase II, housing development (west). R7 - Mulberry Close and Ironwood Avenue. Table 10.13 shows that the highest construction noise levels are expected to occur during the ‘Access and Hardstanding Areas’ phase of the works. This is partly due to the plant involved, but also to the fact that areas of hardstanding are closer to the receptors than the site buildings themselves. When comparing the predicted noise levels with the criteria set out in AL 72 (see Table 10.7), both the predicted construction noise level and total noise level are below the daytime criterion of 70dB(A). This also indicates compliance with the alternative method set out in BS5228-1:2009. In accordance with the methodology set out in Section 10.3.4, a magnitude of low has been assigned to the construction noise effects for all selected receptors. When this is considered alongside the medium sensitivity assigned to those receptors, it can be concluded that the construction noise effects will not be significant.

10.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase

Industrial Noise The industrial noise assessment uses the BS4142:1997 methodology in order to predict the likelihood of complaint concerning the proposed facilities by local residents. Whilst the

196

movement of materials into and out of the site will be restricted to daytime hours only (including Saturday mornings), other activities will occur on a continuous basis. The assessment therefore considers daytime, night-time, Saturday morning and other weekend periods. The BS4142:1997 assessment compares the predicted plant noise from the EfW facility, with the existing daytime, evening and night-time background noise levels for the relevant time period. The results of the BS4142:1997 assessment are presented in Table 10.14.

Table 10.14 BS4142 Assessment of Industrial Noise (dB) ) Receptor Period of A90 T A90 Aeq T L Plant Noise (L Existing Existing Difference Complaint Likelihood Likelihood

R1 Bestwood Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 44 37 -7 Unlikely Close Evening 1800-2300 41 30 -11 Unlikely

Saturday morning 0800-1300 42 37 -5 Unlikely

Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 40 30 -10 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 37 30 -7 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 36 30 -6 Unlikely

Weekend 2300-0700 31 30 -1 Unlikely

R2 Harborough Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 45 40 -5 Unlikely Road/ Gapstile Evening 1800-2300 43 36 -8 Unlikely Close Saturday morning 0800-1300 47 40 -7 Unlikely

Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 43 36 -7 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 38 36 -2 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 39 36 -3 Unlikely

Weekend 2300-0700 33 36 +3 Marginal

R3 Dob Hall Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 43 33 -10 Unlikely Farm Evening 1800-2300 35 30 -5 Unlikely

Saturday morning 0800-1300 42 33 -9 Unlikely

Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 34 30 -4 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 38 30 -8 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 31 30 -1 Unlikely

Weekend 2300-0700 30 30 0 Unlikely

197

Table 10.14 (continued) BS4142 Assessment of Industrial Noise (dB) ) Receptor Period of A90 T A90 Aeq T L Plant Noise (L Existing Existing Difference Complaint Likelihood Likelihood

R4 Housing site Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 43 37 -6 Unlikely (Northwest) Evening 1800-2300 36 34 -2 Unlikely

Saturday morning 0800-1300 42 37 -5 Unlikely

Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 38 34 -4 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 34 34 0 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 35 34 -1 Unlikely

Weekend 2300-0700 30 34 +4 Marginal

R5 Housing site Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 42 34 -8 Unlikely (South), Wood Avens Evening 1800-2300 35 32 -4 Unlikely Way and Buttercup Saturday morning 0800-1300 38 34 -4 Unlikely Road Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 34 32 -2 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 32 32 0 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 31 32 +1 Unlikely

Weekend 2300-0700 28 32 +4 Marginal

R6 Housing site Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 43 36 -7 Unlikely (West) Evening 1800-2300 36 33 -3 Unlikely

Saturday morning 0800-1300 42 36 -6 Unlikely

Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 38 33 -5 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 34 33 -1 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 35 33 -2 Unlikely

Weekend 2300-0700 30 33 +3 Marginal

R7 Ironwood Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 42 34 -8 Unlikely Avenue and Mulberry Evening 1800-2300 35 32 -3 Unlikely Close Saturday morning 0800-1300 38 34 -4 Unlikely

Saturday afternoon 1300-2300 34 32 -2 Unlikely

Sunday 0700-2300 32 32 0 Unlikely

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 31 32 +1 Marginal

Weekend 2300-0700 28 32 +4 Marginal Predicted noise levels are presented for 1-hr daytime periods and 5-minute night-time periods. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest whole decibel, in accordance with the Standard. Table 10.14 shows that, according to the guidance presented in BS4142:1997, the noise levels arising from the operation of the EfW will be likely to cause, as a worst case, marginal complaints from local residents at night time (2300-0700 hrs).

198

A rating penalty has not been applied to the predicted noise levels presented above, since it is considered unlikely that any tones present in noise emissions from individual plant items would be audible at the receptors. Since the BS4142:1997 assessment appears to indicate that at night there may be a marginal likelihood of complaint a further assessment against BS8233:1999 has been undertaken to check compliance with internal noise design criteria. Table 10.15 presents the results of the assessment in accordance with BS8233:1999. This assessment considers internal noise levels within dwellings, and whether they will facilitate reasonable resting or sleep conditions.

Table 10.15 BS8233 Industrial Noise Assessment

Receptor Period

T T

Aeq T Aeq Aeq L L L Criteria BS8233 Internal ambient Existing Existing Increase in Plant Noise Noise Level Reasonable Reasonable Compliance with BS8233 New ambient

R1 Bestwood Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 51.0 36.9 51.2 0.2 41.2 40 N Close Evening 1800-2300 49.2 30.2 49.3 0.1 39.3 40 Y

Saturday 0800-1300 49.6 36.9 49.8 0.2 39.8 40 Y morning

Saturday 1300-2300 48.5 30.2 48.5 0.1 38.5 40 Y afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 46.5 30.2 46.6 0.1 36.6 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 45.6 30.2 45.7 0.1 35.7 35 N

Weekend 2300-0700 39.5 30.2 40.0 0.5 30.0 35 Y

R2 Harborough Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 50.4 39.7 50.7 0.4 40.7 40 N Road/Gapstile Close Evening 1800-2300 48.3 36.4 48.6 0.3 38.6 40 Y

Saturday 0800-1300 51.9 39.7 52.2 0.3 42.2 40 N morning

Saturday 1300-2300 50.2 36.4 50.4 0.2 40.4 40 N afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 45.2 36.4 45.7 0.5 35.7 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 44.2 36.4 44.8 0.7 34.8 35 Y

Weekend 2300-0700 41.8 36.4 42.9 1.1 32.9 35 Y

199

Table 10.15 (continued) BS8233 Industrial Noise Assessment

Receptor Period

T T

Aeq T Aeq Aeq L L L Criteria BS8233 Internal ambient Existing Existing Increase in Plant Noise Noise Level Reasonable Reasonable Compliance with BS8233 New ambient

R3 Dob Hall Farm Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 50.0 32.7 50.0 0.1 40.0 40 Y

Evening 1800-2300 44.4 30.2 44.6 0.2 34.6 40 Y

Saturday 0800-1300 47.3 32.7 47.5 0.1 37.5 40 Y morning

Saturday 1300-2300 45.3 30.2 45.4 0.1 35.4 40 Y afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 46.8 30.2 46.9 0.1 36.9 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 38.5 30.2 39.1 0.6 29.1 35 Y

Weekend 2300-0700 39.3 30.2 39.8 0.5 29.8 35 Y

R4 Housing site Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 48.0 36.7 48.3 0.3 38.3 40 Y (Northwest) Evening 1800-2300 42.9 34.2 43.5 0.5 33.5 40 Y

Saturday 0800-1300 46.9 36.7 47.3 0.4 37.3 40 Y morning

Saturday 1300-2300 45.6 34.2 45.9 0.3 35.9 40 Y afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 44.7 34.2 45.1 0.4 35.1 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 41.2 34.2 42.0 0.8 32.0 35 Y

Weekend 2300-0700 38.1 34.2 39.6 1.5 29.6 35 Y

R5 Housing site Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 49.8 34.2 50.0 0.1 40.0 40 N (South), Wood Avens Way Evening 1800-2300 42.2 31.7 42.6 0.4 32.6 40 Y and Buttercup Road Saturday 0800-1300 43.7 34.2 44.1 0.5 34.1 40 Y morning

Saturday 1300-2300 41.6 31.7 42.0 0.4 32.0 40 Y afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 41.4 31.7 41.9 0.4 31.9 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 39.1 31.7 39.8 0.7 29.8 35 Y

Weekend 2300-0700 37.9 31.7 38.8 0.9 28.8 35 Y

R6 Housing site Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 48.0 36.2 48.3 0.3 38.3 40 Y (West) Evening 1800-2300 42.9 33.0 43.3 0.4 33.3 40 Y

Saturday 0800-1300 46.9 36.2 47.2 0.4 37.2 40 Y morning

Saturday 1300-2300 45.6 33.0 45.8 0.2 35.8 40 Y afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 44.7 33.0 45.0 0.3 35.0 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 41.2 33.0 41.8 0.6 31.8 35 Y

Weekend 2300-0700 38.1 33.0 39.2 1.2 29.2 35 Y

200

Table 10.15 (continued) BS8233 Industrial Noise Assessment

Receptor Period

T T

Aeq T Aeq Aeq L L L Criteria BS8233 Internal ambient Existing Existing Increase in Plant Noise Noise Level Reasonable Reasonable Compliance with BS8233 New ambient

R7 Ironwood Daytime Weekday 0800-1800 49.8 34.1 49.9 0.1 39.9 40 N Avenue and Mulberry Close Evening 1800-2300 42.2 31.9 42.6 0.4 32.9 40 Y

Saturday 0800-1300 43.7 34.1 44.1 0.5 34.1 40 Y morning

Saturday 1300-2300 41.6 31.9 42.0 0.4 32.0 40 Y afternoon

Sunday 0700-2300 41.4 31.9 41.9 0.5 31.9 40 Y

Night-time Weekday 2300-0700 39.1 31.9 39.9 0.8 29.9 35 Y

Weekend 2300-0700 37.9 31.9 38.9 1.0 28.9 35 Y A façade containing an open window has been assumed to provide an attenuation of -10dB(A) to outdoor free-field levels. Table 10.15 shows that, although the predicted internal noise level during some periods exceed the relevant design criteria in BS8233:1999, it should be noted that in each case an assessment of existing noise levels (i.e. with no contribution from the development) would result in a similar conclusion. The development is predicted to increase ambient noise levels by less than 1.6dB(A) in all cases. A change of this level is usually considered unlikely to be perceived. Therefore, it is concluded that whilst all internal noise levels are not compliant with guidance from BS8233:1999, the development is unlikely to result in noticeable changes to internal noise levels at receptors. Furthermore, during the night-time periods when a marginal likelihood of complaints was identified in Table 10.14, the predicted internal noise level, even with windows partially open, do not exceed the BS8233:1999 design criteria. The results of the BS4142 and BS8233 assessments have been used to assign a magnitude of effect in accordance with the methodology set out in Section 10.3.4. A magnitude of medium has been assigned to the day- and night-time industrial noise effects at all seven selected receptors, since they are less than 10dB(A) below, but not more than 10dB(A) above, background noise levels. When combined with the medium sensitivity of these residential receptors, this results in a determination that the industrial noise effects will not be significant.

10.6.3 Possible Other Mitigation The noise effects associated with the construction and operation of the EfW facility are all considered to be ‘not significant’. Therefore no additional mitigation is considered necessary.

10.6.4 Conclusions The assessment of construction noise has demonstrated that, based upon a generic construction plant list, predicted illustrative construction noise levels would be below guidance criteria set out in BS5228-1:2009. Noisy construction activities would be restricted to only sociable hours and the contractors will be required to demonstrate good practice in noise control and join the

201

Considerate Constructors Scheme. Construction noise effects are not considered likely to be significant. The assessment of industrial noise indicated that, for the large majority of the time the potential for noise complaints is ‘unlikely’ in accordance with BS4142:1997, and that this potential only becomes ‘marginal’ at the nearest receptors during the night-time, most notably at the weekend. If a rating penalty is added to the predicted noise levels to allow for any tonal or irregular components, the results of the BS4142:1997 assessment remain unchanged. Whilst compliance with the internal noise criteria from BS8233:1999, particularly with reference to bedrooms at night, cannot be confirmed given the existing levels, it has been shown that ambient noise levels will change by less than 1.6dB(A) as a result of the development. It is therefore concluded that the industrial noise effects of the proposed development are not significant.

10.7 Summary of Predicted Effects In accordance with the methodology set out in Section 10.3.4, Table 10.16 summarises the noise effects of the proposed development and assesses their significance.

Table 10.16 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Sensitivity Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Construction Noise

Local residents in Likely Medium Low Not Sig Predicted indicative noise levels are close proximity to the below thresholds suggested in site BS5228-1:2009. Industrial Noise

Local residents in Likely Medium Low-Medium Not Sig Complaints unlikely, and increase in close proximity to the existing ambient noise levels site unlikely to be perceived. Key: Probability Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Certain High High Sig: Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Sig: Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

10.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures Table 10.17 sets out the mitigation measures and proposals for compliance monitoring that have been incorporated into the scheme to mitigate the effects of noise. It also includes details of who will be responsible for the implementation of the measures, and the suggested mechanism of compliance to ensure that the proposals will be carried out as envisaged.

202

Table 10.17 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism

Use of best practice measures to control construction noise Contractor Registration to Considerate emissions, including use of appropriately maintained and serviced Constructors Scheme plant, SMART reversing alarms.

Construction operations limited to weekday and Saturday daytime, Contractor Planning Condition with further restrictions on particularly noisy operations.

Restrictions on hours of certain operations. Operator Planning Condition

Appropriate maintenance and operation of plant, installation of Operator Site Management Plan acoustic enclosures for selected EfW plant, enclosure of most noise sources within buildings.

Noise monitoring and complaint handling procedure. Operator Noise Management Plan

10.9 Technical References 1. Department of the Environment (1994) - Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise. HMSO, London. 2. Department for Environment (2010), Food and Rural Affairs. Noise Policy Statement for England. HMSO, London. 3. BS5228:2009:Part 1 - Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. British Standards Institute, London. 4 BS4142:1997 - Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas. British Standards Institute, London. 5. Department of Transport (2011) - Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Environmental Assessment. HMSO, London. 6. BS8233:1999 - Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings: Code of Practice. British Standards Institute, London. 7. World Health Organisation (2002) - Guidelines for Community Noise. Technical References.

203

11. Air Quality

11.1 Introduction The proposed development could affect air quality in Desborough and in its vicinity. This chapter assesses these potential effects. The chapter should be read in the light of the project description in chapter 2. Following a summary of relevant policy and legislation, the chapter outlines the data gathering methodology that was adopted as part of the air quality assessment. This leads on to a description of the overall baseline conditions, the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the scheme, the scope of the assessment, the assessment methodology and, an assessment of potential effects at identified receptor locations. The chapter concludes with a summary of the results of the assessment and a significance evaluation.

11.2 Context

11.2.1 Relevant Terminology The terminology relevant to the air quality section is outlined in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Relevant Terminology

Term/ Abbreviation Description

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AQAP Air Quality Action Plan

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AQO Air Quality Objective

AQS Air Quality Standard

BRE Buildings Research Establishment

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CO Carbon Monoxide

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

EHO Environmental Health Officer

EPUK Environmental Protection UK

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

Kmph Kilometres per hour

LAQM Local Air Quality Management

204

Table 11.1 (continued) Relevant Terminology

Term/ Abbreviation Description

Netcen National Environmental Technology Centre

NMVOC Non-methane Volatile Organic Compounds

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NOX Nitrogen Oxides

PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

SCR Selective catalytic reduction

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

11.2.2 Technical Context The proposed development is for an Energy Centre comprising an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility utilising gasification technology to generate heat and electricity for the local area. The gasification of waste produces emissions of a range of pollutants as a by product of the combustion process. A scheme such as this is subject to emissions limits as part of the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID) as incorporated in to the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2012 (EPR2012). To ensure the plant operates without resulting in emissions of pollutants above these limits flue gas treatment systems are installed. An assessment of the effects on the local environs from the emissions has been undertaken. The detailed assessment, based on dispersion modelling, of the emissions from the plant is given in Appendix 11.1. This includes an assessment of the likely effect of the emissions from the plant on nearby residential receptors (both existing and planned) and designated ecological sites within the area. The plant would be regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and would require a permit to operate under EPR2012. The scheme will require deliveries of waste material from the surrounding area to provide feedstock for the plant itself. The deliveries to the plant are planned to be via road transport and therefore an assessment of the effects of the emissions from the heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) undertaking the deliveries to the site has been undertaken. This assessment has also included the consideration of cumulative effects associated with both the deliveries to the plant and the emissions from the plant itself whilst it is in operation. The waste delivered to the site has the potential to generate odours and bio-aerosols. A quantitative assessment of the potential for odour and bio-aerosol generation and its effect on the area has also been included within this assessment. There is the potential for dust generation associated with the construction of the site and this has been assessed qualitatively in this assessment and mitigation measures highlighted where appropriate.

