Hampshire Hospital
Environmental Statement
Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Stride Treglown job no. 15179 Prepared by MH Checked by RA/TL Date 10/04/15 Revision 3
Revisions
Revision Description 1 Issue to HHFT and Landowner for review QA 3 FINAL
2 stridetreglown.com Contents
1. Non-Technical Summary ...... 7 1.1. Introduction ...... 7 1.2. Need ...... 7 1.3. Site Description ...... 7 1.4. Description of Development ...... 8 1.5. The Proposed Development ...... 8 1.6. Environmental Effects ...... 9 1.7. Conclusions...... 16 2. Introduction ...... 18 2.1. The Environmental Statement ...... 18 2.2. Structure of the Statement ...... 19 3. Project Context ...... 20 3.1. Introduction ...... 20 3.2. Use Classes ...... 20 3.3. Site Description ...... 20 3.4. Proposed Development ...... 20 3.5. Town Planning Context ...... 21 3.6. Planning Policy Overview ...... 22 4. Alternative Development Options ...... 26 4.1. Introduction ...... 26 4.2. The "Do Nothing" Scenario ...... 26 4.3. Approach to Alternative Sites...... 26 4.4. Conclusions...... 27 5. Scoping and Methodology ...... 28 5.1. EIA Scoping ...... 28 5.2. Methodology...... 29 6. Cultural Heritage ...... 31 6.1. Introduction ...... 31 6.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 32 6.3. Method ...... 32 6.4. Baseline ...... 35 6.5. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 40 6.6. Mitigation ...... 49 6.7. Residual Effects ...... 50 7. Landscape and Visual Impact...... 52 7.1. Introduction ...... 52 7.2. Policy & Legislative Context ...... 52 7.3. Method ...... 56
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 3
7.4. Baseline ...... 68 7.5. Assessment Parameters ...... 82 7.6. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 84 7.7. Residual Effects ...... 101 8. Ecology and Nature Conservation Effects ...... 109 8.1. Introduction ...... 109 8.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 109 8.3. Method ...... 110 8.4. Baseline ...... 112 8.5. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 119 8.6. Mitigation ...... 119 8.7. Residual Effects ...... 123 8.8. Conclusion ...... 123 9. Lighting Effects ...... 125 9.1. Introduction ...... 125 9.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 125 9.3. Method ...... 128 9.4. Baseline ...... 135 9.5. Development Proposals of Relevance ...... 136 9.6. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 138 9.7. Mitigation ...... 145 9.8. Residual Effects ...... 145 9.9. Conclusion ...... 146 10. Water Resources ...... 147 10.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 147 10.3. Method ...... 149 10.4. Baseline ...... 152 10.5. Development Proposals of Relevance ...... 160 10.6. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 161 10.7. Mitigation ...... 166 10.8. Residual Effects ...... 174 10.9. Conclusion ...... 179 11. Traffic and Transport ...... 180 11.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 184 11.3. Method ...... 184 11.4. Baseline ...... 185 11.5. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 190 11.6. Mitigation ...... 195 11.7. Conclusion ...... 197 12. Noise Effects ...... 199 12.1. Introduction ...... 199
4 stridetreglown.com 12.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 199 12.3. Method ...... 201 12.4. Baseline ...... 205 12.5. Development Proposals of Relevance ...... 209 12.6. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 209 12.7. Mitigation ...... 210 12.8. Residual Effects ...... 210 13. Air Quality Assessment ...... 211 13.1. Introduction ...... 211 13.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 211 13.3. Method ...... 213 13.4. Baseline ...... 214 13.5. Development Proposals of Relevance ...... 229 13.6. Potential Effects and Significance ...... 229 13.7. Mitigation ...... 233 13.8. Residual Effects ...... 234 13.9. Conclusion ...... 234 14. Socio-Economic Effects ...... 235 14.1. Introduction ...... 235 14.2. Policy/Legislative Context ...... 235 14.3. Method ...... 236 14.4. Baseline ...... 236 14.5. Assessment of Potential Effects and Significance ...... 239 14.6. Mitigation ...... 241 14.7. Residual Effects ...... 241 15. Summary of Effects ...... 242
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 5
1. Non-Technical Summary
1.1. Introduction
1.1.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken for the proposed development of the new Critical Treatment Hospital, Cancer Treatment Centre and associated works on land west of Ganderdown Copse, Basingstoke. The assessment has been carried out in accordance with Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.
1.1.2 The assessment has been undertaken by a number of specialist consultants and collated by Stride Treglown Ltd on behalf of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust).
1.1.3 This is a non-technical summary of the Environmental Statement (ES). It provides a summary of the main environmental effects that are likely to arise from the project. The ES has been prepared as the output of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the new Hampshire Hospital development.
1.2. Need
1.2.1 The Trust have identified a need to revise their clinical strategy to best serve the needs of a catchment area which totals a population of some 500,000. In order to meet these needs, the Trust have determined that provision should be based on the principle of ‘local where possible, central where necessary’. The aim of this strategy is to provide as many hospital services as possible close to people’s homes and, where necessary, to centralise some services in the interests of patient safety.
1.2.2 In order to deliver this, the clinical strategy includes a proposal to provide the majority of services in existing local hospitals and to centralise acute services for the sickest and most at risk patients in a new Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH). The proposal to centralise is based on the need for consultant‐delivered treatment on site 24/7, which is not the model in the NHS at the moment. The model can only be achieved by centralising services in one location. This principle is also why the proposed development includes for centralised obstetric care (medical care during labour) at the CTH.
1.3. Site Description
1.3.1 The site is located approximately 1.5km south west of Basingstoke's western development boundary. The villages of Dummer and North Waltham lie approximately 1km south east and 1.5km west of the site respectively.
1.3.2 It is an actively managed arable field bounded by mixed hedgerow on all sides with larger areas of woodland located outside of the site boundary, to the north west and south east. The site boundary includes neither copse.
1.3.3 The A30, main London to Lands End road, abuts the south eastern boundary of the site with the M3 motorway running, with a separation distance of approximately 0.3km, broadly perpendicular to the A30. Junction 7 of the M3 is approximately 0.5km south east of the site.
1.3.4 The site lies wholly within the administrative boundary of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC), the ‘lower tier’ authority. Hampshire County Council (HCC) is the ‘higher tier’ authority.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 7
1.4. Description of Development
The planning application proposal is described as follows:
Development of new Critical Treatment Hospital, Cancer Treatment Centre and additional development, including Energy Centre and service yard, Link Building, Underground Link and associated internal roads, car parking and landscaping, together with the means of access via a new roundabout on the A30.
Details of siting and means of access to the site for proposed Ambulance Station and Pathology Laboratory with all other matters reserved.
1.5. The Proposed Development
1.5.1 The proposed development, the subject of the planning application submission is as follows:
Development Size (GEA) / Area Application Details
Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH), 41,178m2 Full details submitted comprising:
Emergency Department Diagnostic Imaging Theatres Critical Care Maternity and Local neonatal Inpatient Wards Paediatrics Staff and Support Services
Cancer Treatment Centre (CTC) 5,690m2 Full details submitted
Central Pathology Laboratory (CPL) c.3,000m2 site Details of location and access only
Ambulance Station c.5,000m2 site Details of location and access only
Energy Centre 3,394m2 Full details submitted
Helicopter Landing Strip and Pad Pad size 35.4m diameter/total Full details submitted area 39.4m
Car Parking Total – c.821, of which Full details submitted CTH 285 (visitor) / 376 (staff) CTC 35 (visitor) / 35 (staff) Pathology 90 (staff)
Landscaping Across the site including public Full details submitted plaza, internal courtyards, road boundaries, car parks and undeveloped areas of the site.
Ancillary Infrastructure including new and n/a Full details submitted amended access roads and junctions VIE units and pumping station
8 stridetreglown.com 1.6. Environmental Effects
1.6.1 The Environmental Statement outlines the likely environment effects of the proposed development; a summary of this is provided in the following sections.
Cultural Heritage
1.6.2 The Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has considered both likely direct (physical) impacts and visual impacts to designated heritage assets and their settings.