205

11.2.3 Planning and Legislative Context

Legislation Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe Directive 2008/50/EC (the ‘Directive’), which came into force in June 2008, consolidates existing EU-wide air quality legislation (with the exception of Directive 2004/107/EC) and provides a new regulatory framework for PM2.5. The Directive sets limits, or target levels, for selected pollutants that are to be achieved by specific dates and details procedures EU Member States should take in assessing ambient air quality. The limit and target levels relate to concentrations in ambient air. At Article 2(1), the Directive defines ambient air as: “…outdoor air in the troposphere, excluding workplaces as defined by Directive 89/654/EEC where provisions concerning health and safety at work apply and to which members of the public do not have regular access.” In accordance with Article 2(1), Annex III, Part A, paragraph 2 details locations where compliance with the limit values does not need to be assessed: “Compliance with the limit values directed at the protection of human health shall not be assessed at the following locations: a) any locations situated within areas where members of the public do not have access and there is no fixed habitation; b) in accordance with Article 2(1), on factory premises or at industrial installations to which all relevant provisions concerning health and safety at work apply; c) on the carriageway of roads; and on the central reservation of roads except where there is normally pedestrian access to the central reservation.

Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste The Waste Incineration Directive, commonly known as WID, applies to all activities which involve the burning of waste, including those which burn waste for fuel. The Directive is implemented in England and Wales through the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). WID sets emission limits to air for all activities, which must be complied with. The report in Appendix 11.1 outlines the pollutants which fall under WID and their limit values.

The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (the ‘Regulations’) came into force on 11 June 2010 and transpose Directive 2008/50/EC into UK legislation. The Directive’s limit values are transposed into the Regulations as ‘Air Quality Standards’ (AQS) with attainment dates in line with the Directive. These standards are legally binding concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere which can broadly be taken to achieve a certain level of environmental quality. The standards are based on the assessment of the effects of each pollutant on human health including the effects of sensitive groups or on ecosystems.

206

Similar to Directive 2008/50/EC, the Regulations define ambient air as: “…outdoor air in the troposphere, excluding workplaces where members of the public do not have regular access.” with direction provided in Schedule 1, Part 1, Paragraph 2 as to where compliance with the AQSs does not need to be assessed: “Compliance with the limit values directed at the protection of human health does not need to be assessed at the following locations: a) any location situated within areas where members of the public do not have access and there is no fixed habitation; b) on factory premises or at industrial locations to which all relevant provisions concerning health and safety at work apply; c) on the carriageway of roads and on the central reservation of roads except where there is normally pedestrian access to the central reservation.”

The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland The 2007 Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland provides a framework for improving air quality at a national and local level and supersedes the previous strategy published in 2000. Central to the Air Quality Strategy are health-based criteria for certain air pollutants; these criteria are based on medical and scientific reports on how and at what concentration each pollutant affects human health. The objectives derived from these criteria are policy targets often expressed as a maximum ambient concentration not to be exceeded, without exception or with a permitted number of exceedences, within a specified timescale. At paragraph 22 of the 2007 Air Quality Strategy, the point is made that the objectives are: “…a statement of policy intentions or policy targets. As such, there is no legal requirement to meet these objectives except where they mirror any equivalent legally binding limit values…” The air quality objectives (AQOs), based on a selection of the objectives in the Air Quality Strategy, were incorporated into UK legislation through the Air Quality Regulations 2000, as amended. Paragraph 4(2) of The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 states: “The achievement or likely achievement of an air quality objective prescribed by paragraph (1) shall be determined by reference to the quality of air at locations – a) which are situated outside of buildings or other natural or man-made structures above or below ground; and b) where members of the public are regularly present Consequently, compliance with the AQOs should focus on areas where members of the general public are present over the entire duration of the concentration averaging period specific to the relevant objective.

207

Local Air Quality Management Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires that Local Authorities periodically review air quality within their individual areas. This process of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) is an integral part of delivering the Government’s AQOs. To carry out an air quality Review and Assessment under the LAQM process, the Government recommends a three-stage approach. This phased review process uses initial simple screening methods and progresses through to more detailed assessment methods of modelling and monitoring in areas identified to be at potential risk of exceeding the objectives in the Regulations. Review and assessments of local air quality aim to identify areas where national policies to reduce vehicle and industrial emissions are unlikely to result in air quality meeting the Government’s air quality objectives by the required dates. For the purposes of determining the focus of Review and Assessment, Local Authorities should have regard to those locations where members of the public are likely to be regularly present and are likely to be exposed over the averaging period of the objective. Where the assessment indicates that some or all of the objectives may be potentially exceeded, the Local Authority has a duty to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The declaration of an AQMA requires the Local Authority to implement an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), to reduce air pollution concentrations so that the required AQOs are met.

National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)5 published in March 2012 replaces several previous planning documents, including both the Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning Pollution Control and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13: Transport. The NPPF states the “Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limits 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 the local air quality action plan.”

Regional and Local Policy There are currently no regional or local policies, which specifically relate to air quality or pollution.

Dust Guidance Local communities may be concerned that development activities (particularly demolition, ground works and construction) would result in regular and persistent dust annoyance, which may result in a loss of amenity and affect quality of life. The level of concern, and potential for annoyance, is directly related to the existing baseline dust levels, the number and proximity of residential areas to the site, and the exact nature of the activities on-site. The degree of actual annoyance would also depend on factors, such as, the rate of dust deposition, and the application of mitigation measures on site during these activities.

5 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.

208

Dust complaints are usually associated with periods of peak dust deposition, occurring during particular weather conditions. There is a ‘normal’ level of dust deposition in every community and it is only when the rate of deposition is high relative to the norm that complaints tend to occur. The effects of dust on a community will therefore be determined by the following factors: • the activities being undertaken (demolition, number of vehicles and plant etc.);

• the duration of these activity;

• the size of the site;

• the meteorological conditions (wind speed, direction and rainfall);

• the proximity of receptors to the activity;

• the adequacy of the mitigation measures applied to reduce or eliminate dust; and

• the sensitivity of the receptors to dust. The amount of dust that might cause annoyance in a particular circumstance is very difficult to determine and there are no statutory limits such as those applicable to suspended particulates or gaseous pollutants. The Institute for Air Quality Management (IAQM)6 has recently produced guidance on the assessment of the impacts of construction on air quality. This guidance presents a series of steps to be undertaken to determine whether dust effects associated with construction activities are likely to be significant. This guidance has been used in this assessment to determine the effects associated with dust during the construction phase. The Building Research Establishment (BRE)7 has developed guidance for controlling the dust from construction and demolition activities. This guidance presents measures for the control of dust from construction sites depending on the potential source of dust on-site. The London Best Practise Guidance8 contains a comprehensive set of mitigation measures to be used based on the classification of a site as being of low, medium or high risk in terms of likely dust effects. This guidance has often been used outside of London. Both the BRE and the London Best Practise Guidance have been used in this assessment to determine the appropriate mitigation measures in terms of construction dust for the site.

Air Quality Guidance Various guidance documents have been published by organisations relevant to air quality. Those used in this assessment are outlined briefly below.

6 Institute of Air Quality Management 2012. Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance.

7 Kukadia, Upton and Hall 2003. Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities. BRE.

8 GLA and London Councils 2006. The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition activities. Best Practice Guidance.

209

Environmental Protection UK (EPUK)9 has developed guidance regarding the assessment of air quality issues within planning applications, which includes a summary of relevant legislation and the assessment of significance. The guidance indicates that the weight given to air quality issues in determining planning applications depends on the following factors: • The severity of impacts on air quality;

• The air quality in the area surrounding the development;

• The likely use of the development (relating to length of exposure at the location); and

• Positive benefits provided through other material considerations.

11.3 Assessment Approach

11.3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Survey Work Data for the ES baseline has been gathered through a desk-top study. This has involved collating data regarding air quality in the area surrounding the development from the following sources: • Air Quality Monitoring data from the national Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN); • Estimated background pollution concentration maps compiled by Defra;

• Passive and continuous monitoring data from Kettering Borough Council (KBC);

• KBC’s Air Quality Review and Assessment Reports;

• Ordnance survey maps and aerial photographs of the area to identify land use, sensitive receptor locations and potential sources of pollutants; • Rothwell and Desborough Urban Extension Area Action Plan (AAP) proposed submission; • MAGIC website (www.magic.defra.gov.uk) to obtain information regarding ecological receptors in the local area; and

• Consultation with the Environmental Health Officer at KBC responsible for air quality. No survey work has been required in order to undertake this assessment.

9 Environmental Protection UK 2010. Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (Update 2010)

210

11.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment

Potential Receptors – Road Traffic Environmental Protection UK guidance9 states that typically there is a need for an assessment on roads where there is a change in the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) or peak traffic flows of more than 5-10% usually on roads with more than 10,000 AADT flows. Guidance10 states that only receptors within 200 m of an affected route or corridor need to be considered in the assessment. Potential effects on air quality experienced by sensitive receptors (i.e. residential properties and schools) adjacent or close to the roads which meet the criteria defined above, as a result of construction and operational traffic increasing overall road traffic flows and therefore levels of pollutants, are assessed in this Chapter. Guidance states that designated ecological sites within 200 m of an affected route or corridor need to be considered within an assessment. The potential effect on air quality at designated ecological sites as a result of operational traffic increasing overall road traffic flows and therefore levels of pollutants are therefore assessed in this Chapter. Receptors included within this assessment for road traffic are outlined in Table 11.2. This includes the potential new receptors located to the east of the site (‘the Grange II’), which has been earmarked for housing.

Table 11.2 Receptors included in the Traffic Assessment

Ref Name Nearest Road Distance to Nearest Included in EfW Road (m) Modelling

1 New housing (The Grange II) Un-named Road 10 Yes

2 Desbeau Park Harborough Road 21 Yes

Ironwood Avenue 101

3 Stoke Road Stoke Road 38 Yes

Brampton Wood Lane 106

4 Dob Hall Farm Brampton Wood Lane 26 Yes

5 Glebe Cottage Brampton Wood Lane 27 Yes

6 Harborough Road Harborough Road 36 Yes

Brampton Wood Lane 185

7 The Hermitage Harborough Road 43 No

A6 179

8 Buxton Drive A6 175 No

10 Highways Agency 2007. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, Air Quality. The Stationery Office.

211

Potential Receptors – Emissions from the EfW Facility Emissions from the EfW facility could affect both human and ecological receptors in the local area. As with road traffic emissions, sensitive human receptors are considered to be residential properties and schools and according to the Air Quality Standards Regulations – “locations where the public may be expected to be present for the duration of the objective monitoring period”. Ecological receptors included in the assessment for the EfW are based on guidance issued by the EA (H1 Annex F) in respect of assessing this type of facility. Following the Scoping report, concerns were raised by the neighbouring distribution warehouse (Great Bear) regarding the effects of the EfW emissions on their business. The distribution warehouse is a multi-temperature warehouse that handles a range of food products. Therefore, although this business does not fit within the sensitive receptors as described in the Air Quality Regulations and would not normally be included in an assessment of this nature, the distribution warehouse has been included as a discrete receptor within the assessment to provide reassurance to the operators of this facility. The receptors considered in this ES in terms of effects from the EfW are detailed in the report in Appendix 11.1.

Potential Receptors – Construction During the construction period dust effects may occur at nearby residential and ecological locations and places of work where a clean environment is necessary. Potential receptors likely to experience dust effects have been defined by the LAQM guidance6 as those located within 350 m of the site boundary and/or within 100 m of the route(s) used by vehicles on the public highway, up to 500 m from the site entrance(s). There are no such receptors located within these distance criteria at Magnetic Park. In addition mitigation measures will be employed during the construction phase to minimise any possible dust effects associated with the construction of the facility and the construction phase will be of short duration (less than 1 year) with the main dust raising activity (earthworks to lay the foundations for the site) taking place over a period of a few months. Dust raising activities are therefore minimal.

Potentially Significant Effects As discussed, the potentially significant effects relating to the development, which are subject to further assessment in this chapter, are as follows:

• potentially significant air quality effects due to emissions from future traffic associated with the development at existing and new residential receptors and ecological receptors within the vicinity of the development;

• potentially significant air quality effects due to the emissions from the operation of the EfW plant on local residential receptors (both existing and new), the nearby distribution centre and nearby ecological receptors; and

• potentially significant cumulative air quality effects of the future traffic associated with the development and the emissions from the EfW plant on local residential receptors (both existing and new) and nearby ecological receptors. Effects associated with construction traffic have been scoped out of the assessment as the number of construction vehicles on the local road network will not be significant in air quality terms and the duration of the construction period is such that the construction traffic will not have a long term effect on the achievement of the AQOs.

212

As there are no receptors located within 350 m of the site boundary or within 100 m of the routes used by vehicles on the public highway, up to 500 m from the site entrance, dust effects associated with the construction of the facility have been scoped out of the assessment. In addition mitigation measures will be employed during the construction phase to minimise any potential dust effects associated with the construction of the facility, and the construction phase will be of short duration (less than 1 year) with the main dust raising activity (earthworks to lay the foundations for the site) taking place over a period of a few months. Dust raising activities are therefore anticipated to be minimal. Effects associated with bio-aerosols and odour have been scoped out of the assessment. Bio-aerosol effects occur at facilities which aerobically compost organic waste. This type of activity will not be taking place at the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. In addition the mitigation measures outlined in Section 11.5 will be sufficient to ensure that any odour effects will be contained within the facility and therefore have no significant effects on sensitive receptors located beyond the site boundary.

11.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology

Operational Phase - Road Traffic and EfW Emissions Although no formal procedure exists for classifying the magnitude and significance of air quality effects from a new development, guidance issued by Environmental Protection UK9 suggests ways to address the issue. In the EPUK guidance, the magnitude of impact due to an increase/ decrease in annual mean NO2 and PM10 and other pollutants in general is described using the criteria in Table 11.3. These criteria are based on the change in concentration brought about by a new development as a percentage of the assessment level, or the equivalent mass basis. When describing the impact at a specific receptor, the actual concentration at that receptor should be taken into account, in combination with the magnitude of change, using the approach detailed in Table 11.4. The shaded cells in Table 11.4 are applicable to those changes which may be considered as significant, whereas the changes in the non-shaded cells can be considered as not significant.