1.6.3 A review of regional and national registers has identified one known archaeological site within the site boundary, and through map-regression, a site visit, and a review of historical aerial photographs, this assessment has identified a further three heritage assets. A geophysical survey carried out as part of the current proposal had identified further discrete areas of archaeological potential within the site boundary.
1.6.4 An impact assessment based on the footprint of the proposal and associated mitigation works for screening purposes has identified that three archaeological sites of negligible importance, and one archaeological site of low importance would be physically damaged during construction. The predominant area of archaeological potential would be avoided by development proposals, however the area may be impacted by groundworks for vegetation planting proposals. Further intrusive archaeological assessments are recommended in order to fully define the extent of archaeological remains within the site boundary. Following implementation of appropriate mitigation in the form of ‘preservation by record’, no significant residual physical effects to the historic environment are anticipated as a result of implementation of the development as proposed. Outside the site boundary, the physical protection of a grade II listed milestone on the A30 adjacent to the site boundary is recommended during construction.
1.6.5 Following liaison with statutory consultees, visual impact assessment has concentrated on specific designated and non-designated heritage assets in a 2km study area. Slight residual visual effects are anticipated at a grade II listed building, Southwood Farmhouse, and also at Dummer Conservation Area. These effects are less than substantial harm in the terms of the NPPF (para 134). No mitigation to this regard is therefore recommended.
Landscape and Visual Impact
1.6.6 The Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) identifies and describes the likely significant landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development.
1.6.7 The approach for this assessment is based on industry standard LVIA guidance and has addressed relevant legislation, planning policies, policy guidance and landscape designations. The assessment is informed by a combination of published data and field assessment, which includes a review of landscape character studies, aerial photography and ordnance survey mapping and site visits to agreed representative viewpoint locations. Representative viewpoint locations have been agreed with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
1.6.8 The assessment focuses on a 3.0 km radius study area centred on the Proposed Development Site, reflecting the extent of potentially significant effects.
1.6.9 No part of the site or 3.0 km study area falls within a nationally or locally designated landscape. However, the boundary of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is approximately 3.5 km north, north-west of the site boundary.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 9
1.6.10 The existing site setting is that of a large scale arable field, which rises significantly in ground level from the south-eastern boundary to a plateau at the north-western boundary. The landcover across the wider landscape is a patchwork of open and semi-enclosed, large scale arable fields and woodland mosaic, resulting in a degree of enclosure and moderate intervisibility.
1.6.11 Settlement is scattered, and consists of individual farmsteads and the villages of North Waltham (1.5 km south-west of the site) and Dummer (1.0 km south of the site). Larger settlements within the study area comprise: the town of Oakley, which is located 1.5 km north of the site; and, Basingstoke, located 1.5 km east of the site at its nearest point. However, there is no intervisibility between the site itself and Basingstoke, primarily due to an intervening ridgeline.
1.6.12 Given the undulating nature of the landform and the generally high levels of woodland cover within the study area, visibility of the existing site is primarily limited to areas in close proximity and to occasional locations within the wider study area which are not screened by woodland and hedgerows. The most open views into the site are from:
Directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site on the local access road; From a public footpath located approximately 0.5 km south-west of the site; and
1.6.13 From elevated positions between 0.5 and 1.5 km south and south-east of the site, including the northern extent of the village of Dummer.
1.6.14 The likely significant landscape effects identified in the assessment include on:
The character of the site itself, including the removal of parts of the boundary hedgerow, such as on Trenchard Lane; and The host landscape character area, due to the introduction of a large-scale built development (i.e. a hospital) into a rural location which has a limited level of existing built development and none within the specific site within which the development is to be located.
1.6.15 The significant visual effects identified in the assessment include:
A highly significant effect on nearby cottages at Southwood Farm; and A significant effect on properties within the northern extent of Dummer. This mostly refers to a rear, upper storey view from properties; On locations on Trenchard Lane; On locations on the Wayfarer’s Walk; A footpath located 0.4 km south-west of the site; and A small extent of the A30 as it passes directly past the site.
1.6.16 Landscape and visual mitigation has been proposed, including extensive woodland planting on the perimeter of the site. Mitigation planting will reduce the level of some effects identified once planting has matured, however significant landscape and visual residual effects remain likely.
Ecology
1.6.17 The area proposed for development comprises well-managed and highly disturbed habitats. The retention and protection of woodland habitats and standard trees on the boundaries of the site will retain areas of highest ecological value on site. This, alongside appropriate and sensitive long-term management of these habitats provides opportunities for maintaining and enhancing opportunities for wildlife on site in the long-term.
10 stridetreglown.com Habitats
1.6.18 The masterplan for the site has been designed to ensure that the majority of hedgerows will be retained within the scheme to maintain connectivity across the site. This will maintain opportunities on site for a range of wildlife, as well as maintaining connectivity to suitable adjacent habitats. This will help to promote the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of species in the wider environment.
Species
1.6.19 In terms of the criteria used in this assessment, measures have been proposed to protect from the negative effects of development, the species present that receive statutory protection and other species identified as requiring conservation action. The impacts anticipated for the majority of species are either positive or negligible in the longer term.
1.6.20 The development provides the opportunity to contribute to national, regional and local biodiversity targets by enhancing and creating habitat that is valuable to European protected species, including bats, and to nationally protected species including badger and breeding birds.
Assessment of the Development against UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and LBAP Objectives
1.6.21 The opportunities provided by the development proposals would work towards a range of objectives set out within UK BAP and Basingstoke and Deane LBAP priority plans:
UK BAP Priority Action Plans and Basingstoke and Deane Biodiversity Action Plan
1.6.22 Bats (UK BAP) - retained hedgerow linking to adjacent woodland habitats will retain suitable roosting, foraging and commuting opportunities for bats. Retained boundary habitats will also provide continued foraging and commuting opportunities, and will maintain connectivity between the site and adjacent habitats.
1.6.23 Hedgerows (UKBAP and Basingstoke BAP) – the majority of hedgerows will be retained within the scheme, however the proposals will result in the loss of appropriately 600m of hedgerow. The scheme includes enhancement to retained hedgerows through additional planting and appropriate long-term management to strengthen these green corridors.
1.6.24 Calcareous grassland (Basingstoke BAP) – additional calcareous grassland will be created on the site to enhance areas of open space (7ha of wildflower planting proposed). This will provide a positive enhancement to the site and the local area.
1.6.25 Green infrastructure (Basingstoke BAP) – retained hedgerows as well as additional habitat creation proposed will enhance the green infrastructure on the site. This will be enhanced through additional planting and appropriate long-term management.
Summary of Residual Impacts
1.6.26 In summary, the residual long-term impacts of the development have been assessed as not significant for hard-standing, and significant beneficial (minor) for the remaining receptors on or potentially using the site. The proposals will remove the habitat with low ecological value (arable land under active management), with the retention of the majority of hedgerows. In addition extensive woodland, wildflower and scrub planting is proposed within the scheme to significantly enhance opportunities for wildlife in the local area.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 11
Lighting Impacts
1.6.27 This document has been prepared to assess the potential impact of the external lighting scheme proposed for the Hampshire Critical Treatment Hospital.
1.6.28 The approach for this assessment incorporated industry standard lighting guidelines whilst addressing the legislation, planning and policy guidance applicable, the environmental zone classifications and parameters to assess the impacts.
1.6.29 The existing baseline conditions on site and field data was taken from the existing site and modelled with AutoCAD and Relux software calculations undertaken and compared to the likely construction and proposed lighting schemes provided Hoare Lea and BDP consultant designers.
1.6.30 The existing baseline conditions on site and in the surrounding area have been surveyed and assessed. The likely effects in relation to local residents, ecology, the night-time amenity, and road users have been assessed for both the construction and operational phases of the development. Mitigation measures to reduce the effects of lighting have been provided.
1.6.31 Thirteen viewpoint locations were selected to correspond with the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Chapter of the Environmental Statement. Measurements of point illuminance were recorded at each of the viewpoint locations. These were recorded on the ground at each location. Photographs were taken, where possible, at each viewpoint location to illustrate the current night time scene and lighting installations. Reference photographs for each viewpoint were also taken during the day time survey.
1.6.32 The method for assessing the proposed lighting was initiated by the external lighting design and strategy prepared by Hoare Lea for the Critical Treatment Hospital and the Cancer Treatment Centre (CTC) which was prepared by BDP. An external lighting design for the roundabout at the southern entrance to the site has been prepared by Connect Consultants.