Table 11.3 Definition of Impact Magnitude for Changes in Annual Mean Concentration

Magnitude of Change Annual Mean Concentration- Other Pollutants Magnitude of Change NO2 and PM10

Large Increase/ decrease > 4 μg m-3 Increase >10% Large

Medium Increase/ decrease 2 - 4 μg m-3 Increase 5-10% Medium

Small Increase/ decrease 0.4 - 2 μg m-3 Increase 1-5% Small

Imperceptible Increase/ decrease < 0.4 μg m-3 Increase <1% Imperceptible

213

Table 11.4 Impact Descriptors for Changes in Concentrations

Absolute Concentration in Relation to Increase in Concentration Objective

NO2 and PM10 Other Pollutants Small Medium Large

Above objective with Other pollutants Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Substantial scheme Adverse >100% objective/limit (> 40 μg m-3) value

Just below objective Other pollutants Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate with scheme Adverse 90-100% objective/limit (36 - 40 μg m-3) value

Below objective with Other pollutants Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse scheme 75-90% objective/limit (30 - 36 μg m-3) value

Well below objective Other pollutants Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse with scheme <75% objective/limit (< 30 μg m-3) value

Absolute Concentration in Relation to Decrease in Concentration Objective

Above objective without Other pollutants Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Substantial scheme Beneficial >100% objective/limit (> 40 μg m-3) value without scheme

Just below objective Other pollutants Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Moderate without scheme Beneficial 90-100% objective/limit (36 - 40 μg m-3) value without scheme

Below objective without Other pollutants Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial scheme 75-90% objective/limit (30 - 36 μg m-3) value without scheme

Well below objective Other pollutants Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial without scheme <75% objective/limit (< 30 μg m-3) value without scheme Notes: An Imperceptible magnitude of change is considered to have a negligible impact. When considering the overall significance of effects of a development the following should also be taken into consideration:

• Number of properties affected by slight, moderate or substantial air quality impacts;

• Number of people exposed to poor air quality when a development introduces new exposure into an existing area of poor air quality; • Magnitude of the changes and descriptions of the impacts at receptors;

214

• Is an exceedence of an objective or limit value predicted to arise in a study area where none existed before or where an exceedence area is substantially increased? • Whether or not the study area exceeds an objective or limit value and this exceedence is removed or the exceedence area is reduced; • Interfere significantly with or prevent the implementation of actions within an air quality Action Plan;

• Interfere significantly with the implementation of a local air quality strategy;

• The uncertainty of the results; and

• The extent to which an objective or limit value is exceeded.

11.3.4 Technical Consultations Following discussions with the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer (EHO) it was agreed that a stack height assessment of the stack from the EfW should be undertaken to ensure the most appropriate stack height was selected. This would then be followed by detailed dispersion modelling of the emissions from the stack at WID limits. The EHO also agreed that all ecologically designated sites within 2 km of the site should be considered as part of the assessment of effects associated with the EfW plant. These requests have been incorporated into the methodology for assessing emissions from the EfW plant as shown in the report in Appendix 11.1. Comments on the scoping report have also been received from Natural England. These comments related to the consideration of nitrogen and acid deposition at the ecological receptors included in the assessment, from the emissions of the EfW facility itself. Deposition has been considered at the identified ecological receptors in terms of emissions from the EfW and the methodology and results are shown in the report in Appendix 11.1. Comments were received on the scoping report from the neighbouring food distribution warehouse (Great Bear). As a consequence of these comments, the distribution warehouse has been included as a separate receptor in the assessment of the effect of the emissions from the EfW facility on the surrounding area. The Local Authority also felt that the development would not generate large volumes of traffic in comparison to the other land uses in the area. Consequently the assessment of the potential traffic from the development has been undertaken using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) screening methodology.

11.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment The final scope of the assessment is as presented in Section 11.3.2. This includes the points raised during the technical consultations outlined in Section 11.3.4.

11.3.6 Information Gaps There is no monitoring data for the area close to the development, although following consultation with the EHO it is not considered that this will not significantly affect the outcome of the assessment.

215

11.4 Baseline Conditions

11.4.1 Continuous Monitoring Data There are currently no continuous monitors operated by Kettering Borough Council within close proximity to the site. The closest Defra operated automatic, urban and rural network continuous monitors to the site are located at Market Harborough (Rural Background location) and Northampton (Urban Background location). Both monitors measure concentrations of NO2, -3 which are well below the annual mean NO2 AQO (9.3 and 7.9 μg m respectively in 2011, in comparison to the AQO of 40 μg m-3).

11.4.2 Passive Monitoring Data There are currently no passive monitoring data for the area surrounding the site. No passive monitoring has been undertaken in the area by the local authority.

11.4.3 Estimated Ambient Concentrations Estimates of annual mean background concentrations have been compiled by Defra on an annual basis for 1 km grid squares in the UK, taking into account the sources of pollutants in each square and the migration of pollutants from other grid squares. Estimates for the years considered in this assessment are presented in Table 11.5 for NOX, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for the grid square in which the proposed development is located.

Table 11.5 Estimated Ambient Concentrations

Year NOX NO2 PM10 PM2.5

2011 14.6 10.1 16.1 9.9

2012 14.0 9.8 16.0 9.8 Notes: Grid Square 479500, 284500 The site is located in an industrial park. Adjacent to the site is a large distribution warehouse (Great Bear Distribution Centre) and to the west of the site is a packaging factory (Rigid Containers Ltd). Neither of these uses emit significant amount of pollutants which could have an effect on local air quality. There are no other significant emitters of pollutants which could have an effect on air quality in the local area. The three designated ecological sites (Stoke and Bowd Woodlands, Pipewell Wood, and Alder Wood and Meadow) within 2 km of the development are considered to be in an unfavourable condition but recovering. All of theses sites are located to the north and east of the site at a distance of at least 1 km.

11.4.4 Local Air Quality Management Up to 2005 the Local Authority had successfully completed their review and assessment reports as part of the requirements of the LAQM regime. These reports found that there were no issues regarding air quality in the area, no AQMAs have therefore been declared. Subsequent to 2005

216

the Local Authority has continued to assess air quality within their area but has not produced the reports for Defra to summarise this.

11.5 Proposed Mitigation

11.5.1 Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Potential Significant Effects Various mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the development to mitigate the effect of the development on air quality and odour. These mitigation measures are briefly outlined below.

Air Quality To mitigate the emissions from the operation of the EfW plant itself the following measures have been incorporated into the design of the scheme:

• Recirculation of the flue gases from the gasification process;

• Flue gas treatment including dry scrubbing and a bag filter fitted to the entry point to the stack to capture emissions from the facility prior to being emitted;

• Suitable stack height to ensure adequate dispersion of emitted flue gas;

• Monitoring system within the stack to ensure emissions are within prescribed limits;

• Operating procedures to ensure emissions stay within the prescribed limits i.e. stop work if breaches of limits occur. To mitigate the emissions from the road traffic generated by the operation of the development the following measures have been incorporated into the operational procedures for the site:

• Ensure deliveries are planned;

• HGVs only use designated routes;

• HGVs practise driving in ways which lessen emissions from their vehicles. To mitigate the emissions of dust from the facility during the construction and operational phases the following best practice mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design and operating procedures for the scheme:

• Production of a CEMP for the site outlining the Best Practice measures to be used during the construction phase;

• Ensure all loads leaving the site with material are sheeted;

• Ensure all loads leaving the site pass through a wheel-washing facility to minimise the transfer of dust from the site onto the local road network;

• Sheeting of any stock piles of material on-site; and

• Ensure suitable bowsers are on-site should weather conditions require the site to be damped down to minimise dust generation.

217

Odours To mitigate the potential effects of odours from the operation of the scheme the following measures have been incorporated into the design and operating procedures for the site:

• All waste will be emptied in the reception building, no waste will be stored outside;

• Fast acting roller shutter doors will be used and closed at all times apart from access; • The waste reception building will be kept under negative pressure; and

• Air in loading areas to be used as combustion air for the gasification process.

11.5.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 11.6 lists the receptors that could be affected by the proposed development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows: • High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment; • Medium certainty of effectiveness: The measure can reasonably be expected to be effective based on the available information (and so can be relied on in assessment), although additional data may require review of the measures; • Uncertainty of effectiveness: The measure may be beneficial but cannot necessarily be relied on and therefore should not therefore influence the assessment of the effect. However, the measure has been incorporated into the design of the scheme on the basis that, despite its potential ineffectiveness, it is worthwhile.

218

Table 11.6 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Likely Potential Effects Effectiveness

Residential Receptors Increase in pollutant Travel plans for the vehicles visiting the Medium located within 200m concentrations as a result of site ensuring the route taken avoids of the road affected road traffic in the area areas of local population and traffic is by the operational affecting human health free flowing traffic visiting the development.

Residential and Increase in pollutant Various mitigation measures have been High ecological receptors concentrations as a result of incorporated into the design and within 2km of the site emissions from the EfW operational procedures for the plant to stack, affecting human and ensure emissions are limited. In ecological health. addition the plant will emit emissions at levels below the WID limits.

Residential and Dust annoyance and Mitigation measures appropriate for dust High ecological receptors smothering effects minimisation and suppressions located within 100m associated with dust from associated with a site of this size and of the site boundary construction activities. the operations on-site.

Residential Receptors Annoyance and health Various mitigation measures have been High within 250m of the effects associated with incorporated into the design and site boundary odour from the operation of operational procedures for the plant to the facility. ensure odours are limited.

11.5.3 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects No other possible effects, which require mitigation, have been identified at this stage.

11.6 Assessment of Effects: Air Quality This assessment of effects therefore presents the effects which are likely to be relevant following the use of the mitigation measures outlined in Table 11.6.

11.6.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology

Road Traffic Assessing the potential effects that road traffic emissions may have on local ambient air quality is normally carried out by calculating the concentrations of air pollutants that would arise in the future at an identified receptor which is then compared with relevant air quality criteria. The prediction method can be evaluated by comparison with measured pollutant concentrations; this process is known as verification. Verification can only take place where there is local monitoring data available that is representative of the site. The assessment then determines the magnitude of significance of the effect of the future air quality on the proposed development.

219

DMRB Methodology The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) screening methodology has been utilised for this assessment in order to quantify the likely ground level concentrations of NO2 and PM10 that the existing and new residential receptors adjacent to the development will be exposed to as a result of the operational phase of the development. This assessment is based on the site being fully operational for the opening year of 2012 as a worst case assessment, as air quality is predicted to improve in future years.

Model Inputs The DMRB assessment incorporates numbers of road traffic vehicles, vehicle speeds on the local roads and the breakdown of the traffic composition. The vehicle speeds have been taken from actual traffic data, where available, and adjusted where road junctions and pedestrian crossings are located close to receptors, to take account of slower moving traffic. The traffic data used in the assessment is shown in Appendix 11.2. The background air quality concentrations, in the absence of any localised monitoring data, have been taken from the estimated concentrations compiled by Defra. The modelled receptor locations are shown in Table 11.2. The distance from the receptor to the road centreline has been used in the DMRB assessment.

Scenarios Modelled The scenarios modelled in this assessment are:

• existing baseline (2011);

• future baseline traffic in the area with all committed and potential developments in the area, not including the Scheme (2012);

• future baseline traffic in the area with all committed and potential developments in the area, including the Scheme (2012); and

• future baseline traffic in the area with all committed and potential developments in the area, including the emissions from the stack (2012).

Model Outputs The total background values available from Defra have been used in the DMRB model to calculate predicted total concentrations of PM10 and the likely number of exceedences of the 24 hour mean PM10 objective. The total background values from Defra are calculated on the basis of all of the sources of air pollutants in the 1 km grid square and any air pollutants which may be in the grid square via sources from other grid squares. Using the total Defra background values provides a worst-case background as it is likely the roads in the assessment are already contributing to the total background values.

For the prediction of NO2 concentrations, the total background concentrations have not been used in the DMRB model itself and instead the output of the model for NOX has been converted to NO2, for all modelled scenarios, using the methodology in LAQM TG (09) and NOX to NO2 conversion tool developed by AEA Technology for Defra. This tool also utilises the total background NOX and NO2 concentrations but using a different method to the DMRB methodology. This assessment has utilised version 2.1 of the NOX to NO2 conversion tool.

220

Verification of the DMRB assessment has not been undertaken as there is no air quality monitoring within the area surrounding the site. Given the headroom (difference between estimated background concentrations and the AQOs for NO2 and PM10), it is not considered that any inherent uncertainties and assumptions in the modelling will be of significant magnitude to affect the AQOs. The lack of verification is therefore not considered to be a limitation of the approach taken in the assessment.

EfW Facility Emissions The assessment of emissions from the EfW facility has been undertaken using the ADMS4.2 Detailed Dispersion Model. The assessment has included a stack height assessment to determine the most appropriate stack height for the EfW facility. In addition sensitivity tests regarding the use of meteorological data for 5 years from the nearby meteorological station of Wittering and the effect of buildings included in the modelling have been undertaken. The most appropriate stack height for the plant was found to be 53 m. Details regarding the modelling methodology, stack height assessment, sensitivity tests and model inputs are presented in the report for the emissions from the EfW facility specifically, in Appendix 11.1.

11.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase

Operational Traffic The emissions from road traffic associated with the operation of the site are as expected very small. The additional road traffic associated with the development with the background pollutant concentrations does not result in an increase in pollutant concentrations such that the AQOs for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeded. The results of the road traffic assessment are shown in Appendix 11.3.

NO2 Emissions

The maximum predicted annual mean NO2 concentration with the development in place (including the background annual mean NO2 concentration) was predicted at receptor location 2 (Desbeau Park) with a predicted concentration of 13 μg m-3 compared to the objective level of 40 μg m-3. This location is adjacent to the B576 (Harborough Road) the main northerly access route into Desborough and is also located opposite Ironwood Avenue which is the main entrance for a large housing estate (The Grange). The maximum increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations as a result of the development was predicted at receptor 6 (Harborough Road) -3 -3 with an increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations of 0.13 μg m , from 12.22 to 12.35 μg m . This receptor is located next to the road which will be used as the main route of the operational traffic, comprising Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) to the site (Eagle Avenue) and this is likely to be the reason for the maximum increase in concentrations being predicted at this receptor location. The magnitude of this change in concentrations is considered to be imperceptible and therefore the significance of effects is considered to be negligible. Effects associated with NO2 emissions from road traffic are therefore not considered to be significant.

PM10 emissions

The maximum predicted annual mean PM10 concentration with the development in place (including the background annual mean PM10 concentration) was also predicted at receptor 2 -3 with an annual mean PM10 concentration of 12.45 μg m compared to the objective level of -3 40 μg m . The maximum increase in annual mean PM10 concentrations as a result of the development was also predicted at receptor 6 with an increase in concentrations of 0.014 μg m-3,

221

from 16.30 to 16.31 μg m-3. The magnitude of this change in concentrations is considered to be imperceptible and therefore the significance of effects is considered to be negligible. Effects associated with PM10 emissions from road traffic are therefore not considered to be significant.

The number of days which were predicted to exceed the PM10 24-hour mean AQO were less than 1 day for all of the operational traffic scenarios modelled. The change in the number of days which were predicted to exceed the PM10 24 hour mean AQO were also less than 1 day. The effect of road traffic on 24-hour mean PM10 concentrations is also considered to be imperceptible. Each of these effects are therefore to be not significant.

PM2.5 emissions

The maximum predicted annual mean PM2.5 concentration with the development in place was -3 also predicted at receptor 2 with an annual mean PM2.5 concentration of 10.19 μg m compared -3 to the objective level of 25 μg m . The maximum increase in annual mean PM2.5 concentrations as a result of the development was also predicted at receptor 6 with an increase in concentrations of 0.014 μg m-3, from 10.00 to 10.01 μg m-3. The magnitude of this change in concentrations is considered to be imperceptible and therefore the significance of effects is considered to be negligible. Effects associated with PM2.5 emissions from road traffic are therefore not considered to be significant.

Operational EfW Emissions The results of the modelling of the emissions from the EfW facility are outlined in the report in Appendix 11.1. The results are based on the facility operating at WID limits. In reality the facility will be emitting pollutants at lower levels and the assessment therefore presents worst case results for emissions from the facility. In addition the facility has been modelled as operating for 24 hours a day 365 days a year; again in reality this is unlikely to be the case for the actual operation of the plant (anticipated to be in the region of 7,800 hours per year per line). The results presented are therefore an overestimation of the actual emissions from the facility. The results of the modelling of the EfW facility show that none of the relevant AQOs or EALs are exceeded at any locations on the modelled grid or at any of the identified receptor locations with the facility in operation, as shown in Appendix 11.1. In addition the results of the assessment show that with the facility in operation, the predicted concentrations for all the pollutants modelled at the identified receptor locations are well below the AQOs and EALs, as shown in Appendix 11.1. The effect of the operation of the EfW facility on existing and future air quality is therefore considered to be imperceptible according to the criteria put forward by EPUK and therefore likely to have a negligible, and not significant, effect on air quality. At ecologically-designated areas (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), local wildlife sites (LWS) and local nature reserves (LNR)) within 2 km of the facility as listed in Appendix 11.1, when considered against the existing background concentrations of pollutants, incremental contributions to atmospheric concentrations of NO2, SO2 and HF are forecast to be very small and unlikely to result in a significant effect. With regard to nutrient nitrogen deposition and total acid deposition, the existing background concentrations are significantly higher than the upper critical loads and although the proposed EfW facility contribution is less than 10% of the critical load at each receptor, an exceedence is predicted due to the high background concentrations.

222

The effects of the operational EfW plant on local air quality are therefore considered to be not significant.

Cumulative Operational Effects The cumulative effects of the emissions from traffic associated with the operation of the site and the emissions from the EfW facility itself have been considered at a number of receptor locations, as listed in Table 11.2. It is envisaged that as there are no exceedences of the AQOs at these receptors then other receptors in the vicinity would also not experience exceedences of the AQOs, as these receptors are considered to be in the worst-case locations. The results of the cumulative assessment are shown in Appendix 11.4.

The maximum cumulative effect on annual mean NO2 concentrations was predicted at receptor 2 (Desbeau Park) with a predicted concentration of 13.5 μg m-3. This is well below the annual -3 average AQO for NO2 of 40 μg m .

The maximum cumulative effect on annual mean PM10 concentrations was predicted at receptor 2 (Desbeau Park) with a predicted concentration of 16.5 μg m-3. This is well below the -3 annual average AQO for PM10 of 40 μg m . As the predicted cumulative annual mean concentrations at the receptors are well below the annual mean AQOs, the significance of the cumulative effects on existing pollutant concentrations in the area is considered to be negligible and therefore not significant.

11.6.3 Possible Other Mitigation No possible other mitigation additional to that outlined in Section 11.5 has been put forward as the proposed mitigation measures are considered to be sufficient.

11.6.4 Conclusions It is predicted that the EfW facility will not cause a significant air quality effect at any human or ecological receptor. The process contributions have been assessed as being not significant when compared to the relevant UK limit values and the background concentrations. Nitrogen and acid deposition levels are below the critical levels for the relevant ecological sites. Contour plots for the main air quality pollutants have been provided in Figures B1 and B2 of Appendix 11.1.

11.7 Summary of Predicted Effects Table 11.7 presents a summary of the predicted effects associated with the operation of the EfW facility and their significance. The results of the assessment have found that there are no significant effects associated with the operation of the EfW facility.

223

Table 11.7 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Existing residential Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant Predicted concentrations at the and business receptors with the scheme in place receptors do not result in any exceedences of the AQOs or EALs.

Potential new Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant Predicted concentrations at the residential receptors with the scheme in place receptors do not result in any exceedences of the AQOs or EALs.

Existing ecological Unlikely Medium Low Not Significant Predicted concentrations at the receptors receptors with the scheme in place do not result in any exceedences of the AQOs or EALs. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

11.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures The implementation of the mitigation measures, outlined in Section 11.5 are outlined in Table 11.8. This defines who will be ensuring the mitigation measure is implemented and how compliance will be achieved.

Table 11.8 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Actioned By Compliance Mechanism Proposal

Construction mitigation Construction Contractor Construction Environmental Management Plan

Design of the EfW facility Construction Contractor Environmental Permitting Regulations – regulated by the Environment Agency

Operation of the EfW facility Operating Company Operating Procedures.

Monitoring of emissions from the EfW facility Operating Company Environmental Permitting Regulations – regulated by the Environment Agency

224

11.9 Technical References 1. Directive 2008/50/EC on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe 2. Directive 2000/76/EC on the Incineration of Waste 3. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 4. The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 5. Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 6. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning Pollution Control 7. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 13: Transport 8. Institute of Air Quality Management 2012. Guidance on the Assessment of the Impacts of Construction on Air Quality and the Determination of their Significance. 9. Kukadia, Upton and Hall 2003. Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities. BRE. 10. GLA and London Councils 2006. The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition activities. Best Practice Guidance. 11. Environmental Protection UK 2010. Development Control: Planning for Air Quality (Update 2010) 12. Highways Agency 2007. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1, Air Quality. The Stationery Office. 13. Department for Communities and Local Government 2012. National Planning Policy Framework.

225

12. Traffic and Transportation

12.1 Introduction This chapter describes the findings of a Transport Statement (TS; Appendix 12.1) that has been undertaken to support the planning application for the Magnetic Park Energy Centre. It examines the relationship between the proposed development and the Local Road Network (LRN), its potential effect on that network and the need to provide improvements to infrastructure and services to accommodate the proposed uses in a sustainable manner. The likely significant effects of the proposed development in terms of transport are discussed in more detail in the TS and its accompanying Travel Plan (TP; Appendix 12.2). The chapter describes the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions currently existing at the application site and surroundings; the design measures incorporated to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects and states the effects after these measures have been employed. This chapter has been prepared by Walker Engineering (WE).

12.2 Context

12.2.1 Technical Context The main effects of traffic generation will result from vehicle trips travelling to and from the site once the development is in full operation. Accordingly, these effects will be the main focus of this assessment. It is acknowledged that there will be vehicle movements during the construction phase however these will be short term in nature and included within the environmental management plan for the construction phase. The main transport effects will be specifically associated with the movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles11 (HGVs) to and from the proposed development. Highway access requirements are also discussed and public transport and pedestrian/ cycle access opportunities are considered. A full summary of the technical approach adopted for the assessment can be found in the TS.

12.2.2 Planning and Guidance The National Planning Policy Framework was issued in March 2012 and supersedes and replaces all other PPGs and PPSs relating to all planning matters, including transport. All aspects of this document have been adhered to in the preparation of the traffic assessment. Local planning policies of relevance to this assessment include Policy CS9 of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework – Core Strategy Development Plan Document (May 2010):

11 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) are defined as goods vehicles exceeding a gross vehicle weight of 7.5t

226

• Policy CS9 - Encouraging Sustainable Transport Movements: “Minerals and waste related development should seek to minimise transport movements and maximise the use of sustainable or alternative transport modes”. The following guidance documents have been taken into account in this assessment: • Guidance on Transport Assessment – Department for Transport (DfT), 2007; and

• Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic - Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA12), 1993 (‘the IEMA Guidelines’).

12.3 Assessment Approach

12.3.1 Data Gathering and Survey Work This appraisal utilizes data from the recent Transportation Assessment undertaken by WE in 2011 in support of the ‘Grange II’ residential development. As the traffic survey data used in that report is recent, it has been re-used as the principle source of base data for this assessment. Of most relevance is the data collected at the following locations: • The roundabout junction of Harborough Road with The Grange residential development and Stoke Road; • Major junctions on the B576; and

• ATC data collected at 14 locations during January of 2011.

12.3.2 Proposed Scope of Assessment

Potential Receptors For the purposes of assessment, the main receptors are considered to be the Harborough Road (B576) to the south and west of the site and the A6 further to the west, both of which lie along the route proposed for HGV movements to and from the site as discussed later in this chapter. It is considered that the strategic road and motorway network has the capacity to absorb any additional traffic generated by the proposed development. It is therefore not considered necessary to evaluate the traffic effects on these parts of the wider network i.e. the A14.

Potential Significant Effects In addition to the consideration of HGV movements, the IEMA Guidelines recommend that other environmental effects are potentially important when considering traffic from an individual development. These include the following issues:

• Severance;

• Driver Delay;

• Pedestrian Delay;

12 Now the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)

227

• Pedestrian Amenity;

• Fear and Intimidation;

• Accidents and Safety;

• Hazardous Loads. The guidelines identify thresholds of changes to the levels of traffic that would necessitate further assessment of environmental effects, which are discussed in Section 12.3.3. With respect to hazardous loads, the development would involve the delivery of fuels and chemicals to enable the operation of the various components of fixed and mobile plant. However, all of these activities are subject to strict Health and Safety controls and further detailed assessment of the effects on local road users are not considered necessary.

12.3.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology The IEMA Guidelines refers to two rules which delimit the scale and extent of the assessment of transport-related environmental effects: • Highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the number of HGVs will increase by more than 30%); • Any specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 10% or more. There are various ways of interpreting whether or not an effect is significant and the following guidance is given in IEMA Guidelines: “For many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define the 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 wherever possible. Such judgements will include the assessment of the numbers of people experiencing a change in environmental impact as well as the assessment of the damage to various natural resources.” With regards HGV movements, consideration has been given to the change in traffic flows caused by the proposed development. For the TS, changes of 5% or below have been regarded as negligible. Any changes above 5% have been assessed on individual merit.

12.3.4 Technical Consultations Technical discussions have taken place with Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) and the Highways Agency (HA) regarding the evaluation process and the scope of the assessment. Both the TA and this chapter reflect the findings of those discussions. NCC is responsible for transportation issues adjacent to the application site whilst the HA has responsibility for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) comprising the A14 trunk road to the south.

228

12.3.5 Final Scope of the Assessment The traffic assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the EIA Scoping Report produced by AMEC and Pegasus Planning Group and subsequent discussions with NCC and the HA. The TS includes a full assessment of the local access arrangements and the wider highway network serving the application site. It also assesses the need for any improvements. In this context, it must be remembered that the site on which the proposed Energy Centre sits already has an extant planning consent for commercial uses, within which the traffic generation of the Energy Centre itself is likely to wholly fit, including all HGV movements. The TS for the proposed development seeks to meet the requirements of both Authorities in so far as it affects the highways and public transport services in the surrounding area. For the purposes of assessment, the main receptors are likely to be the Harborough Road to the north of the site and the A6 Bypass to the west; both of which lie along the route proposed for HGV movements to and from the site as discussed later in this chapter. The only change in the scope of the transport assessment from that presented in the Scoping Report as a result of discussion with NCC and the HA was to include an assessment of Saturday mornings in terms of traffic generation, but not impact. This is now provided in the TA for information purposes only. On the advice of NCC an Accident Appraisal was not required as part the adjacent ‘Grange II’ development and they have also confirmed that one need not be undertaken for the proposed development on the same basis. The traffic data collected to inform the assessment has shown that flows as a result of the development would not result in increases of greater than 30%, or 10% on ‘sensitive’ links; an assessment of transport-related environmental effects based on IEMA Guidelines has therefore been scoped out from further assessment.

12.3.6 Information Gaps No information gaps affecting the assessment have been identified.

12.4 Baseline Conditions

12.4.1 Cycling With respect to cycling, the NPPF encourages sustainable transport including cycling, since it is known that this type of travel has the potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under 5 km and to form part of a longer journey by public transport. The existing urban area surrounding the application site is relatively flat and, in this respect, is suitable for cycling. The entire Desborough and Rothwell built-up areas, as well as a number of surrounding villages, also lie within 5 km of the application site, which is the equivalent of a typical cycling time of 15 to 20 minutes. As a result, there are excellent opportunities for both commuting and casual trips to and from the proposed development to be made by cycle, and a number of measures including the provision of free cycle maps have therefore been included in the scheme to encourage cycling.

229

12.4.2 Walking Walking is the most important mode of travel at local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly over shorter distance. The main walking routes in the vicinity of the proposed development, together with walking isochrones of 400 m and 800 m, are shown on Figure 4 of the TS. From this it can be seen that the following facilities or destinations lie within 400 m (approximately 5 minutes) or less walking distance of the application site:

• The Grange and The Grange II residential areas;

• The Grange and Magnetic Park bus stops. The following destination lies within 800 m (approximately 10 minutes) or less walking distance: • The northern edge of Desborough town centre. There are therefore a number of local opportunities and transport links within a comfortable walking distance of the site. The majority of the town of Desborough can be reached within 2 km (approximately 25 minutes) where a range of residential, retail, education and recreation facilities are located. Pedestrian movement is encouraged throughout the surrounding areas, particularly on The Grange and Magnetic Park itself, by the presence of well lit footways. There is also a purpose built footway/ cycleway connecting The Grange and Magnetic Park with Stoke Road, which has the benefit of being lit.

12.4.3 Highway Safety Considerations As discussed in section 12.3.5, NCC has confirmed that an Accident Appraisal need not be undertaken for the proposed development. It is not considered that the proposed development would result in any additional highway safety considerations.

12.4.4 Public Transport Desborough is currently well served by several local bus services, as shown in Appendix G of the TS. The nearest bus stops to the site are on Ironwood Avenue and Thistle Drive (which are both located in The Grange) or within Magnetic Park itself. These, as well as a number of other nearby bus stops, are served by Route 19, which provides a high frequency service at the times of highest travel demand between Kettering and Desborough. It is therefore likely to be the most useful service for employees of the Energy Centre. Routes 17 and 18 can be accessed from Desborough town centre. Route 18 provides a regular service between Kettering and Market Harborough with the Route 17 providing an additional link to Kettering, albeit at limited frequency. These services could be accessed via approximately a 1 km walk or by interchange with the Route 19 bus service from Ironwood Avenue. Overall, the proposed Energy Centre site and Desborough in general are well served by existing buses. However, development of the ‘Grange II’ housing development to the immediate south- east of the Energy Centre will provide a significant enhancement of existing services, if approved. The existing market for bus services should then be capable of supporting high

230

quality and frequent public transport routes as a result. For reference, the proposed Public Transport (PT) Strategy for the ‘Grange II’ site consists of the following key elements: • Enhancement of existing Route 19 service between Kettering and Rothwell;

• A targeted improvement of the existing Route 19 service frequency to one service every 10 minutes during the weekday peak commuting periods, with one service every 30 minutes at other times;

• Enhancement of the service frequencies on Route 18, which would be upgraded to provide a 30 minute frequency daytime service to and from Market Harborough;

• Provision of modern bus shelters, with the capability for future upgrading to provide “Real-Time” information displays; and

• Improved town centre interchange facilities.

12.4.5 Local Highway Network The main traffic routes serving Magnetic Park and the town are as follows: i) The A6 is the nearest strategic route to the town, linking the A14 trunk road to the south with Market Harborough and Leicester to the north. In the vicinity of Desborough the A6 is a modern single carriageway all-purpose rural route; ii) The B576 connects the A6 north of Desborough with Rothwell and the A14 (east). Within Desborough, the route is divided into sections known as Harborough Road and Rothwell Road. Both are urban single carriageway roads with footways to either side. To the south of the railway line, the route has significant frontage development and a relatively high frequency of side road junctions and accesses. To the north, existing development gradually becomes less dense and the route takes on a more rural character beyond Magnetic Park. There are no specific pedestrian crossing facilities provided along this section of the road; iii) The B669 Stoke Road forms the application site’s western boundary, providing a total highway frontage length of some 100 m. To the north of the site, the route is relatively narrow, having a carriageway width of between 4.8 m and 5.1 m with adjacent grass verges. To the south-west and along the site frontage, the carriageway has been widened to approximately 6.7 m where it passes Magnetic Park. There are no footways, other than a short section of 3.0 m wide foot-cycleway on the west side of the route connecting with the Magnetic Park internal provision via an at-grade crossing of Stoke Road. The B669 provides access to a number of industrial premises, most of which have direct accesses from its western side. Approximately mid-way along the road the speed limit changes from 30mph to the National Speed Limit (60mph) and the route continues as a rural single carriageway road towards the A427 at Stoke Albany; iv) Braybrooke Road is a single carriageway route which links the A6 with Harborough Road and the town centre to the south-east, via Gold Street and High Street. To the south-east of the railway line, it is of urban character with extensive residential frontages, footways to either side and relatively frequent side road junctions and accesses. To the north, the route is of rural character and has no footways. It

231

intersects with the A6 at an at-grade roundabout junction some way to the north. The route has limited spare capacity at present (see also Section 12.6.3); v) The A427 intersects with the A6 to the east of Market Harborough, providing a single carriageway route to and from Corby; vi) To the south of Desborough and Rothwell, the A14 provides the principal east-west strategic route linking the Midlands with East Anglia and the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. It also provides for local movement between the towns of Rothwell, Kettering and Thrapston, as well as providing connections between Desborough, Corby, Northampton and Wellingborough. The route is reached via either the A6 or the B567 Rothwell Road, where grade-separated junctions are provided. The A14 itself is a rural all-purpose dual carriageway, subject to the normal 70mph speed limit; vii) Eagle Avenue is the main distributor road serving Magnetic Park. It has a carriageway width of around 6.7 m but only limited footway provisions. It would provide the main access into the proposed Energy Centre via a new priority junction at its northern end (see Appendix C of the TS); viii) Other minor routes of significance are Pipewell Road and Rushton Road, on the east side of the town. These rural routes are connected to Harborough Road via Gladstone Street and Nicholls Street; both of which are narrow urban routes with extensive frontage development and on-street car parking.