1.6.33 The site was modelled, replicating the design provided by others, using industry standard software Relux. Relux is a computer calculation package which utilises 3D modelling to model the real world output of chosen light fittings.
1.6.34 The impacts were assessed which included obtrusive light, effect on flora & fauna, light spill & sky glow effects from viewpoint locations , lighting controls and energy. This informed criteria to discuss any mitigation measures and residual effects which are noted.
1.6.35 The site is currently classified as Environmental Zone E2, in accordance with a suburban location with low district brightness, considered to be a rural area comprising of villages or relatively dark suburban locations.
1.6.36 The proposed external lighting scheme has been designed in accordance with all relevant British Standards, the Institute of Light and Lighting Guidelines and guidance provided by the Society of Light and Lighting, and will serve to ensure that safety and security of all areas of the development can be effectively maintained.
1.6.37 There are no significant residual effects predicted for the operational or construction phases of the Proposed Development when considering the proposed external lighting scheme and mitigation measures.
12 stridetreglown.com Water Resources
1.6.38 The assessment of drainage and hydrology included hydrological effects (such as flooding) on and from the development. An assessment was completed to assess how the development of this site will influence flood risk, within the site and beyond its boundary. A Flood Risk Assessment and a drainage strategy have been prepared, which provide detailed information on how surface water will be managed to ensure that water quality, flood risk and sewerage infrastructure capacity are not compromised. The Flood Risk Assessment additionally includes details on how the scheme design has reacted and what further measures should be put in place with respect to managing flood risk on site.
Construction effects and mitigation
1.6.39 Construction activity could potentially cause temporary but significant effects on water quality. Mitigation measures are recommended including interception methods and soil protection techniques. With the suggested mitigation, the impacts on watercourses downstream are considered to be negligible. Measures are outlined to ensure that impacts to construction works and plant with regard to flood risk will be negligible.
Operational effects and mitigation
1.6.40 With the implementation of the National Planning Policy Framework and compliance with the requirements of the Environment Agency, using the methods outlined within the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy it is envisaged that there will be negligible effects in regard to flood risk during operation of this new development. The use of sustainable drainage systems will additionally reduce the impact of pollutants contained within surface water runoff, helping to mitigate against pollution to water courses during operation.
1.6.41 With regard to on site flood risk, the building levels have been raised above the 1 in 1000 fluvial flood levels and safe access and egress to the site has been provided by two access points. Additionally, in the event of flooding on A30 alternative routes have been identified.
1.6.42 There will be an increase in foul drainage with the development when compared with the existing. The scheme will need to come forward with continued early engagement with Thames Water on the needs for the development and any current restrictions / need for upgrades.
Residual effects and conclusions
1.6.43 Through a number of mitigation measures, including those described above, the scheme will have negligible effects on all receptors during construction and operation.
Traffic and Transport
The likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of highway access and transportation has been reviewed to consider the location of the site in relation to its environs and the extent to which it is capable of being well served by rail, bus, cycle and pedestrian routes as well as the existing highway infrastructure. The assessment also considers the quantum of development, the potential for the scheme to result in changes to traffic flows on the local highway network and the effect that any such changes may have in relation to highway capacity and road safety, the identification of mitigation measures (where necessary), and assessing the effect of any proposed mitigation measures.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 13
Non Car Accessibility
1.6.44 The proposals include new pedestrian footway and cycleway infrastructure and direct footway connections between to the entrances to the proposed buildings. Cycle access to the site will be provided from both the vehicular and pedestrian accesses. Secure cycle storage will be provided on site. The proposed development also includes bus stop facilities, in order to enable the diversion of local private bus services and accommodate a staff hopper bus service operated by the hospital. The proposed development includes a staff Travel Plan that will set out the measures that will be implemented, to encourage sustainable travel habits by future employees of the development.
1.6.45 With regard to non-car accessibility, the assessment concludes that the Proposed Development will have a beneficial and long term effect.
Vehicular Access and Traffic
1.6.46 The NHS site will be served by a new roundabout to the A30. The junction will be located c725m west of the existing A30 / A30 Winchester Road signal junction. The roundabout will have two lane approaches on all arms, and will accommodate staff, visitor and some emergency / service access to the site.
1.6.47 A secondary access will be provided via the A30 from the lane located immediately east of Keepers Cottage and north/east of Ganderdown Copse. The secondary access will be in the form of a simple priority T-junction arrangement located on the eastern site boundary broadly adjacent to Ganderdown Copse. As part of access works for this junction, the lane will be widened to 6.0m between the site access junction and the A30. Likewise, improvements to the existing A30 / Trenchard Lane junction will be provided to better accommodate the increased use of this junction.
1.6.48 The secondary access will, in the majority of cases, only be used for facilities management service vehicles. The access also has the potential for use by some emergency traffic in order to ensure resilience.
Construction Phase Effects
1.6.49 There will be an increase in traffic flows to and from the Site due to both staff and construction vehicles (HGVs) of approximately 48 two-way movements during the morning and evening peak hours for a period of 130 weeks. A Traffic Management Plan will be prepared in advance of the construction works and the Site access arrangements during the construction phase will be designed to appropriate standards and agreed with Hampshire County Council. Therefore, the overall magnitude of the effect of traffic during construction is predicted to be short term and negligible with no adverse effect on safety or capacity.
Operational Phase Effects
1.6.50 Peak hour junction capacity / traffic attraction has been assessed by reviewing the Proposed Development attracted traffic and the assessment concludes that, the Proposed Development will have a negligible magnitude and long term effect.
Road Safety
1.6.51 The personal injury accident data for a five year review period has been analysed for the locations surrounding the proposal site, which has not identified any accident history which may be materially worsened by the increase in traffic associated with the proposed development. The effect of operation of the development in relation to road safety has been assessed as low and long term.
14 stridetreglown.com Noise Effects
1.6.52 An assessment of noise has included the impact from the existing noise environment on future occupants of the proposed hospital and impacts on existing residences from noise as a result of the hospital. To undertake the assessment, noise predictions have been calculated and these have been compared against a measured baseline noise environment and criteria established in a selection of British Standards, Local Authority guidance and design guidelines.
1.6.53 The noise survey identified that the site noise environment is dominated by the A30 road and M23 motorway. Noise levels are considered to be typical to those found in proximity to major road transport links. Four isolated residences were identified as being the nearest to the proposed development and associated traffic routes and impacts have been assessed at these locations.
1.6.54 A construction noise assessment has been undertaken, which includes assessment of different phases of the works, including general construction works, earthworks, foundations and access road construction. Threshold categories have been determined at the existing residential locations based on baseline noise levels and predictions have been compared against these threshold levels as per British Standard guidance. Calculations indicate that the impacts of the construction works are likely to be minimal at each location.
1.6.55 A site suitability assessment has considered likely internal noise levels for hospital rooms based on the measured baseline noise levels incorporated into a computer noise model. The sound attenuation required to meet Local Authority internal guidance levels have been calculated using predicted façade levels. Predicted levels will be appropriately minimised with a standard double glazing and an appropriate ventilation system. The predicted levels are not considered to be significant.
1.6.56 The potential increase in traffic noise as a result of the development has been assessed at existing residential locations. Predictions of traffic noise have been calculated and a comparison made between the opening year traffic flows without development and the traffic flows if the development was to proceed both for the opening year (short-term effect) and 15th year from opening (long-term effects). Worst case traffic increases of 1.1 dB in the short term would result in noise levels that are of minor significance. Worst case traffic increases of 1.8 dB in the long term would result in noise levels that are of negligible significance.
1.6.57 An assessment of emergency service vehicles has been undertaken, specifically concerning the operation of the air ambulance service and vehicular ambulance service. Their operation is likely to result in impacts that are minimal when compared to the existing averaged daytime and night-time noise levels.
1.6.58 In summary, the noise assessment indicates that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the existing environment during construction or operational phases. In addition, existing noise levels across the site are predicted to be of a magnitude suitable for the occupants of the hospital development assuming appropriate mitigation is included through design.
Air Quality
1.6.59 An air quality impact assessment has been carried out to assess both construction and operational impacts of the proposed development.