12.5 Proposed Mitigation

12.5.1 General Approach The proposed development, through good sustainable design, will provide access to the improved public transport services being provided at the adjacent ‘Grange II’ development and will also create new pedestrian and cycle provision which will provide opportunities for non-car based modes of transport. Other measures are proposed in order to minimise the effects of the proposed development upon the surrounding highway network. To encourage greater use of sustainable modes of transport and lessen the negative effects from the private car on the highway network, in accordance with the national policies contained within the NPPF, a package of measures has been formulated. The package includes the following:

• Improved pedestrian facilities;

• Improved cycling facilities;

• Local junction improvements (if appropriate); and

• A Travel Plan. The measures identified will provide a comprehensive package of alternatives to the private car, on a level that is commensurate with the scale of the development.

232

12.5.2 Public Transport Since the adjacent ‘Grange II’ housing site is an “Allocated Site” provisions contained within it to enhance public transport (PT) services along Stoke Road have been included in the baseline position for this assessment. As even without this development the existing provisions are good, it is not considered that any new PT initiatives are required in order to serve the proposed Energy Centre. The provision of new footway connections to help gain access to the available services and thus aid mitigation, are discussed below.

12.5.3 Pedestrians and Cycling The proposed development design maximises opportunities for journeys to be undertaken by foot or by cycle. In order to facilitate both walking and cycling, the proposed layout will be designed to provide equal priority for pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles, wherever possible. Where this cannot be achieved, or is not practical, the road network will include dedicated footways and cycleway adjacent to the main carriageway, such as indicated on the Masterplan along Eagle Avenue; non-vehicular access to and along which will be upgraded as pert of the scheme. In addition to the above, the ‘Grange II’ development contains a number of specific initiatives to prioritise cycling and walking in the area, which will considerably strengthen the baseline position with respect to non-motorised modes. These comprise:

• Completion of the foot/ cycle link between the new housing development on Pipewell Road and the Grange II site. This would also enhance access between the site and the town centre, enabling pedestrians to cross the railway line via the Pipewell Road bridge;

• Signing of the main routes to the town centre;

• Dedicated pedestrian/ cyclist-only connections into "The Grange" residential areas to the south of the Grange II site, which would also be signed and lit; • Provision of a new school within the Grange II site, which would be within a comfortable walking distance of all parts of the development and "The Grange"; • Contributions towards the provision of cycle parking lockers in the town centre and other appropriate enhancements for cyclists; and • Improved pedestrian facilities at the Rothwell Road/ Gold Street/ High Street junction (see Section 6 and Figure 6 of the TA for that scheme). Cyclists would reach the site via Rothwell Road, Harborough Road or Braybrooke Road. As described below, traffic management measures are proposed on these routes to control HGV traffic from the proposed Energy Centre and thereby reduce conflict with vulnerable non- motorised road users.

12.5.4 Site Access Strategy In accordance with NCC’s standard requirements, the following sub-section provides an Access Statement, which describes the proposed vehicular access and demonstrates its compliance with relevant standards.

233

The Masterplan (Appendix C of the TS) shows a new access to the Energy Centre from Eagle Avenue, constructed at its northern end. Eagle Avenue in its current form is suitable to serve the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Energy Centre, but some carriageway widening in the vicinity of the site access is required and footway provision between the proposed development and the existing section of industrial-standard road to the south would be added as part of the scheme to help non-vehicular uses, as shown on the Masterplan. The access has been located as far north along the site frontage as possible, in order to maximise visibility distances to the south. The location shown also achieves the best fit with the existing uses. A typical design for Industrial Estate Roads from the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) would suggest visibility splays of 9 m by 90 m should normally be provided. However, application of this standard to the proposed Energy Centre would suggest a much higher level of use and indeed conflict than would ever be likely to be the case in practice, for what is effectively a site at the end of a cul-de-sac. An allowance of 4.5 m x 70 m has therefore been incorporated into the design instead, which should be adequate for all road users in the quantities proposed. The volume of traffic currently using Eagle Avenue is very modest. Reference to the traffic surveys described previously shows that the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow past the site is less than 200 vehicles per day. As will be shown later in this Chapter, the volume of traffic travelling to and from the Energy Centre is expected to be more modest still, with daily movements unlikely to ever exceed 100 vehicles. Thus, the degree of conflict between existing and proposed traffic is expected to be very low, as indeed are the approach speeds. The proposed standard is thus likely to be more than adequate for the scheme as presented.

12.5.5 Travel Plan Measures A detailed sustainable TP will be agreed with and submitted formally to NNC in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement. A TP is submitted as part of the application (Appendix 12.2) and contains a number of measures and commitments aimed at reducing dependency on car transport. These can be summarised as follows: • Promotion of the existing and upgraded Route 19 and 18 bus services that will ultimately serve the site; • The procurement of a Rail & Bus travel information system for the site linked to the local networks as available, but also including conventional timetable information where appropriate via the “Employee Pack”;

• The circulation of information relating to the cycle links to the Railway Station and changing facilities therein to ensure that maximum use of cycles is made;

• The provision of up-to-date cycle and walking maps and associated health advice within every building as part of the “Employee Pack”;

• Installation of on-site cycle stands;

• Signing of the main pedestrian and cycle routes to the town centre;

234

• Cycle training for all new employees;

• The implementation of a car-share scheme;

• The implementation of a financial incentive scheme to encourage non-car based transport options; • The appointment of a Travel Co-ordinator (who will be a direct employee) to oversee all travel policies; the creation of a site specific Website linked to existing KBC, NCC and other local transport sites; the instigation of traveller surveys and the subsequent monitoring of the success of The Plan and its associated measures. The Travel Co-ordinator will be fully supported by the Developer and will be responsible for liaising with the Borough and County Councils;

• The promotion of, and adherence to, a defined timetable for the implementation of the sustainable travel proposals; and

• The implementation of an agreed routing strategy for HGVs to and from the site both during construction and operation, policed by CCTV cameras equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology.

12.6 Assessment of Effects

12.6.1 Data Collection, Preparation and Interpretation Methodology Details of the data preparation methodology adopted are given in the TS. In terms of the assessment of any residual impacts, the DfT’s “Guidelines for Transport Assessment” (GTA) document advises that TSs should examine an Assessment Period of no less than 5 years beyond the registration of a planning application. Circular 2/2007 normally requires adoption of a 10-year assessment period for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). To comply with the latter requirement in respect of the A14 junctions and to provide a robust assessment in respect of other parts of the highway network, an Assessment Year of 2021 (2011 plus 10 years) was adopted as part of the ‘Grange II’ appraisal work, and this has been retained for use in the TS for the Magnetic Park Energy Centre for both consistency and to allow re-use of the TA data for that scheme directly. This data, which includes traffic flows and turning counts, is presented in the TS (Appendix 12.1). For reference, the 2021 Assessment Year does exactly correspond to the end of the North Northamptonshire Local Development Framework (LDF) and CSS Plan Periods, and therefore has a context and relevance from a policy point of view.

12.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase Construction works will take place between 08:00 – 18:00 on weekdays and 08:30 – 13:30 on Saturdays, and are anticipated to take approximately 24 months to complete. The need for the external transfer of natural materials during the construction phase will be largely avoided since the nature of the application site is such that the material can be reused on it. For example, it is envisaged that the majority of cut material arising from construction would be spread across the site. This means that in the early stages at least, construction traffic associated with earth moving will not be external to the site and its effect will thus be negligible.

235

Following this initial ground preparation phase, the majority of the construction traffic will involve vehicles associated with the construction of the Energy Centre itself. Whilst some degree of material importation will be required due to the construction of the internal roads, this is likely to be minor in nature when compared with that of the buildings. For this reason, it is possible that traffic will be intermittent over the construction period, depending on whether building construction is underway or not, with only a negligible effect being experienced outside of these periods. The potential effects on the highway network during the construction phase have been based on estimated traffic movements, and the estimated duration and timing, of this phase. In this way, it can be demonstrated that the construction phase of the development is unlikely to give rise to significant effects on the local highway network. In addition, all construction traffic to and from the proposed development will be controlled by a Routing Agreement which will prevent the use of local roads by such vehicles. Construction traffic will be confined to the A6 and B576 to the west and north of the application site, thus avoiding local residential areas. It is expected that the main facilities on the site would take up to 24 months to complete, producing the following HGV movements: • Peak number of daily HGV movements: 50 in each direction. These would be spread evenly over a 10 hour working day simply to allow efficient handling, which would mean that just 5 HGVs per hour would enter or leave the site, giving:

• 1 hour total = 10 movements (two-way)

• 18 hour total = 100 movements (two-way)

• 24 hour total = 100 movements (two-way) In terms of employee vehicles, the site will employ approximately 100 construction workers at its peak. It is anticipated that the majority of these (it has been assumed 75%) would arrive on- site before 08:00 and either leave the site during the day or after 18:00. Assuming then (as an absolute worst-case) that all employees arrive in their own vehicle, travel every day and always travel by car, this would give rise to the following traffic generation matrix:

• 07:00 – 08:00: 75 vehicles in; 0 vehicles out.

• 08:00 – 09:00: 25 vehicles in; 0 vehicles out.

• 17:00 – 18:00: 0 vehicles in; 25 vehicles out.

• Off Peak: 0 vehicles in; 75 vehicles out. It is therefore assumed that the maximum flow into or out of the development during the AM and PM peak hours (08:00 - 09:00 and 17:00 - 18:00) would be 35 vehicles, including the 10 HGV movements during this period. Currently, there are approximately 1,400 vehicle movements per hour (two-way) on the B576 north of the proposed development and at least twice this number on the A6 and other feeder roads. Based on the above assumptions, construction traffic from the proposed Energy Centre will add a further 35 movements, or 2.5%, to this figure. This is a negligible change and would

236

not require mitigation in its own right. It has therefore been concluded that construction traffic will not adversely affect the local road network and that its overall effect will be negligible.

12.6.3 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational Phase For the purposes of evaluation, Appendix E of the TS makes the following assumptions with respect to HGV deliveries: i. Volume of waste to be processed: 96,000 tonnes per annum ii. Average Payload per HGV: 20 tonnes iii. Number of HGVs per year: 5,000 (approx.) iv. Operational Days per year: 250 v. Number of HGVs Deliveries per day: 20 vi. Operational Hours per day: 10 vii. Maximum Number of HGVs per hour: 2 Total Two-Way HGV Movements per hour: 4 (2 in & out Worst Case) With respect to employees, the following is assumed: i. No. of (Direct) Jobs Created: 30 Developer’s Estimate ii. No. of Employees On-site per day: 24 Developer’s Estimate iii. Day Shift (9:00 to 17:00): 12 50% Assumed iv. Late Shift (Starting after PM Peak): 6 25% Assumed v. Early Shift (Starting before AM Peak): 6 25% Assumed vi. Non-Vehicular Travel: 35% Based on Travel Plan vii. Maximum Cars One-Way per hour: 8 Day Shift + TP Measures viii. Visitors per day: 2 Assumed ix. Total Maximum Cars One-Way: 10 AM Peak Total Two-Way Car Movements per hour: 20 (10 in & out Worst Case) The following total traffic generation for the completed Energy Centre therefore results:

237

Table 12.1 Summary of Development Trip Rates and Traffic Generation

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Type Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound

Light Vehicles 10 10 10 10

Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2

A more detailed description of the analysis process and of the calculations themselves is given in the TS (Appendix 12.1). However, the flows given above represent the maximum likely total traffic movements per hour that would be produced by the proposed development. Public transport, together with highway capacity limitations on the existing B576 route south of the application site combine to limit the likely assignment of light vehicle trips to the town centre as a result of the development, whilst concentrating a greater proportion of trips onto the A6. As a result, the proposed development would give rise to only minimal traffic increases when compared to the current day position on most of the main routes into and around Desborough and Rothwell, as measured adjacent to the site. Numerically, the impacts in percentage terms would be presented in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2 Percentage Changes in Traffic Flow on the Study Area Approaches (All Trips)

Approach to Site AM Peak PM Peak

B576 Harborough Road (N) 0.5% increase 0.5% increase

Local (S) - -

A6 (N) - -

A6 (S) 0.3% increase 0.4% increase

A14 Junction 3 0.2% increase 0.2% increase

A material increase can be defined as one in which the two-way traffic flow using a link is expected to breach a certain threshold as a result of the addition of development traffic. The current DfT "Guidance on Transport Assessment" (2007) does not specify a particular level of percentage change at which an increase in traffic flow is defined as material, but states that this may be relatively low in congested areas. The IEMA Guidance however specifies 10% on ‘sensitive’ links and 30% on other links Having regard to the above advice, it is considered that in non-congested areas, increases of more that 5% may be regarded as material. Elsewhere, each section of the highway network has been considered on the basis of the prevailing circumstances.

238

It is evident from Table 12.2 that changes in traffic flows on links beyond the immediate vicinity of the site would be minimal. In practice, the identified changes would not even be distinguishable from daily fluctuations in traffic flows. Indeed, predicted volumetric changes in traffic during each peak hour are less than 10 Passenger Car Units PCUs (two-way). Even on the A6 (which is expected to carry the largest proportion of development traffic) the greatest two-way volumetric increase would be less than 15 PCUs (i.e. – 1 additional PCU every 4 minutes) which is a negligible increase. On this basis, it is considered that there is no requirement to consider traffic impacts beyond the site access and the Harborough Road, adjacent to the site. No assessments are needed on the SRN, as impacts at, for example, A14 Junction 3 would be imperceptible. Since the site access itself will comprise a simple priority junction onto Eagle Avenue at its northern end (where few other vehicles are ever likely to pass) even here the need for assessment is marginal. Actual assessments in the TS were thus confined to the Harborough Road roundabout junction with Stoke Road, where changes are at least measurable. For this junction, an ARCADY capacity assessment was undertaken as part of the TS work and the findings are described in Section 5 of that report, with full calculations being presented in Appendix F. It concluded that the junction would operate well within capacity in the Assessment Year, both without and with the proposed development in place. As a result, it is considered that the proposed Energy Centre would have no significant impact on junction performance or queuing and no improvements are therefore deemed necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Since the changes in traffic flows are so low, it is further anticipated that any impacts on pedestrian amenity, driver safety and journey times will be negligible. In terms of the A14, assessments contained in the TS show that potential impacts at the various trunk road roundabout junctions serving Desborough would not be measurable. No further assessment work was therefore undertaken as part of the TS. Finally in terms of general road safety, the amount of additional traffic added to the network by the development is negligible, and as a result it is considered that it would have no impacts on existing road conditions either in terms of journey times or accidents rates. Beyond the immediate area of the application site, the effect of the proposed development would be minimal. As a result, no off-site improvements are proposed as part of the scheme in respect of road safety considerations.

12.6.4 Possible Other Mitigation Given the very low levels of impact expected to result from both the construction and operational phases of the development, cumulative effects involving other sites are unlikely to be significant. As a result, these have not been considered further in this assessment and the need for subsequent or additional mitigation measures does not materialise.

12.6.5 Conclusions Overall, the effects of the project on the surrounding local highway network, and users of this network, will be negligible. All construction traffic and permanent HGV traffic to and from the proposed development will be controlled by a Routing Agreement which will prevent the use of local roads by such

239

vehicles. As a result, construction traffic and waste delivery HGVs will be confined primarily to the A6 and B576 to the north of the application site, thus avoiding local residential areas.

12.7 Summary of Predicted Effects The following table represents a summary of effects and an evaluation of their significance:

Table 12.3 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

B576 Harborough Certain Medium Low Not Significant Very small increase in traffic Road along the route

A6 Bypass Certain Low Low Not Significant Very small increase in traffic along the route Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

12.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures Table 12.4 sets out the mitigation measures and proposals for compliance monitoring that have been incorporated into the scheme to mitigate the effects on highways. It also includes details of who will be responsible for the implementation of the measures, and the suggested mechanism of compliance to ensure that the proposals will be carried out as envisaged.