1.6.60 An assessment of the potential impacts during the construction phase has shown through good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, the impact of dust and PM10 (particulate matter) releases may be effectively mitigated and the resultant impacts are considered to be negligible.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 15
1.6.61 Air quality dispersion modelling has been carried out to assess the operational impacts associated with the proposed development. The assessment has shown a negligible impact on local air quality as a result of traffic generated by the development.
1.6.62 Based on the above information, it is considered that air quality does not pose a constraint to redevelopment of the site as proposed.
Socio-Economic
1.6.63 The socio-economic chapter has considered the potential social and economic impacts arising from the project. These have been considered within the context of the identified need for the project (see above) and the impact that this will have on the current and future population of the Trust’s catchment area along with the economic impact associated with construction and operation of the hospital.
1.6.64 The assessment of socio-economic impacts is noted to not be an exact science in the way which other disciplines are. To this end, the conclusions are in some circumstances subjective and difficult to quantify.
1.6.65 Despite this, the assessment has identified that the project has the potential to have a positive economic impact during both construction and operation.
1.6.66 For the former, there is a potential for circa 800 FTE jobs to be generated during the construction phase, some of which have the potential to be drawn from the local or regional labour market. Indirect benefits are likely to arise during the construction phase via worker spend with local businesses, for instance public houses, hotels, restaurants, shops etc. During operation, there is potential for local business to supply goods and services to the hospital.
1.6.67 From a social perspective, the development has the potential to positively impact on the long term health of the population of Hampshire and West Berkshire. By considering the future provision of health care across the Trust’s catchment area, there is an opportunity to ensure that care is provided in the most appropriate location relative to an individual patient’s needs.
1.7. Conclusions
1.7.1 The proposed development by the Trust of a new Critical Treatment Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre represents a significant opportunity to enhance the healthcare provision for the existing and future population of Hampshire and West Berkshire. The development will allow the clinical strategy – local where possible, central where necessary – to deliver the best possible opportunities to patients.
1.7.2 The Environmental Statement produced in support of the development confirms the approach and assessment of a multi-disciplinary team of consultants across a range of fields. There work has informed the work of the design team throughout the development of the project. As a result of this, embedded mitigation features throughout the development proposals and contribute to the limited impact which the development has on the host environment.
1.7.3 Whilst the site is noted to be outside of the existing settlement boundary for Basingstoke, it is clear from a review of the current and emerging planning policy context that the future expansion of the town, required in order to meet the housing needs of a growing population and change in household sizes, is in part in a south westerly direction, towards Junction 7 of the M3. In addition, the Trust have established clear clinical requirements for a site which is easily and reliably accessible from the strategic road network. Finally, the existing hospital sites are shown to be at capacity and do not offer the opportunity to deliver new facilities which best serve the wider population.
16 stridetreglown.com 1.7.4 The Environmental Statement is supplemented by a number of documents which, taken together, form the planning application package. These documents include, albeit are not limited to:
Planning, Design and Access Statement; Transport Assessment; Travel Plan; Flood Risk Assessment; and Plans presenting the various elements of the project.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 17
2. Introduction
2.1. The Environmental Statement
2.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared and is submitted as part of the suite of documents forming the planning application for a new hospital development for Hampshire Hospital Foundation Trust ('the Trust'), full details of which are set out below:
Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH)
Cancer Treatment Centre (CTC);
Energy Centre;
Central Pathology Laboratory (CPL);
Ambulance Station;
Helicopter landing strip and pad; and
New and amended access roads and junctions, infrastructure, car parking and landscaping.
2.1.2 The individual elements of the scheme which are set out above are, in their collective form, referred to as 'the development' throughout this statement, except for where individual buildings have a need for specific reference.
2.1.3 The ES has been prepared with the support of a team of specialist consultants and collated by Stride Treglown Ltd:
Specialism Consultant
Ecology Ecosulis
Traffic and Transport Connect Consultants
Topographic Survey Sumo Services
Magnetic Survey Archaeological Surveys
Aviation CAAi
Archaeologists RSK
Arboriculturalist RSK
Noise Assessment RSK
LVIA RSK
Air Quality Entran
Lighting Impact Assessment URS
18 stridetreglown.com 2.2. Structure of the Statement
2.2.1 In preparing and submitting this ES, the Trust (as applicant) along with the appointed consultant team has taken account of the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA regulations).
2.2.2 Schedule 4 of the EIA regulations sets out the information to be included within an ES; this is set out below:
Schedule 4 Requirement Location within ES
A non-technical summary Chapter 1 (and stand-alone report)
Introduction Chapter 2
Description of the Development Chapter 3
Outline of the main alternatives examined and Chapter 4 reasons for the choice
Scoping Methodology Chapter 5
A description of the likely significant effects of the Chapters 6-14 development on the environment
A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, Within Chapters 6 - 14 reduce or offset any significant adverse effects
2.2.3 A site location plan is provided at Appendix 1 and a series of site photographs are presented at Appendix 2.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 19
3. Project Context
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1 This Environmental Statement accompanies an application for:
Development of new Critical Treatment Hospital, Cancer Treatment Centre and additional development, including Energy Centre and service yard, Link Building, Underground Link and associated internal roads, car parking and landscaping, together with the means of access via a new roundabout on the A30.
Details of siting and means of access to the site for proposed Ambulance Station and Pathology Laboratory with all other matters reserved.
3.1.2 The application is a hybrid submission with elements in full and outline form. Full details of the proposed developed are set out in section 3.4 together with their status within the application.
3.2. Use Classes
3.2.1 The principal use of the buildings proposed for development fall within Use Class C2 - Residential Institution, including Hospitals - of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).
3.3. Site Description
3.3.1 The site is located approximately 1.5km south west of Basingstoke's western development boundary. The villages of Dummer and North Waltham lie approximately 1km south east and 1.5km west of the site respectively.
3.3.2 As an actively managed arable field, the development site has limited ecological value. The site boundaries do however have the potential to provide habitats suitable to support a number of species. These boundaries consist of mixed hedgerow on all sides with larger areas of woodland located outside of the site boundary, to the north west and south east. The former is noted to be a plantation woodland made up of Pine, Beech and Alder. The latter, Ganderdown Copse, is a mixed woodland designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a Semi Natural Ancient Woodland comprising Beech, Hazel and Oak. The site boundary includes neither copse.
3.3.3 The A30, main London to Lands End road, abuts the south eastern boundary of the site with the M3 motorway running, with a separation distance of approximately 0.3km, broadly perpendicular to the A30. Junction 7 of the M3 is approximately 0.5km south east of the site. At the present time the site is not served by pedestrian and cycle access, largely owing to the existing use and lack of need. There is no specific access available via public transport. Despite the above, given the location on the main road network the site is not remote and opportunities exist to significantly improve access.
3.3.4 The site lies wholly within the administrative boundary of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC), the lower tier authority. Hampshire County Council (HCC) is the higher tier authority.
3.4. Proposed Development
3.4.1 The development proposed takes the form of a new Critical Treatment Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre together with associated facilities and infrastructure, details of which are set out in the table below. Confirmation is also provided on the details being submitted.
20 stridetreglown.com Development Size (GEA) / Area Application Details
Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH), 41,178m2 Full details submitted comprising:
Emergency Department Diagnostic Imaging Theatres Critical Care Maternity and Local neonatal Inpatient Wards Paediatrics Staff and Support Services
Cancer Treatment Centre (CTC) 5,690m2 Full details submitted
Central Pathology Laboratory (CPL) c.3,000m2 site Details of location and access only
Ambulance Station c.5,000m2 site Details of location and access only
Energy Centre 3,394m2 Full details submitted
Helicopter Landing Strip and Pad Pad size 35.4m diameter/total Full details submitted area 39.4m
Car Parking Total – c.821, of which Full details submitted CTH 285 (visitor) / 376 (staff) CTC 35 (visitor) / 35 (staff) Pathology 90 (staff)
Landscaping Across the site including public Full details submitted plaza, internal courtyards, road boundaries, car parks and undeveloped areas of the site.
Ancillary Infrastructure including new and n/a Full details submitted amended access roads and junctions VIE units and pumping station
3.5. Town Planning Context
3.5.1 As identified above, the site is arable agricultural land with no development within the red line boundary. A search and review of the BDBC planning register confirms that the site has not previously been the subject of a planning application.
3.5.2 Within the immediate locality, there have been a number of relatively small scale planning applications, including extensions to the various cottages located on the A30 immediately south of Ganderdown Copse. A number of applications have been granted at Southwood Farm, located off Trenchard Lane to the north east of the site, including for change of use of agricultural buildings to B8 storage.
3.5.3 The most significant applications relate to land at Oakdown Farm which is located on land south of the application site between the A30 and the M3, adjacent to Junction 7. This land was the subject of two applications in the mid 1990s for a new motorway service area, both of which were refused. Following these applications, buildings on the Oakdown Farm site have been granted permission for change of use from a landscape contractor business to B1 office and B8 storage use.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 21
3.6. Planning Policy Overview
3.6.1 This section provides an overview of planning policy relevant to the site and the development proposed.
National Planning Policy Framework
3.6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government's planning policy for England. The policies contained within the NPPF must be taken into account in plan making and are a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. This section sets out those matters of most relevant to the development proposals.
3.6.3 The NPPF places sustainable development (with roles for economic, social and environmental) at the heart of policy, noting that it should be seen as a "golden thread" running though plan- making and decision-taking. With specific regard to decision-taking, this means:
"approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies [in the NPPF] taken as a whole; or
- specifics policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted."
3.6.4 The NPPF establishes 12 core land-use planning principles which should underpin plan-making and decision-taking, and thus the development of proposals. Of specific relevance are:
Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity; Recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and support thriving communities within it; Support the transition to a low carbon future and encourage the use of renewable resources, for example renewable energy; Actively manage patterns of growth and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and Take account of and support local strategies to improve health wellbeing for all and deliver sufficient facilities and services to meet local needs.
3.6.5 The NPPF notes (paragraph 29) that transport has an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development and to contribute to wider sustainability and health objectives.
3.6.6 Good design is noted to be a key aspect of sustainable development (paragraph 56) and to be indivisible from good planning. Design has the potential to make a positive contribution to making places better for people. Paragraph 65 highlights the importance placed on high levels of sustainability as part of the design of development.
3.6.7 The importance of guarding against the loss of valued facilities and services which promote and support healthy communities is noted at paragraph 70. This is highlighted here in recognition of the fact that the development is proposed to ensure that the Trust are able to continue to provide healthcare facilities, within the context of an existing estate which may become unviable in the future.
22 stridetreglown.com 3.6.8 The role of planning, and in particular decision making, in meeting the challenge of climate change is set out in paragraphs 93-98. This notes the need to support a move to a low carbon future and particularly (paragraph 97) the importance of energy production from renewable and low carbon sources.
3.6.9 Section 11 of the NPPF considers the need for conserving and potential for enhancing the natural environment, noting in particular the potential to incorporate biodiversity enhancement within development, particularly through appropriate landscape mitigation.
Planning Practice Guidance
3.6.10 Government have published extensive Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) to accompany the NPPF.
3.6.11 Guidance on the EIA process has been considered throughout the EIA process. The PPG also provides guidance on policy relating to Health and Wellbeing. This guidance further reinforces the long established links between health and planning. The guidance also provides a focus on the need to ensure that development considers the health outcomes stemming from it together with the need to ensure that healthcare facilities are provided to meet the needs of the local population.
The Development Plan for Basingstoke and Deane Borough
Adopted Local Plan - Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011 (adopted July 2006)
3.6.12 The Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011 (the Plan) was adopted in July 2006. The Plan set out to meet the vision for future development within the Borough and to promote and control the impact of new development. A number of policies were ‘saved’ by Direction of Secretary of State (following the introduction of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) on 30th June 2009.
3.6.13 The Plan includes targets for housing and employment development along with site allocations to guide the locations for this development.
3.6.14 The Plan indicates that the application site is located outside any defined settlement boundary, although its location is noted to be well connected to Basingstoke to the north west and the existing highway network, including the A30 immediately adjacent to the site boundary and Junction 7 of the M3.
3.6.15 Saved Policy D8 of the Plan addresses Rural Exceptions and is considered to be the policy which has the most relevance to the potential development of the site.
3.6.16 It notes that, “as an exception to the general protection of the countryside adjacent to rural settlements, planning permission will be granted for development which the Council is satisfied will meet a genuine local needs such as…health”. The policy continues, noting a need to ensure that development proposals complement the character of the rural settlement and the character of the surrounding landscape in addition to not being harmful to the rural environment.
Supplementary Planning Documents
3.6.17 In addition to the policies in the Local Plan, two Supplementary Planning Documents are considered to be of relevance to the proposals.
3.6.18 The first, the Design and Sustainability SPD (adopted September 2008) provides additional guidance to ensure that design and sustainability are fully considered in new developments.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 23
3.6.19 The second, the Landscape and Biodiversity SPD (adopted June 2008) provides guidance aimed to enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the receiving environment and, where possible, these enhancements should result in a net improvement.
Emerging Local Plan - Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029
3.6.20 BDBC are preparing a new Local Plan (the Draft Plan), to replace the Adopted Local Plan. The draft Plan will cover the period 2011 to 2029 and seeks, amongst other matters, to provide policy to guide residential and employment development along with protection for the environment.
Strategic Growth
3.6.21 The draft Plan proposes strategic housing allocations on the western side of Basingstoke, within the broad vicinity of the site, specifically at Manydown (c.3,400 dwellings), Kennel Farm (c.310 dwellings) and at Basingstoke Golf Club (c.1,000 dwellings). There are further allocations identified in other locations within the Borough.
3.6.22 The allocations identified above (particularly the latter two) provide an indication of the likely future expansion of Basingstoke in a south westerly direction, towards Junction 7 of the M3. Therefore, on the basis that this aspiration will be carried through to adopted policy it is evident that the proposed CTH development will be located in close proximity to a future expanded Basingstoke and thus development on the site is consistent with the Council’s proposed pattern of strategic growth.
Health
3.6.23 The draft Local Plan sets a policy framework to lead future development which acknowledges the importance of ensuring development provides for healthy communities. It is noted (paragraph 3.12) that “support for, and provision of, high quality…health facilities will continue in the borough given the importance of these services to the local economy and the success and quality of life of our population”.
3.6.24 Expanding on this, draft Policy CN8 – Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities, allows for development proposals to be permitted where new facilities meet evidenced need and where that need cannot be met by existing provision.
Public Examination
3.6.25 The draft Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, via the Planning Inspectorate, for formal examination on 9th October 2014. At the time of this submission, the following events have occurred as part of the examination process:
1) The appointed Inspector wrote to BDBC to outline initial concerns with the plan. This occurred on 21st October 2014 and resulted in; 2) A response from BDBC on 28th November 2014, which led to; 3) An exploratory meeting being held to consider matters. This was held on 11th December 2014 and was followed up in writing by the Inspector on 19th December 2014; and, 4) BDBC responded on 12th January 2015 with an indicative programme to undertake further work.
3.6.26 The principal area of concern is identified as the assessment of, and provision to meet, housing need across the Borough. In very general terms, there is concern that the housing figure included within the plan, and thereby the allocation of land to develop housing, is too low and does not meet the level identified within evidence.
24 stridetreglown.com 3.6.27 In order to progress the examination, BDBC are undertaking further work and where this leads to proposed changes to the plan, these will be subject to formal public consultation. An indicative date for a pre-hearing meeting, to be held in advance of the formal public examination hearings, is set for 21st July 2015.
Conclusions
3.6.28 This chapter provided an overview of the site and the proposed development, together with the broad planning context within which the proposed development has been assessed. It is within this context, together with further policy relevant to each individual technical discipline (set out in each relevant chapter) that the EIA has been conducted.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 25
4. Alternative Development Options
4.1. Introduction
4.1.1 This Chapter provides an outline of the main alternatives which were considered by the Trust and sets out the reasons for the choice made.
4.2. The "Do Nothing" Scenario
4.2.1 The formation of Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (HHFT) followed the acquisition of Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare Trust (WECHT) by Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust (BNHFT) in January 2012. It was driven by the recognition that future success, including financial and clinical sustainability, would require the organisation to be delivering services to a population of at least 500,000 people across Hampshire and parts of West Berkshire.