Table 12.4 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism

HGV Routeing Agreement NCC/Developer S106 Agreement

Travel Plan NCC/Developer S106 Agreement

12.9 Technical References 1. Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic. Institute of Environmental Assessment; 1993.

2. Guidance on Transport Assessment. Department for Transport; 2007.

240

3. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6 Road Geometry - Section 1 Links: TD 9/93 - Amendment No 1 Highway Link Design. Highways Agency; 2002.

241

13. Socio-Economic Effects

13.1 Introduction This Chapter of the ES has been prepared by Pegasus Planning Group Ltd and considers the likely significant socio-economic effects of the proposed development. The content of this chapter is reliant upon the information produced from the scheme design in combination with information that has been obtained through the public domain; this includes documents from the Northamptonshire County Council website, NOMIS and National Statistics.

13.2 Assessment Methodology

13.2.1 Relevant Terminology There are a number of key terms that have been referred to in this chapter and for ease of reference these are defined briefly as follows: • Direct Employment: temporary and permanent employment arising immediately from the proposed waste facility; • Indirect Employment: employment created/ supported in the businesses which supply the products, materials and services during the construction period;

• Induced Employment: employment supported by persons employed directly and indirectly who spend part of their incomes in the local area; and

• The introduction of new businesses into an area or the expansion of existing businesses.

13.2.2 Planning and Guidance As explained more fully in Chapter 4, the relevant planning policy context for which the proposed development should be considered against consists of the following:

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy DPD (May 2010);

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Location for Waste Development DPD (March 2011);

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Proposals Map (April 2011);

• Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011); • East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006);

242

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), (March 2012);

• Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10), (March 2011); and • North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.

National Level Adopted in March 2011, PPS10 replaced PPG10. The overall objective of PPS10, as outlined in paragraph 1, is “...to protect human health and the environment by producing less waste and by using it as a resource wherever possible...” Paragraph 2 indicates that “positive planning has an important role in delivering sustainable waste management: • through the development of appropriate strategies for growth, regeneration and the prudent use of resources; and • by providing sufficient opportunities for new waste management facilities of the right type, in the right place and at the right time.” With regards to the promotion of a strong, stable and productive economy that aims to bring jobs and prosperity for all, the NPPF is of relevance at a national level. Paragraph 20 states that “To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.”

Regional Level Produced by the East Midlands Regional Assembly and adopted in January 2006, the East Midlands Waste Strategy incorporates advice from the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands and PPS10. Policy RWS 1.4 of the Regional Waste strategy indicates that waste planning authorities should aim to develop a “...comprehensive range of facilities for the recovery, treatment and possible recycling or reprocessing of wastes where they can meet environmental, technical and operational objectives which can lead to a coordinated approach to waste management preferably in conjunction with other forms of development.” Policy RWS 1.7 also highlights that “.... the suitability of sites should be assessed against the following criteria:

• proximity to existing or major new or planned development;

• good transport connections with preference given to rail and water;

• compatible land uses; namely

- active mineral working sites;

- previous or existing industrial land use;

- contaminated or derelict land;

- land adjoining sewage treatment works;

243

• locally based environmental and amenity criteria.”

Local Level Northamptonshire County Council as the determining authority provides local policies as included in their Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Consisting of an adopted Core Strategy DPD (May 2010); Locations for Waste Development (March 2011); Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011); and Development and Implementation Principles SPD (September 2011), the suite of documents outlines key policies for determining waste applications. Policy CMD1 of the ‘Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011)’ indicates that the development criteria for waste management facilities on non-allocated sites must demonstrate that the development:

• “does not conflict with the spatial strategy for waste management;

• promotes the development of a sustainable waste network and facilitates delivery of Northamptonshire’s waste management capacity requirements; • clearly establishes a need for the facility identifying the intended functional role, intended catchment area for the waste to be managed, market base for any outputs, and where applicable the requirement for a specialist facility; • is in general conformity with the principles of sustainability (particularly regarding the intended catchment area); • facilitates the efficient collection and recovery of waste materials; and

• where intended for use by the local community, is readily and safely accessible to those it is intended to serve.” The policy continues by indicating that in the case of advanced treatment facilities, they should:

• “integrate and co-locate waste management facilities together and with complementary activities; • maximise the re-use of energy, heat and residues; and

13.3 Assessment Approach

13.3.1 Preliminary Data Gathering and Survey Work The methodology for assessing the likely significant socio-economic effects that may result from the proposed development has consisted of a desk-top survey which has involved the following:

• Gathering data specific to population breakdown; employment and unemployment data; deprivation figures and general ‘quality of life’ indicators; and

244

• Calculating the employment generation arising from the proposed development in conjunction with the demand for employment.

13.3.2 Proposed Scope of Receptors

Potential Receptors The following potential socio-economic receptors were identified: • Employment base (ward level) i.e. the local population that falls within the 16-65 age group (includes temporary and permanent employment); • Employment base (district and regional level) i.e. the local population that falls within the 16-65 age group (includes temporary and permanent employment);

• Existing business, including local on-site businesses and those in the surrounding area that could potentially be affected by the proposed waste facilities;

• Inward investment, the ‘image’ effects the potential new waste facilities are likely to have on future investors; and

• Community perception, perceived image of the potential new waste facilities on the wider local community.

Potential Significant Effects In consideration of the relevant effects, it will be necessary to judge the significance of those effects on the basis of a combination of sensitivity (or value) and magnitude of change that is predicted to result from the proposed development. The proposed mitigation that relates to such effects will therefore also be assessed in the same way. With regards to socio-economic issues, value is considered to be a qualitative judgement whilst the magnitude of a proposal is considered to be a quantitative assessment and will take into account the number and type of jobs that were to be created and how these can relate to the existing employment base obtained from the 2001 Census. The site at Magnetic Park was originally included within outline permission KET/2004/0760 for a business park and was later indicated as ‘Phase IV’ of the reserved matters application for ‘Phase I’ (Planning Ref: KET/2006/0734) which was approved on 29 December 2006. Whilst at present it comprises of recently disturbed ground, the proposed Energy Centre will continue to support the development of the business park. Not only will the proposed development enable the generation of up to 30 full time jobs when the plant is developed, it also offers the opportunity for local job creation whilst it is being constructed, which is anticipated to take up to two years.

13.3.3 Information Gaps There are no information gaps identified at this stage.

245

13.4 Proposed Mitigation

13.4.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 13.1 lists the receptors that could be affected by the proposed development, the potential environmental changes that could affect these receptors, and the consequent results of these changes. This table also summarises the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or compensate for potential adverse effects. The likely effectiveness of these mitigation measures is defined as follows: • High certainty of effectiveness: The measure can be expected to be effective in avoiding or reducing the potential effect, and so can be relied on in assessment; • Medium certainty of effectiveness: The measure can reasonably be expected to be effective based on the available information (and so can be relied on in assessment), although additional data may require review of the measures; • Uncertainty of effectiveness: The measure may be beneficial but cannot necessarily be relied on and therefore should not therefore influence the assessment of the effect. However, the measure has been incorporated into the design of the scheme on the basis that, despite its potential ineffectiveness, it is worthwhile.

Table 13.1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures

Receptor Change(s) and Incorporated Mitigation Likely Potential Effects Effectiveness

Employment Base Generation of direct, indirect No mitigation proposed as the effects N/A (Ward Level) and induced jobs are deemed to be positive.

13.4.2 Additional Measures Incorporated to Mitigate Possible Other Effects A visitor centre is proposed and has been incorporated into the indicative masterplan. It is anticipated that this will become a key resource for schools in the local area initially before wider interest in the ‘Energy from Waste’ centre grows. It is envisaged that this on-site facility will improve education and increase local awareness as to the impacts and benefits of the waste treatment process. It has also been considered that due to the location and size of the proposed Visitors Centre, this also has the potential to be used as a community facility in the future.

13.5 Baseline Overview

13.5.1 Data Collection and Interpretation Methodology The baseline socio economic conditions with regard to the existing population and employment levels are provided below. These have been used as a measure against which any future changes associated with the proposed development have been assessed.

246

13.5.2 Baseline Conditions

Economic Baseline The site is located approximately 1.6 km to the north of Desborough Town Centre and occupies an area of approximately 1.68 ha. Bordered to the north and west by Stoke Road and commercial and industrial premises at Millbuck Industrial Estate such as Rigid Containers Ltd and Mainstream Motors, the Great Bear Distribution Ltd warehouse and O Kay Engineering lie to the immediate east with housing and undeveloped greenfield land further to the east. To the south the site is bordered by the B576 (Harborough Road) and the northern outskirts of Desborough.

Desborough’s Employment Base Desborough’s population is approximately 8,500, with 3,661 (Census 2001) living within the Desborough Loatland Ward where the proposed development site is situated.

Economically Active Table 13.2 outlines the total number of people who are economically active in the Desborough Loatland Ward.

Table 13.2 Labour Supply Economically Active

Desborough Kettering All People Loatland (Non-Metropolitan East Midlands England (Ward) District)

Total Population 3,661 81,844 4,172,174 49,138,831

Economically 1,896 (51.7%) 42,904 (52.4%) 2,026,208 (48.6%) 23,756,707 (48.3%) Active

Full Time 1,283 (35%) 27,298 (33.3%) 1,240,351 (29.7%) 14,499,241 (29.5%) Employees

Self Employed 57 (1.5%) 1,805 (2.2%) 88,209 (2.1%) 1,049,823 (2.1%)

Unemployed 63 (1.7%) 1,503 (1.8%) 98,670 (2.4%) 1,188,855 (2.4%)

Table 13.2 shows that Desborough has a higher percentage of economically active people in comparison to the East Midlands and England. The table also identifies that the unemployment rate is lower in the Desborough Loatland Ward when compared to the England average. It is therefore concluded that Desborough is more economically active than the East Midlands and England, however has an overall lower performance when compared to the district of Kettering.

Employment by Occupation Table 13.3 indicates the economic breakdown of people by occupation in Desborough Loatland.

247

Table 13.3 Employment by Occupation

Desborough Kettering All People Loatland (Non-Metropolitan East Midlands England (Ward) District)

Managers and Senior 260 6,280 278,223 3,424,899 Officials

Professional 112 3,774 188,390 2,515,679

Associate Professional 170 4,904 231,985 3,104,993 and Technical

Administrative and 199 4,961 231,576 3,004,721 Secretarial

Skilled Trades 268 5,469 241,798 2,591,875

Personal Services 158 3,122 129,477 1,545,367

Sales and Customer 117 2,967 142,124 1,717,796 Services

Process Plant and 325 4,794 211,872 1,889,126 Machine Operatives

Elementary 230 5,011 262,283 2,647,042 Occupations

Economic Profile in North Northamptonshire and Kettering The North Northamptonshire Employment Targets Final Report (2011)13 provides employment information for the area. As shown in their Table 1.3 (Table 13.3 above) there were 6,202 net increases in jobs; this equates to a 20.3% growth in employment in the period 1998-2008. In this period there was a major decline in manufacturing in North Northamptonshire however there was growth in health and social work; education; business services; transport, storage and communication; and wholesale, retail and repair. The report also shows the more recent employment change for the period 2008-2010. In the district of Kettering itself there has been an overall loss of 882 jobs. As mentioned above there has been the greatest loss in employment in the manufacturing sector, however there has been significant growth in the health sector; growth in professional, scientific and technical sector; Transport and storage sector; and wholesale. The North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11 (NNJPU AMR) shows the earning by residence for 2011. Within the district of Kettering a male full time worker will receive on average £536.60, whilst a female full time worker will receive £440.20. These gross weekly earnings are both above the East Midlands average of £512.30 for males and £409.50 for females.

13 The North Northamptonshire AMR also states the same information.

248

The NNJPU AMR 2010/11 also shows employment by occupation across North Northamptonshire for 2011. In Kettering, the AMR indicates that: • 41% of those employed work as managers, senior officials, in professional occupations, and in associate professional occupations; • 18.5% of those employed work as administrative and secretarial staff, and in skilled trades occupations;

• 12.9% of those employed work in personal service occupations, sales and customer service occupations; and

• 27.3% of those employed work as plant and machine operatives, and in elementary occupations.

Community Baseline The North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11 as well as the other documents identified below, provides a range of social baseline characteristics which have been used to create a profile of the current performance/ conditions in the area.

Population The AMR states that the mid 2010 population estimate for Desborough has risen since the Census to approximately 10,000 people, whilst the mid 2010 population for the district of Kettering is 90,600 people.

Education In 2011, 55.3% pupils within Northamptonshire achieved five GCSE or equivalents; the national average was 58.2% of pupils achieving five GCSE or equivalents. It is therefore considered that Northamptonshire is performing in line with national average figures. (Source: Regional Picture: GCSE Results, BBC 26th January 2012). As detailed within the 2001 Census, more detailed information is provided for the ward of Desborough Loatland, as outlined below14:

• 33.8 % of people had no qualifications; • 20.3% of people had Level 1 qualifications;

• 20.2% of people had Level 2 qualifications;

• 6.0% of people had Level 3 qualifications; and

• 11.6% of people had Level 4 qualifications.

Health The Department of Health publish Health Profiles for each Local Authority annually. The 2011 Kettering Health Profile states that “the health of people in Kettering is generally similar to the England average”...“life expectancy for both men and women is similar to the England

14 (Source: Neighbourhood Statistics)

249

average”. It is noted that deprivation is lower than average, with “life expectancy is 9.5 years lower for men and 5.9 years lower for women in the most deprived areas of Kettering than the least deprived areas (based on the Slope of Index of Inequality published on 5th January 2011)”. The 2001 Census again provides more detailed information specific to Desborough Loatland ward as outlined below15: • 70.5% of people stated they had good health;

• 22.1% of people stated they had fairly good health; and

• 7.2% of people stated they had poor health.

Deprivation The NNJPU AMR provides information on the 2010 Indices of Deprivation for each Local Authority. Kettering is ranked 164 out of the 326 local authorities across England and is considered to be average.

13.5.3 Significance Evaluation Methodology As discussed in Section 13.3.2, there is the potential for significant socio-economic effects to occur in Desborough. The determination of significance is therefore based on a combination of value and magnitude.

Employment When assessing the extent to which the proposed development will have an impact upon, and contribute to, the generation of employment within the immediate locality, employment generation must be related to the existing local unemployment rates and skills base of the available workforce: this provides the magnitude of change. The assessment must also take into consideration value issues which have been determined qualitatively according to the existing employment base and the type of jobs that would be created at the Magnetic Park Energy Centre. It is anticipated that skilled or managerial jobs would have a higher value than unskilled jobs. Permanent jobs will offer a perceived higher value than that of temporary jobs.

Existing Business With regards to existing businesses that would be directly and indirectly affected, this will vary depending on the type of employment and the numbers employed within an individual business. For the purpose of this assessment, a lower value has been assigned as a result of the existing profile within the area which, whilst predominantly residential, is in fact largely industrial in the immediate vicinity. Inward Investment Ways in which the proposed development could affect inward investment in Desborough is difficult to measure and assess as it is largely subjective i.e. based upon peoples values. With regards to the proximity of the site in relation to existing buildings and other possible employment generation, effects are likely to be related to issues that could affect how a location is perceived i.e. its overall ‘image’. The main issues include those such as visibility and noise.

15 (Source: Neighbourhood Statistics)

250

Community Perception Similar to that of inward investment, an assessment made in relation to community perception is difficult to measure as it is largely subjective. The major issue for any waste facility is that of the public perception and how a waste facility could affect the image of the area. Particular relevance for this issue will therefore be generated from the surrounding land uses which are predominantly residential.

13.6 Assessment of Effects This section assesses the potential affects arising from the construction and operation of the Energy Centre at the proposed development site.

13.6.1 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Construction Phase

Direct Employment To undertake the construction of the proposed development, a number of people will need to be employed throughout the construction period. To date, a contractor has not been appointed by the developer and so it is anticipated that there is the opportunity for a number of jobs to be created. However, due to the temporary nature of the work, the benefits of job creation in this element of the proposal are likely to be insignificant in EIA terms. The site at present is vacant and therefore there are no people who are currently employed directly on the site. In terms of the magnitude of change, during the construction phase it is anticipated that permanently the change will be low (or zero) and as a result any significant adverse effects would not be significant. However when considering the number of people who will be employed temporarily, change will be high and the adverse effects will be significant and positive.