4.2.2 This larger population will allow the organisation to safely develop the most acute and specialist elements of its service, for example major trauma and emergency cardiovascular treatments for strokes and heart attacks. It would also enable local hospitals in Basingstoke, Winchester and Andover to better serve their local communities and to develop services for increasing numbers of frail elderly people and people with long term conditions.
4.2.3 Since 2002, HHFT has been progressing the development and implementation of its clinical strategy. This is defined as ‘local where possible, central where necessary’. The aim of this strategy is to provide as many hospital services as possible close to people’s homes and, where necessary, to centralise some services in the interests of patient safety.
4.2.4 The clinical strategy includes a proposal to provide the majority of services in existing local hospitals and to centralise acute services for the sickest and most at risk patients in a new Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH). The proposal to centralise is based on the need for consultant‐delivered treatment on site 24/7, which is not the model in the NHS at the moment. The model can only be achieved by centralising services in one location. This principle is also why the proposed development includes for centralised obstetric care (medical care during labour) at the CTH.
4.2.5 Nationally, leading doctors and nurses have recommended this new model of care. Locally, HHFT’s own doctors, senior clinical staff, GP leaders and the ambulance service, as well as the public, patients and wider stakeholders have been involved in developing the proposals.
4.2.6 To summarise the above, it was concluded that to follow the “do nothing” scenario would be inappropriate. Therefore, there is a need to provide for the delivery of critical treatment within a dedicated hospital.
4.3. Approach to Alternative Sites
4.3.1 In order to assist in the identification of an appropriate site for the new CTH, the Foundation Trust appointed BroadwayMalyan to undertake a high level town planning assessment of potential sites.
4.3.2 The site selection process considered three headline search criteria:
‘blue light’ response times; air ambulance accessibility; and,
26 stridetreglown.com ease of access from major conurbations, specifically including Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh and Andover.
4.3.3 These criteria resulted in the identification of four broad search areas:
1) Junction 7 of the M3; 2) Bullington Cross; 3) Sutton Scotney; and 4) Micheldever Station.
4.3.4 The outcome of this exercise confirmed that the M3 Junction 7 search area provided the most appropriate opportunity to develop a CTH facility. This decision is based on the Junction 7 cluster best meeting the overall need of the Trust to provide facilities in a location which is proximate or accessible to the majority of potential patients.
4.3.5 Specifically, the site was identified as the preferred option on the basis of its location, accessibility and the opportunities it provides for delivery of the development in a manner which best meets the medical requirements along with providing opportunities for the delivery of a landscape which serves the needs of both site users (patients, their visitors and staff) and provides for landscape and ecological enhancements. A further important consideration is the availability of the site in respect of financial achievability.
4.4. Conclusions
4.4.1 The “do nothing” scenario is inappropriate when considered against the Trust’s need to provide a healthcare service which best meets the needs of the current local population and the wider catchment area and the expanding population likely to result from the increase in housing numbers identified within the emerging Local Plan.
4.4.2 Similarly, the approach to alternative sites has identified that the chosen site, which is the subject of this EIA and the planning application, is the most appropriate when considered against all relevant factors.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 27
5. Scoping and Methodology
5.1. EIA Scoping
Scoping Opinion
5.1.1 In order to identify the issues to be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and to be reported within this Environmental Statement (ES) a scoping letter was submitted to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council on 19th November 2014.
5.1.2 The letter, volunteered under Regulation 13 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA regulations) (a copy of which is provided within Appendix 5 of this Report), identified the nature and scale of the project at that date. In short this included:
Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH), consisting of 5 key clinical elements: o Emergency Assessment Unit; o Comprehensive diagnostic facilities accessible to emergencies and inpatients; o Critical Care & Theatres; o Maternity & Children’s Hospital; and o Midwifery led delivery unit, maternity inpatients, local neonatal unit and paediatric services. Adult Inpatient Unit: acute emergency and complex elective adult inpatient wards with some associated therapies. with a total floor area of circa 34,000m2 and a ground floor footprint of circa 15,000m2. In addition, an area of 60 metres x 30 metres is assumed to allow space for a turning circle, space for parking delivery vehicles and external storage compounds; Cancer Treatment Centre (CTC), consisting of 2 key clinical elements: o Treatment Centre including Consulting & treatment areas, CT scanner suite, Pharmacy, Radiotherapy treatment facilities, Systemic anticancer treatment (chemotherapy) area, Relaxation areas and Quiet rooms; o Supportive Care Centre providing Specialist Palliative care, Occupational Therapy, Nutritional support, Psychological support, Financial and employment advice; and o Landscaped garden within a woodland glade setting. with a floor area of circa 6,200m2, split evenly within a two/three storey building with potential for rooftop plant equipment. Dedicated visitor car parking spaces are envisaged to serve this building; Pathology, centralised facility planned to serve the requirements of the Trust and containing laboratory functions within a building of circa 2500-3000m2 over two floors. Dedicated car parking spaces are envisaged to serve this building; Ambulance Station, envisaged to have a floor area of approximately 2600m2, with a footprint of approximately 1300m2 and to be split evenly within a two storey building. Dedicated ambulance parking spaces are envisaged to serve this building; Energy Centre within a two storey building with a total floor area of 2,020m2 and a nominal footprint of 1500m2 is proposed. It is envisaged that this building will be position in the east of the site, behind Ganderdown Copse which offers a visual screen from the south and east for the ventilation flues which will serve the building;
28 stridetreglown.com Car Parking to provide an estimated total of around 760 spaces (gross) with the exact numbers and split between buildings to be confirmed; and Helipad to include a 25 metre square landing zone with two 30 metre approach corridors facing southwest and southeast; this is to be confirmed.
5.1.3 The letter set out the nature of the potential impacts to be assessed as part of the EIA and outlined the proposed structure of the ES together with details of stand-alone reports/documents to be submitted with the application.
5.1.4 Finally, brief details of the site selection process, a site description and details of relevant planning policy were provided.
The Adopted Scoping Opinion
5.1.5 The Council responded on 8th January 2015 confirming adoption of the Scoping Opinion. A copy is provided within Appendix 5. A high level summary of the key comments is set out below.
Consultation Responses
5.1.6 Dummer Parish Council made a number of comments in response to consultation, including reference to local heritage assets and to potential transport issues. On the latter, particular attention was paid to issues relating to pedestrian and cycle access to the site and the proposed method of provision along with public transport provision in the local area.
5.1.7 The Case Officer's note also refers to public comments received from a total of 6 local residences. These raised issues relating to compliance with planning policy, the interactions which would arise between the development and the existing natural and built environment, comments on the scope of transport assessment work and general comments on the following: future expansion/development 'creep'; the site selection process, and; noise and light pollution.
Case Officer Assessment
5.1.8 The Case Officer's assessment is introduced with the acknowledgement that a Screening Opinion was not sought, but, had one been requested, if would have concluded that the project would fall within the scope of the EIA regulations by virtue of paragraph 10(b), namely that it would be an Infrastructure - Urban Development Project. This accords with the professional view of the authors of the Scoping Opinion.
5.1.9 Comments from the Case Officer, informed by the responses to statutory consultation, considered Traffic and Transport, Ecology, Flooding and Drainage, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Cultural Heritage, Air and Noise Quality and finally Socio-economic impacts. The detailed comments are included within the Scoping Opinion in Appendix 5.
Reflection on the Adopted Scoping Opinion
5.1.10 As is best practice when undertaking a comprehensive EIA, the adopted Scoping Opinion was circulated to the EIA Technical team for review. Where required queries were raised however, as no fundamental issues were identified within the adopted Scoping Opinion which would impact on the scope of technical assessment work, it was considered that the EIA could continue as scoped.
5.2. Methodology
5.2.1 The EIA has been undertaken and the ES prepared in accordance with standard industry practices and follows the approach of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 29
Approach
5.2.2 Each technical chapter of the ES follows the following, standard format:
Introduction – scope of the chapter and nature of the impacts to be considered Brief outline of the relevant policy and legislative context; Methodology and assessment criteria; Description of the baseline (existing) conditions; Specific elements of the Proposed Development which are relevant to the topic; Identification of the likely effects – in relation to construction and operational phases; Evaluation & assessment of the significance of the effects identified (including positive effects); Proposed Mitigation - Describe mitigation measures designed to reduce the environmental effects of the Proposed Developments; Residual Effects - Effects after mitigation measures have been implemented; and Identification of any further mitigation measures that could avoid, remedy or reduce the adverse effects, where relevant.