Indirect Employment It is expected that existing local businesses will also benefit as it will be encouraged that they supply the materials and equipment for the construction phase of the development. However, since the benefits will only be temporary and cannot realistically be quantified, it is assumed that they will not be significant.

13.6.2 Predicted Effects and their Significance: Operational/ Occupation Phase

Direct Employment The Energy from Waste will provide the following breakdown of employees on the site:

• Waste Facility: 28

• Visitors Centre: 2 The total number of direct jobs created on the site is anticipated to be 30. This is a beneficial effect at local level.

251

Indirect Jobs For the purpose of this report, a multiplier factor of 1.29 (which has been obtained from the 2008 English Partnerships Additionality Guide) has been used to calculate the indirect and induced employment. Using this calculation it is therefore anticipated that an additional 9 indirect/induced jobs will be created by delivering the waste treatment facility, taking the total of direct and indirect jobs to 39. The basis of these calculations is outlined in Box 13.1 below:

Box 13.1 Indirect and Induced Job Preservation Calculations

Calculation of Indirect and Induced Jobs created by the proposed Waste Treatment Facility

Total number of direct jobs generated by the proposed Waste Treatment Facility (30) x 1.29 = 39, minus the total number of direct jobs generated (30) = Total number of indirect and induced jobs supported (9)

Existing Businesses Due to the current nature of the site and the existing industrial profile of the area, which is largely industrial in the immediate vicinity, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely affect the existing image already associated with the area of Magnetic Park. The affects therefore can be considered as having a low value and of little significance.

Community Perception The primary concern of the proposed waste facility is that of the ‘image’ and how it will be perceived by the existing community and residents of Desborough, the nearest of whom live approximately 200 m to the south/south-east in an area known as ‘The Grange’. To mitigate against the potential community concerns and their perceptions, two separate public exhibitions and consultation exercises were undertaken in March in order to educate and inform residents and other interested parties of the proposal and the longer term environmental benefits associated with the scheme. A Community Liaison Group (CLG) has also been set up by Origin and will ultimately be led by the residents of Desborough; at present 29 people have registered an interest in being a member. The aim of the CLG is to provide an opportunity for Origin to communicate its plans and to discuss the proposal with a broad range of stakeholders and representatives of the community. It also enables members of the CLG to request the topics that are discussed for which an appropriate member of the Origin team will provide the necessary information. As part of the issues that have been raised to date, Origin are investigating the possibility of providing an all expenses paid trip to an operational ENERGOS plant in Norway for members of the CLG and other appropriate stakeholders so that they are able to view a working plant.

13.6.3 Other Potential Mitigation In view of the socio-economic effects that are anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, other enhancement measures which can be regarded as desirable, rather than essential are detailed below:

252

• Additional emphasis on the use of local labour; and

• Education of the local community about waste and the facilities that are being proposed.

13.6.4 Conclusions It is expected that the redevelopment of the site would create a minimum of 39 permanent jobs through a combination of direct and indirect employment, together with induced employment through sustaining local economic activity. Whilst Kettering is considered to be average in terms of deprivation ranking (164 out of the 326 local authorities) it is anticipated that this source of employment would be welcomed in a period of recession and rising unemployment. Whilst the provision of jobs could be considered positive within the area of Desborough, it will be less significant at a regional scale due to the low number of jobs that are being provided. In terms of adverse effects, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to discourage inward investment due to the existing industrial profile of its surroundings. The proposal also offers an opportunity for existing and new businesses to link to and receive benefit from the energy that is generated by the facility. Not only does the proposal have the opportunity to deliver sustainable district heating to commercial users within the locality of the plant and also to the forthcoming Grange II residential scheme, the energy supplied will be at a discounted fixed price rate, thereby removing price fluctuations to businesses and home owners. The overall benefit is lower fuel costs which will ultimately offer better job security for employees of the surrounding businesses because they know that the fuel rates will not increase suddenly. The proposed development it also capable of producing sustainable electricity to the National Grid. In addition, the facility also diverts waste that would otherwise go to landfill and will contribute to the shift away from landfill as required by the Landfill Directive. With regards to the perceived image of the proposed waste management facility on the local community, it is considered as a minor concern but by encouraging and implementing educational techniques, it is envisaged that these can address any potential concerns local residents and the wider community may have.

13.7 Summary of Predicted Effects In accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 13.5.3, Table 13.4 summarises the potential beneficial and adverse effects on socio-economic issues from the proposed development and also assesses their significance.

253

Table 13.4 Summary of Effects and Evaluation of Significance

Receptor Probability Value Magnitude Significance

Level Rationale

Beneficial Effects

The numbers of direct, indirect and induced jobs created will be Employment Base (ward level) Certain High Medium Significant beneficial at a local level. Employment Base The number of jobs created will be less significant in terms of Kettering Certain Medium Low Not Significant (district and regional level) and the wider area of North Northamptonshire. Some businesses will benefit from the development, particularly in the Existing Business Certain Medium Low Not Significant construction phase. The opportunity for existing businesses to be able to link to and receive the energy that is generated by the facility is hugely favourable as it will Existing Business - Supply of Heat result in lower fuel costs. The CHP also offers the opportunity to supply Certain High High Significant and Power housing at Grange II. There is also the potential to supply heat and power to the existing housing development at the Grange, and possibly beyond; this option is currently being investigated by the applicant. Adverse Effects Existing businesses within the immediate area could potentially be affected by the image issue associated with waste management Existing Business - Image Possible Low Low Not Significant facilities. However the immediate area in which the proposed development is located, is largely industrial and should not be driven or affected by a perceived image. Initially new businesses may be discouraged to invest in the area due to the perceived negative image of such a facility. However given the existing industrial area in which it is to be located, and the opportunity Inward Investment Possible Low Low Not significant for new businesses to receive the energy that is created by the facility, it is anticipated that there will be an opportunity for more inward investment. Initial negative perception in the community of the waste treatment Community Perception Likely Medium Medium Significant facility is likely. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Significance Certain High High Significant Likely Medium Medium Not Significant Possible Low Low Unlikely None

254

13.8 Implementation of Mitigation Measures Table 13.5 indicates the proposed mitigation measures and proposals for compliance monitoring that have been incorporated into the scheme to mitigate any potential effects on the local community. It also indicates who will be responsible for the implementation of the measures.

Table 13.5 Implementation of Incorporated Mitigation and Monitoring Proposals

Mitigation Measure/ Monitoring Proposal Actioned By Compliance Mechanism

Educational and awareness techniques used to Developer Planning Condition and improve local community perception of waste compliance with the determining treatment facilities. authority, Northamptonshire County Council.

13.9 Technical References 1. English Partnerships: Additionality Guide, 2008; 2. National Statistics Neighbourhood Profile, Desborough Loatland Ward;

3. Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Core Strategy DPD (May 2010); 4. Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Location for Waste Development DPD (March 2011); 5. Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Proposals Map (April 2011); 6. Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Control and Management of Development DPD (June 2011); 7. East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy (January 2006);

8. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), (March 2012);

9. Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10), (March 2011);

10. North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy; 11. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11; 12. Regional Picture: GCSE Results, BBC 26th January 2012; and 13. Department of Health: Health Profiles.

255

14. Cumulative Effects

14.1 Introduction This chapter provides a review of the potential cumulative effects that could arise from the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. In the context of this assessment, such effects could possibly occur in respect of: • Whether any of the individual environmental effects of the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre development will combine to create a significant cumulative effect; • How the effects from the proposed development could be combined with similar effects from other nearby comparable sites to result in significant cumulative effects; and • How the effects from the proposed development could be combined with similar effects from other nearby development proposals to result in significant cumulative effects.

14.2 Planning Context

14.2.1 National Planning Policy Guidance Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (2005) (PPS10) incorporates policy in respect of cumulative effects. Paragraph 21 specifically states: ‘In identifying sites and areas for allocation in the development plan or considering planning applications for sites which have either not been identified or are not located in an area identified in the development plan, waste planning authorities should . . . assess their suitability for development against…the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well being of the local community, including any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion and inclusion or economical potential.’ Further, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) stipulates that the cumulative effects of pollution, health, the natural environmental or general amenity together with the potential sensitivity of the area should be taken into account in planning decisions in order to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution. This will require consideration of existing sources of pollution in and around a site to ensure that the cumulative effects of pollution would not make that development unacceptable.

14.2.2 Local Planning Policy Guidance At the local level there is no specific policy guidance in respect of cumulative effects. Notwithstanding, policies contained within the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy

256

(2008) and Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Core Strategy (2010) and Control and Management of Development (2011) Development Plan Documents are concerned with the minimisation of environmental effects. For example, Policy CS14 of the Northamptonshire MWDF Core Strategy states that proposals must demonstrate that the following issues have been addressed: • minimising environmental impact and protecting Northamptonshire’s key environmental designations;

• protecting natural resources or ensuring that any unavoidable loss or reduction is mitigated;

• ensuring built development is of a design and layout that has regard to its visual appearance in the context of the defining characteristics of the local area;

• ensuring access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable; and

• ensuring that local amenity is protected. Whilst not explicitly stated within the policy itself, the consideration of cumulative effects is essential if the issues listed above are to be satisfactorily addressed as part of development proposals.

14.3 Proposed Scope of Assessment

14.3.1 Potential Receptors With respect to potential cumulative effects from the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre, before determining whether such effects have occurred (either in combination with other effects from the same development or in combination with effects from other nearby similar sites or proposals), it is necessary to identify potential receptors that could be affected by more than one environmental issue. This assessment considers the potential effects on both human receptors and other environmental receptors.

Human Receptors Human receptors that are subject to effects from amenity issues (i.e. visual, noise and vibration, air quality and odour and traffic) are the most likely to be affected cumulatively. In this context, four common receptor locations have been considered in Chapter 10 (Noise); Chapter 11 (Air Quality); Chapter 9 (Visual); and Chapter 12 (Traffic), and these are summarised as follows: 1. Harborough Road/ Gapstile Close - Harborough Road is identified as a receptor in the air quality, traffic and visual assessments. Gapstile Close is located off Harborough Road to the west and has been identified in the noise assessment as being representative of nearby residential properties on Harborough Road. For the purposes of this assessment, these receptors have been collectively termed Harborough Road. 2. The Grange/ Ironwood Avenue and Mulberry Close/ Wood Avens Way/ Thistle Drive - The Grange is identified as a receptor in the visual assessment. Ironwood Avenue and Mulberry Close together with Buttercup Road and Wood Avens Way are identified in the noise assessment and are all located within the residential development known as The Grange. Thistle Drive is identified within the air quality

257

assessment and is also located within the Grange estate. For the purposes of this assessment, these receptors have been collectively termed the Grange. 3. The Grange Phase II - Outline planning consent (No. KET/2011/0235) is being sought for residential development to the east of Magnetic Park and north of the existing Grange estate. The proposed development, known as the Grange Phase II, is to comprise up to 700 dwellings together with shops, a school, open space and associated roads and other infrastructure. The Grange Phase II site has been identified as a receptor within the noise assessment (more specifically, the north-western, southern and western areas of the site) and air quality assessment (as ‘new housing’). A Public Right of Way within the proposed Grange Phase II site has also been considered within the visual assessment (receptor 11). For the purposes of this assessment, this receptor is termed the Grange Phase II. 4. Dob Hall Farm - Dob Hall Farm is located to the north of the application site and has been identified as a receptor within the noise, visual (together with other scattered properties to the north of the proposed development) and air quality assessments. For the purposes of this assessment, this receptor is termed Dob Hall Farm. Whilst other human receptors have been considered by other assessments (for example, Bridge Road), as they have been evaluated in the context of only a single effect (and effectively ‘scoped out’ of other assessments) they have not been considered cumulatively with other effects. Consequently, they have been scoped out this assessment of cumulative effects.

Other Environmental Receptors As well as human receptors, consideration has been given to the potential for cumulative effects on other environmental receptors. A review of the respective ES chapters has been undertaken to identify where one non-human receptor may be affected by more than one environmental effect and the following common receptors have been considered in Chapter 8 (Cultural Heritage) and Chapter 9 (Landscape): 1. Pipewell Cistercian Abbey/Hall scheduled monument (SM). 2. Braybrooke Castle SM. 3. Rushden Triangular Lodge SM. 4. Harrington Registered Park and Garden. 5. Rushton Hall Registered Park and Garden. 6. Brampton Wood Ancient Woodland (also considered as part of the ecology and air quality assessments). In addition, several designated ecological sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), local wildlife sites (LWS) and local nature reserves (LNR)) have been considered as part of the ecology and air quality assessments (Chapters 7 and 11 respectively). These sites include three SSSIs (Stoke and Bowd P1 and P2, Pipewell Woods and Alder Wood and Meadow), six LWSs (Brampton Wood, The Plens, 11 Acre Spinney, Tailby Meadow, Rothwell Gullet and West Lodge Quarry) and two Ancient Woodlands (Gultney Wood and Hermitage Wood).

258

14.3.2 Combination of Effects with Similar Sites As noted in Section 14.2.1, PPS 10 states that the cumulative effect of previous waste disposal facilities on the well being of the local community should be assessed. This assessment has therefore identified and considered other waste management facilities which may, in combination with the proposed development, generate cumulative effects.

14.3.3 Combination of Effects with Other Proposed Developments Whilst not a specific requirement of PPS 10, this assessment considers other known development proposals with potential to generate cumulative effects in-combination with the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. For the purposes of this assessment, other proposals have been identified based on their proximity to the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre, scale and proposed use. Only those proposals with sufficient publicly available information to support an assessment of cumulative effects and a realistic prospect of coming forward (i.e. they are the subject of a recent planning application or approval) are considered. This goes beyond standard practice which only considers “committed” developments which have received planning permission.

14.3.4 Potential Significant Effects The potential environmental effects have the scope to occur at all times of site operations.

14.4 Assessment of Cumulative Effects

14.4.1 Assessment Methodology

Combination of Effects from Magnetic Park Energy Centre National policy guidance requires that all relevant effects should be considered objectively. However, existing policy guidance presently fails to provide advice on how such an objective assessment should be carried out. In the absence of any guidance, the cumulative assessment of effects from the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre itself will seek to draw upon the conclusions of the appropriate individual assessments of this ES (most notably noise, air quality and visual intrusion) and against each of the identified receptors evaluate, in a qualitative way, the extent to which the sum of any predicted effects may give rise to significant environmental effects.

Combination of Effects with Similar Sites Policy guidance in respect of cumulative effects with similar sites is only partially clear, but has been interpreted here as meaning that consideration must be given to the in-combination effects that any proposed waste development has with other waste management facilities, i.e. the cumulative effects that the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre has with other nearby facilities. It is also not wholly clear how any assessment of cumulative effects should define the geographical extent of other waste management facilities with no national or local guidance available. In the absence of such guidance, this assessment will consider facilities that are located within a 5 km radius of the application site.

259

Combination of Effects with Other Proposed Development Whilst PPS10 does not require the consideration of cumulative effects with other types of developments (e.g. housing or commercial development) two proposals were identified which, given their scale, proposed use and proximity to the application site, may generate cumulative effects in combination within the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. The proposals identified are the Grange Phase II residential development and a planned food store at the Lawrence’s Factory Site. To inform the assessment of cumulative effects, publicly available information submitted with related planning applications has been utilised alongside the conclusions of the appropriate individual assessments contained within this ES.

14.4.2 Predicted Effects and Their Significance (Human Receptors)

Combination of Effects from Magnetic Park Energy Centre Overview The assessment of the combination of the various effects on human receptors from the proposed development has been focused on those receptors where potential significant effects have been predicted in respect of at least one topic and/or where the technical assessments have shown that potential individual effects are nearing the thresholds of established national criteria. As noted in Section 14.3.1, the locations considered in this assessment are Harborough Road, the Grange, the Grange Phase II and Dob Hall Farm.

Assessment The assessment of noise presented in Chapter 11 of this ES concludes that noise levels during construction would be below guidance criteria set out in BS5228-1:2009, which indicates that a significant effect is likely to occur if total ambient noise levels exceed 65dB(A). With respect to industrial noise (i.e. noise from the EfW facility), it is predicted that noise complaints from residents are ‘unlikely’ for the large majority of time (in accordance with criteria contained in BS2142:1997) and whilst this potential may become ‘marginal’ at Harborough Road, the Grange and the Grange Phase II, this would only be during the night-time, most notably at the weekend. Further, the proposed development is predicted to increase internal ambient noise levels by less than 1.6dB(A) which is considered unlikely to be perceived. Regarding air quality, it is not expected that there will be a significant effect at any human receptor with emissions from the EfW (including road traffic) predicted to not result in exceedences of AQOs at any receptor. The visual assessment indicates that some properties within the Harborough Road area (fronting the road and at the north-western settlement edge) would have views of the main façade of the proposed building and the stack, and some would experience significant adverse effects as a result. Within the Grange and proposed Grange Phase II residential areas to the east of the application site and Dob Hall Farm to the north, there may also be views of the stack or roofline of the main building; however, no significant adverse visual effects on these receptors have been predicted, reflecting the presence of intervening trees which soften the view, proposed new landscape planting and the existing built form which includes the large scale Great Bear Distribution Centre and other units at Magnetic Park. Further, from peripheral roads (including Stoke Road adjacent to the site) the likely visual effect of the proposals would be negligible and

260

not significant given that that current view includes large scale industry and cleared areas of brownfield land. It is therefore considered that there will not be any significant cumulative effects on any receptors due to a combination of effects from the Magnetic Park Energy Centre.

Combination of Effects with Similar Sites Overview One existing waste management facility has been identified within 5 km of the application site, namely Rothwell Lodge Farm Anaerobic Digestion Plant (hereafter referred to as Rothwell Lodge Farm) which has a permitted capacity of 49 000 tonnes per annum. The assessment of in-combination effects will therefore focus on whether receptors would experience cumulative effects from the proposed development at Magnetic Park and Rothwell Lodge Farm.

Assessment Rothwell Lodge Farm is located to the south of the A14 trunk road approximately 4.8 km south-east of Magnetic Park. No human receptors have been identified in close proximity to this existing facility within the noise and air quality assessments contained in this ES (Chapters 10 and 11) with the nearest receptors located at Buxton Drive and Bestwood Close to the east/ north east of Desborough. In each case, these receptors are in excess of 4 km from Rothwell Lodge Farm and with the prevailing wind direction from the south-west, any emissions to air from the anaerobic digestion plant would be generally carried away from receptors identified in this ES. In terms of the visual assessment, residential properties at Rothwell have been identified as a receptor. However, only properties on the northern edge of the settlement, over 1.5 km from Rothwell Lodge Farm, would have views towards the proposed Energy Centre and are therefore highly unlikely to experience any cumulative visual effects, particularly as both sites are separated by the Ise Valley and the built-up areas of Rothwell and Desborough and views of the developments would be in opposite directions. Overall, in view of the location of both Rothwell Lodge Farm and the proposed development and their physical separation it is not considered that any cumulative effects on human receptors would be experienced.

Combination of Effects with Other Proposed Developments Overview Two proposals have been identified with the potential to generate cumulative effects in- combination with the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. These proposals are the Grange Phase II residential scheme and a food store at the Lawrence’s Factory Site. The Grange Phase II site is located to the east of the application site and at the nearest boundary is approximately 130 m from the proposed development. As noted in Section 14.3.1, outline planning permission is currently being sought for development of the site to accommodate up to 700 dwellings together with shops, a school, open space and associated roads and other infrastructure. Whilst potential impacts on prospective Grange Phase II residents have been considered within the individual assessments of this ES (where appropriate) and the site

261

identified as a receptor for the purposes of the assessment of cumulative effects from the Magnetic Park Energy Centre itself, there is also potential for impacts associated with both proposals to act in-combination to generate significant cumulative effects. Planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of the former Lawrences Factory Site to accommodate a new food store of 2 387 m2 gross. The site is located between New Street and Harborough Road, with frontage also onto Gladstone Street and is approximately 900 m from the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre. Given the location of Magnetic Park vis-à-vis the proposed food store and anticipated access arrangements for the Grange Phase II residential scheme, it is considered that potential cumulative effects on human receptors would be principally associated with increased traffic along Harborough Road in terms of both noise and air quality impacts as well as other issues including driver delay, pedestrian delay and pedestrian safety etc (reflecting the range of effects identified within the IEMA Guidelines; see Chapter 12 of this ES). In this respect, Harborough Road is identified as a receptor in noise, air quality and traffic assessments prepared in this ES, the ES submitted for the Grange Phase II residential scheme and in the noise assessment prepared in support of the Lawrences Factory Site food store planning application. It will also be important to consider cumulative effects on visual amenity, particularly for residential properties located adjacent to the Lawrences Factory Site (identified as a receptor within the visual assessment contained in this ES) and properties at the northern edge of the Grange, fronting Harborough Road and to the north of Magnetic Park (identified as visual receptors in both this ES and that prepared in support of Grange Phase II).

Assessment In terms of traffic noise, the assessments of noise undertaken as part of this ES and in support of the Grange Phase II and Lawrences Factory Site food store proposals predict that noise level increases along Harborough Road would be negligible and not significant. Assessments of air quality also demonstrate that emissions associated with road traffic arising from the proposed development and the Grange Phase II scheme will be well below Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 (note that a comparable air quality assessment has not been prepared in support of the proposed Lawrences Factory Site food store). With respect to impacts on the local highway network itself and its users, the transport assessments prepared in support of this ES and the Grange Phase II and Lawrences Factory Site food store proposals indicate that cumulative effects on the surrounding local highway network and users resulting from increased traffic flows will not be significant, and, in the context of the Magnetic Park Energy Centre, negligible at worst. Overall, it is therefore considered that no significant cumulative effects on amenity, the highway network or its users resulting from increased road traffic would be experienced. The on-site construction and operation of the food store at the Lawrences Factory Site is not expected to generate any significant cumulative noise or air quality effects in combination with the Grange Phase II residential scheme and proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre given the physical separation of the proposals. There may, however, be potential for cumulative noise and air quality effects associated with the construction of the Grange Phase II and the proposed development. These effects are considered further below. In terms of construction noise, the assessment prepared as part of the Grange Phase II ES identifies that a 70dB LAeq threshold may only be exceeded when works associated with this scheme are within a distance of up to 40 m from existing residential properties within the

262

existing Grange development, which would only be for a relatively short duration. Further, the noise assessment prepared as part of this ES predicts that noise levels associated with the construction of the Energy Centre at receptors within the existing Grange development would be well below the daytime criterion of 70dB(A). With respect to air quality, there is potential for cumulative effects to occur due to dust raising activities associated with construction works particularly at receptors in close proximity to both sites. However, any potential cumulative effects are likely to be limited to the industrial area along Stoke Road and be temporary, occurring primarily during the main dust raising activities (earthworks to lay foundations for the site) and will be limited by mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 11 including sheeting of stockpiles and HGVs, dampening down of haul routes etc. Regarding visual effects, residential properties adjacent to the Lawrences Factory Site have been identified as a receptor within the visual assessment contained within this ES (as residential properties within Desborough generally) and may therefore be potentially affected by development of the Magnetic Park Energy Centre and food store. However, the Landscape Supporting Statement prepared for the proposed food store concludes that, although the impact on visual amenity in the immediate vicinity of the site would constitute a significant change, the impact upon surrounding visual amenity would represent a minor beneficial impact. Further, the visual assessment contained in this ES predicts that the roofline of the main building and stack of the Energy Centre may only be occasionally visible in this location and that any effect would be negligible/ slight adverse and not significant. For properties at the northern edge of the Grange, the Grange Phase II and Great Bear Distribution Centre may serve to screen the Magnetic Park Energy Centre whilst the supporting visual assessments for both proposals indicate that visual effects on properties fronting Harborough Road will not be significant. These assessments also demonstrate that the visual effects on properties to the north of Magnetic Park would be negligible and not significant. Overall, it is not considered that any significant cumulative effects on visual amenity would be experienced.

14.4.3 Predicted Effects and Their Significance (Other Receptors)

Combination of Effects from Magnetic Park Energy Centre Overview The assessment of the combination of the various effects on non-human receptors from the proposed development has been focused on those receptors where potential significant effects have been predicted in respect of at least one topic and/or where the technical assessments have shown that potential individual effects are nearing the thresholds of established national criteria.

Assessment The assessment of potential impacts on designated ecological sites (SSSI, LWS and LNR) (see Chapter 7) predicts that there is unlikely to be a significant effect on these assets as result of the construction or operation of the proposed development. With specific regard to effects from increased atmospheric concentrations and deposition of pollutants, the air quality assessment and ecological assessment conclude that the incremental contributions of pollutants will not cause a significant effect when compared to background concentrations. Process contributions from the EfW facility for both deposited nitrogen and acid rates were predicted to be within acceptable limits.

263

Cumulative effects on specific cultural heritage assets identified within the landscape, cultural heritage and ecology chapters are expected to be negligible and not significant with the identified assets being located between 3 km and 5 km from the proposed development.

Combination of Effects with Similar Sites Overview As noted above, one existing waste management facility has been identified within 5 km of the application site, namely Rothwell Lodge Farm. The assessment of in-combination effects will therefore focus on whether non-human receptors would experience cumulative effects from the proposed development at Magnetic Park and Rothwell Lodge Farm.

Assessment Several designated sites identified in the ecological assessment contained in this ES (Chapter 7) are located between the settlements of Desborough and Rothwell including a LWS, provisional wildlife sites (PWS) and a LNR and which therefore may be subject to in-combination effects arising from the proposed development at Magnetic Park and Rothwell Lodge Farm. However, the ecological assessment concludes that the incremental contributions of pollutants will not cause a significant impact when compared to background concentrations whilst process contributions from the EfW facility for both deposited nitrogen and acid rates were predicted to be well within acceptable limits. Further, with the prevailing wind direction from the south west, any emissions to air from Rothwell Lodge Farm would be generally carried away from these receptors. Consequently, it is not expected that there will be any cumulative effects on ecological receptors. In terms of cultural heritage and visual assessments, any cumulative effects are expected to be negligible given the physical separation of Rothwell Lodge Farm and the proposed development.

Combination of Effects with Other Proposed Developments Overview The assessment of cumulative effects with other proposed developments will focus on whether non-human receptors would experience in-combination effects from the proposed development at Magnetic Park, the Grange Phase II residential scheme and Lawrences Factory Site food store.

Assessment Any cumulative effects associated with construction activities on ecological receptors are expected to be negligible reflecting both the distance of the proposals from designated sites and the low ecological value/ sensitivity of the proposed development sites. There is potential for cumulative effects on some species, particularly bats (as a result of changes in light occurrence and spill) from the operation of Magnetic Park Energy Centre and the Grange Phase II. However, given the limited usage of both sites by bats and taking account of proposed mitigation measures (e.g. the provision of green infrastructure/landscaping, appropriate lighting to minimise disturbance etc), there are not expected to be any significant cumulative effects. In terms of cultural heritage, there are no SMs or listed buildings within 1 km of the development sites and whilst the Lawrences Factory Site is located within the Desborough Conservation Area, cumulative effects on cultural heritage assets are expected to be negligible,

264

particularly as haulage routes associated with the proposed Magnetic Park Energy Centre avoid Desborough town centre and the Conservation Area. Similarly, any cumulative landscape effects are predicted to be minimal and not significant given the urban context in which the sites are located (which is of low landscape sensitivity) and proposed mitigation (e.g. landscaping and Green Infrastructure).

14.5 Conclusions The assessment of cumulative effects has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of existing national and local policy guidance. Specifically, this has looked at:

• In combination effects on human and other environmental receptors with other similar sites in the vicinity of the proposed development;

• In combination effects on human and other environmental receptors with other development proposals in the vicinity of the proposed development; and

• In combination effects on human and other environmental receptors of the individual environmental effects of the proposed development itself. In all three contexts, it has been concluded that any such effects would be not significant.

265

15. Summary of Predicted Effects

15.1 Summary of Significant Effects A comprehensive and detailed working scheme has been designed to minimise the adverse (negative) effects upon the local environment and local residents. The development proposals also promote beneficial (positive) effects, whilst allowing the reclamation of a site that is currently unused. Table 15.1 summarises the predicted effects of the development proposals judged to be ‘Significant’ as defined in the EIA Regulations. These are based on the effects predicted for each technical topic, as discussed in Sections 5-14. Those effects considered in each ES section to be ‘Not significant’ are not therefore shown below.

Table 15.1 Summary of Predicted Significant Effects

Receptor Probability Sensitivity/ Magnitude Rationale Value

Adverse Effects S9: Visual Viewpoint 1: Certain High Medium Some residential receptors in close Residential proximity will have unobstructed, albeit properties facing oblique views of the proposed Harborough Road development. As landscape planting and the site associated with the development establishes this would filter and mitigate lower level views. Potential development of the vacant plot between the site and Harborough Road would provide further screening of the development from this viewpoint. S13: Socio-economic Effects Community Likely Medium Medium Initial negative perception in the community Perception of the waste treatment facility is likely. Beneficial Effects S13: Socio-economic Effects Employment Base Certain High Medium The numbers of direct, indirect and induced (ward level) jobs created will be beneficial at a local level.

266

Table 15.1 (continued) Summary of Predicted Significant Effects

Receptor Probability Sensitivity/ Magnitude Rationale Value

Existing Business - Certain High High The opportunity for existing businesses to Supply of Heat and link to and receive the energy that is Power generated by the facility is hugely favourable as it will result in lower fuel costs. The CHP also offers the opportunity to supply housing at Grange II. There is also the potential to supply heat and power to the existing housing development at the Grange, and possibly beyond; this option is currently being investigated by the applicant. Key: Probability Value Magnitude Certain High High Likely Medium Medium Possible Low Low Unlikely None

15.2 Adverse (Negative) Effects It has been predicted that there would be two significant adverse effects on receptors as a result of the proposed development. Significant adverse effects on visual amenity are predicted for only a single viewpoint. This is Viewpoint 1 (Residential properties facing Harborough Road and the site). The predicted significant visual effects are a result of the high sensitivity of the receptor and predicted medium magnitude of visual change when compared to the baseline conditions. This magnitude of change is a consequence of clear, albeit oblique views of the Energy Centre and associated stack. Given the openness of the view and the relative close proximity to the site, the increase in scale of visible built form within the site would represent a medium magnitude of change at this viewpoint. Boundary landscape planting will however mitigate adverse effects to an extent as it matures. It should also be noted that the plot on Eagle Avenue immediately between Harborough Road and the Magnetic Park Energy Centre site is available for development, and should this be taken forward in the future it would provide some screening of the development from this viewpoint, albeit the stack is still likely to be visible. Significant adverse effects are also predicted as a result of initial negative perception in the community of the waste treatment facility. However, by encouraging and implementing educational techniques via a Community Liaison Group and the Visitor’s Centre, it is envisaged that any potential concerns local residents and the wider community may have can be addressed.

15.3 Beneficial (Positive) Effects As demonstrated in Table 15.1, the proposed development at Magnetic Park would lead to beneficial effects in terms of the creation of new employment opportunities in the local area, as well as a secure and sustainable source of heat and power to local businesses and residents, both of which are considered to be ‘significant’ in EIA terms.

267

15.4 Cumulative Effects Consideration has also been given as to whether the individual effects of the development would combine with each other or with similar effects from other similar developments and result in significant cumulative effects. However, as detailed in Section 14, significant adverse cumulative effects are not predicted to arise from the proposed development at Magnetic Park Energy Centre.

15.5 Conclusions The Magnetic Park Energy Centre proposals are intended to provide sustainable waste infrastructure that can help divert upwards of 96 000 tonnes of waste from landfill every year. The proposals provide capacity to recycle more and to generate energy from the remaining waste produced locally, and will also provide a source of heat and power to local businesses and residential properties in Desborough. The EIA completed for the application has found few effects that are considered to be significant and there have been positive effects identified including those associated with the provision of sustainable heat and energy, and employment opportunities, to the local area.