Significance of Effects
5.2.3 The significance of the various effects identified will inevitably vary based on the subject. Some effects will be more measurable, for example traffic and transport, whereas others will be less so, for example cultural or community benefits.
5.2.4 An effect may be significant even though it may only have a minor impact and will be dependent on a number of factors:
The extent and magnitude of the effect; The duration of the effect (seasonal or short/long term); Ability for the effect to be reversed; Sensitivity of the receptor; and How it measures against environmental quality standards.
5.2.5 Within this ES, levels of significance have been estimated (where appropriate) in accordance with topic related standard methodologies. The levels used are:
Substantial; Major; Moderate; Minor; or Negligible (meaning that there is either no effect of that the significance can be considered to be negligible).
5.2.6 The effects of the proposed development are set out in a Summary of Effects Table which draws on the content of the technical chapters (6-14 inclusive); the table is included within Chapter 15.
30 stridetreglown.com 6. Cultural Heritage
6.1. Introduction
6.1.1 RSK Environment Ltd (RSK) was commissioned by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to undertake a study of the historic environment (including archaeology and cultural heritage) for a potential hospital site located immediately north of the A30 in the parish of Deane, south west of Basingstoke, Hampshire, centred at NGR 458170,147470 (‘the site’).
6.1.2 The area of the proposed scheme measures c.3ha (Figure 6.3) and the development would impact on the majority of the site during the construction and operation.
6.1.3 A baseline technical report (Appendix 6.1) has been prepared to identify and define relevant designated and non-designated heritage data within the site and 1km study area. In combination with a site geophysical survey (Archaeological Surveys Ltd, August 2014, Appendix 6.2) an assessment of archaeological potential within the site boundary is presented in the baseline report.
6.1.4 This chapter provides an impact assessment for the development as proposed on the site’s known and potential historic environment assets. Visual effects to designated heritage assets and their settings are also considered.
The specific objectives of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) are to: Assess the likely physical and visual effects of the proposed development on known and potential heritage assets; and Make recommendations regarding the need for, and scope of, any mitigation where necessary, prior to and/or during construction.
Consultation
6.1.5 Initial responses to an EIA scoping opinion request were received from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC), including responses from statutory consultees English Heritage (EH) and archaeological advisors to Hampshire County Council (HCC).
6.1.6 EH and HCC have stated that the EIA should consider likely direct effects to known and potential heritage assets and likely visual impacts to designated heritage assets and their settings. The assessment is carried out in accordance with the BDBC scoping opinion.
Background
6.1.7 The baseline report provides a full summary of statutory and non-statutory protection and a planning policy review, in addition to background information comprising:
a site description showing topography, geology, and land use; a full descriptive historic map regression, archaeological and historical background; summary of previous archaeological work in the study area; and, review of aerial photographs, and notes from a site visit. This is provided in the baseline report (Appendix 6.1).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 31
6.2. Policy/Legislative Context
6.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that baseline data together with an assessment of the impact of the proposal should be set out in development applications. It is the applicant’s responsibility to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting [NPPF para. 128].
6.2.2 Table 6.1 summarises the statutory legislation relating to archaeology and cultural heritage that are relevant to this project.
Legislation Key Issues
Ancient Monuments and It is a criminal offence to carry out any works on or near to a Archaeological Areas Act Scheduled Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent. (1979)
Planning (Listed No works can be carried out in relation to a listed building without Buildings and listed building consent. Designation of an area as a ‘conservation Conservation Areas) Act area’ introduces general controls over demolition and development (1990) within that area.
Treasure Act (1996) The 1996 Act defines ‘Treasure’ as any object that is at least 10% gold or silver, associated coins or groups of coins which are over 300 years old, objects formerly classed as ‘treasure trove’ (i.e. deliberately deposited items with a high content of gold or silver) and any objects found in association with the above. Any find of ‘Treasure’ must be reported to the local Coroner.
Burial Act (1857) Under Section 25 of the 1857 Act, it is generally a criminal offence to remove human remains from any place of burial without an appropriate licence issued by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), although recent legislative changes indicate that some cases are exempt from this requirement.
Hedgerow Regulations A local authority can prohibit the removal of an ‘important’ hedgerow. (1997) Hedgerows can be considered important on grounds of historical or archaeological value or association.
Table 6.1: Statutory Legislation Relating to the Historic Environment
6.3. Method
6.3.1 This archaeological assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessments (2014) and Code of Conduct (2014).
6.3.2 The study area includes the site of the proposed development together with a 1km buffer (Figure 6.1), extended for potential specific visual impacts (namely for an assessment of effects to proximal conservation areas) at the request of the BDBC scoping opinion.
6.3.3 Historic environment data has been collected for the study area from the following sources: The National Heritage List for England (NHLE) maintained by English Heritage for designated heritage assets:
The Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR) maintained by Hampshire County Council, for details of events and heritage assets (both designated and non-designated) in the study area. AHBR data includes cropmarks mapped from aerial photographs;
32 stridetreglown.com The National Monuments Record (NMR) maintained by English Heritage for details of archaeological events and heritage assets in the study area, NMP data includes historic aerial photographs; Cropmarks mapped by English Heritage’s National Mapping Programme (NMP); Hampshire Archives and Local Studies Centre in Winchester for historic mapping and background sources (published and unpublished); A geophysical survey; and A site visit and walkover survey.
6.3.4 A gazetteer compiled from the data sources listed above is included as Appendix 6.3, and the location of each gazetteer site is presented on Figure 6.1
Assessment of Impacts
Importance
6.3.5 The relative importance of each heritage asset within the study area has been determined to provide a framework for comparison.
6.3.6 The categories of importance do not reflect a definitive level of significance of value of a heritage asset, but a provisional one based on the asset’s significance. Consideration of the asset’s combined values offers representation of the importance of a given resource and provides an analytical tool that can inform later stages of archaeological assessment and the development of appropriate mitigation.
6.3.7 Some non-designated assets of archaeological interest are known to be of at least equivalent importance to some assets that are designated. Their relative importance means that mitigation is proposed and developed as if they are designated assets.
6.3.8 The grading of importance of heritage assets is based on the criteria listed in Table 6.2.
Importance Definition
High Assets and structures of acknowledged international /national importance. Examples include World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and buildings of recognised international importance.
Medium Assets and structures of acknowledged regional importance. Examples include historic townscapes, and undesignated assets of value within the county HER.
Low Assets and structures of acknowledged local importance. Examples include historic (unlisted) buildings, assets of limited value registered in the county HER, and assets compromised by poor preservation.
Negligible Assets and structures known to be of low archaeological or historical importance. Examples include remains previously subject to large-scale destruction, assets with very little or no surviving archaeological or historic interest and assets which hold little intrinsic archaeological value.
Uncertain Assets and structures of uncertain character, extent and/or date where the importance cannot be ascertained.
Table 6.2: Criteria for Determining Heritage Asset Importance
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 33
Impact Magnitude
6.3.9 Physical impacts are defined as damage to the fabric of a heritage asset, which would typically occur during the construction phase of a development.
6.3.10 The magnitude of an impact reflects the scale of change which would be caused by the proposed development and the effect this has on ability to interpret significance and appreciate the heritage asset.
6.3.11 An impact may be negative, where significance is lost, or positive where for example, as part of development, an intrusive building or feature is removed or replaced with a more harmonious one; historic features are restored or revealed; a new feature is added which adds to public appreciation; new views are introduced that add to public experience of an asset; or public interpretation or access is improved to an asset or its setting.
6.3.12 Impacts may impart change on a sliding scale, major change for example where groundworks completely destroy important archaeological remains through to minor change to part of a heritage asset, leading to a limited impact on our ability to interpret it, or its context.
6.3.13 Utilising the key principles for assessing the implications of change outlined above, an assessment of the magnitude of impact has been implemented for each baseline heritage asset according to the scale set out in Table 6.3.
Level of Definition of Magnitude Magnitude
Major Total loss or substantial harm to key elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline (pre-development) conditions/ the contribution that setting makes to significance is lost such that post development character/ composition/ attributes of baseline will be fundamentally changed/ no longer discernible.
Moderate Partial loss or harm to one or more key elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline (pre-development) conditions/ contribution that setting makes to significance is reduced such that post development character/ composition/ attributes of baseline will be partially changed/ less discernible.
Minor Minor loss. Degradation arising from the loss/ alteration to fabric or setting will be discernible but underlying character/ composition/ attributes of the baseline condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances/ patterns, without affecting interpretation of significance of the asset or the contribution of its setting.
Negligible Very minor loss. Change arising from loss/ alteration will be discernible but will not noticeably affect significant character/ composition/ attributes of the baseline (pre-development) conditions.
No Change No loss or alteration. Change does not affect fabric of asset, contribution setting makes to significance of asset, or extent to which significance can be experienced.
Table 6.3: Criteria Grading for Determining Magnitude of Impact
34 stridetreglown.com Significance of Effect
6.3.14 The likely effect (both physical and visual) of the proposed development has been assessed by comparing the land-take needed against the location and importance of known and potential heritage assets, and considering the location of the proposed development in relation to statutorily protected heritage assets.
6.3.15 To assess the effect of the proposed development on each heritage asset, the significance of any effect is quantified through comparison of the importance of each heritage asset against the likely magnitude of change upon it, in accordance with the matrix in Table 6.4.
Heritage asset importance
High Medium Low Negligible
Major Major Major Moderate Slight
Moderate Major Moderate Slight Negligible
Minor Moderate Slight Negligible None
Negligible Slight Negligible None None
No Change None None None None
Magnitude of impact Magnitude of
Table 6.4: Matrix System Defining Significance of Effect
6.3.16 Where a likely significant effect is identified measures can be devised to mitigate or minimise the probability or magnitude of those effects, resulting in residual effects that can be predicted. The design of the proposed development is therefore iterative in that effects are predicted and the design modified accordingly to maximise beneficial effects and reduce detrimental ones. Any identified major or moderate effects are typically mitigated by a redesign in the layout, if possible.
6.3.17 The final design of the development presented in this ES is therefore the outcome of this iterative process, and it is this resulting design that is the focus of the assessment in this chapter.
6.3.18 According to this assessment:
Major and Moderate effect significance would equate to ‘substantial harm’ in terms of the NPPF [para. 133]; Slight and Negligible effect significance would equate to ‘less than substantial harm’ in terms of the NPPF [para. 134].
6.3.19 All identified physical impacts, whether ‘substantial harm’ or ‘less than substantial harm’ would be mitigated, where warranted and achievable.
6.4. Baseline
6.4.1 Designated and non-designated heritage assets are summarised in the gazetteer (Appendix 6.3) and described by period in the baseline report (Appendix 6.1). These are presented on Figure 6.1 and summarised as follows:
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 35
36 Designated Heritage Assets
6.4.2 There are no designated heritage assets located within the site boundary.
6.4.3 There are seven listed buildings located within the study area; the nearest is a milestone, located c.50m from the site southern boundary on the A30 (RSK ID 41).
6.4.4 Dummer Conservation Area (RSK ID 1) (also a ‘historic rural settlement’) is located partially within the study area, c.1km to the south of the site. North Waltham Conservation Area (RSK ID 55) is located between 1.7 – 2.2km to the west of the site.
6.4.5 The nearest Scheduled Monuments are Three Round Barrows Near Bulls Bushes Farm (RSK ID 56) which are located c.1.5km to the north west of the site.
Non-designated Heritage Assets
6.4.6 The NMR/AHBR record 42 non-designated heritage assets located within the study area, one of which is located within the application site, an interpreted Mesolithic/Neolithic flint working site RSK ID 48.
6.4.7 In addition, the baseline report (Appendix 6.1) has identified three heritage assets within the site boundary.
6.4.8 There are two possible quarries of unknown date which have been mapped by the NMP from aerial photographs but not added to the NMR or AHBR (RSK IDs 51 & 52).
6.4.9 One heritage asset, the site of an outlying agricultural building (RSK ID 53), has been added to the gazetteer as a result of the historical map regression, annotated on tithe mapping.
6.4.10 The site of a ‘locally-listed’ eighteenth century landscaped Kempshott Park (RSK ID 54). This stands on a slight rise in the midst of a wooded park of 150 acres, and fronts the London and Southampton Road, between 0.5 – 1.5km east of the site.
6.4.11 Given their status as historic parish boundaries the hedgerows bounding the site to the south, west and east are classed as “important” in accordance with the 1997 Hedgerow Regulations.
Geophysical Survey
6.4.12 A geophysical survey of the site, carried out in tandem with this assessment and as part of the current proposal (Archaeological Surveys Ltd, August 2014, Appendix 6.2), has identified a number of below-ground anomalies of potential anthropogenic origin within the site boundary (Figure 6.2), including RSK IDs 51 & 52, as well as other previously undefined sites.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 37
38 Archaeological potential
6.4.13 In summary, there are interpreted archaeological remains of varying potential significance located within the site boundary. It is likely that the site was wooded (but exploited) until the Medieval period, after which it was enclosed.
6.4.14 Archaeological potential is summarised by period as follows.
Early Prehistoric - Neolithic periods
6.4.15 A flint scatter tentatively dated to the Mesolithic - Neolithic period (RSK ID 48) was recorded within the site boundary in 1967. Whilst these artefacts have not been verified, they potentially represent a flint working area that was used over a long period of time. If this is the case it would be a very significant discovery.
6.4.16 There is a moderate potential for archaeological remains of this period on the higher plateau to the north of the site.
Bronze Age – Roman periods
6.4.17 Cropmarks visible on aerial photographs are abundant in the fields to the immediate west of the site which are interpreted as Bronze Age – Roman in date (RSK IDs 18, 21, 23, 44 & 45). These remains apparently correspond with the underlying superficial geology; this does not extend to within the development site area.
6.4.18 A Roman road (RSK ID 34) defines the site southern boundary and an undated but potentially contemporary part of this arterial network (RSK ID 24) runs from the main road in the direction of the hilltop cropmark settlement to the west of the development area.
6.4.19 Given the proximity and evidence of Bronze Age – Roman activity on the plateau both to the east (RSK ID 27 & 30) and to the west (RSK IDs 18, 21, 23, 44 & 45) of the site, there is a moderate potential for archaeological remains of these periods on the higher plateau to the north of the site. It is likely that the majority of the remainder of the site was wooded and archaeological potential on the steeper slopes is low.
Early Medieval period
6.4.20 There is low potential for buried archaeology at this location from this period.
Medieval – Modern periods
6.4.21 Heritage assets depicted on mapping and aerial photography within the site boundary comprise an agricultural building and two cropmarks which are likely to be associated with chalk prospection/extraction. Each of these heritage assets is of low heritage significance.
6.4.22 There is a low potential for previously unknown buried archaeological remains of significance at this location from these periods.
Archaeological Potential as indicated by Geophysical Survey (Appendix 6.2)
6.4.23 An assessment of the Results section (Part 3) of the Magnetometer Survey Report (Archaeological Surveys Ltd, August 2014) is considered in combination with the results of the desk-based assessment sources. In summary, the geophysical survey is consistent with the conclusions of the baseline report.
6.4.24 Twenty areas of magnetic anomalies are described in the report, of which 13 are classified as ‘Anomalies with an uncertain origin’ (therefore potentially anthropogenic).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 39
6.4.25 Of 13 anomalies of uncertain origin, three are identified by the geophysicist as of possible archaeological origin (anomalies 6, 7, & 9).
6.4.26 There is a clear concentration of anomalies along the northern ridge, which coincides with aerial photograph anomalies to the north and the south of the site, interpreted as a possible Iron Age or Romano British settlement consisting of enclosures and hut circles.
6.4.27 ‘Anomalies associated with quarrying’ confirm the location and interpretation of RSK IDs 51 & 53 from the desk based research, as well as identifying a further example (16).
6.4.28 The last set of anomalies have identified spreads of magnetic material representative of a former field boundary (17) which is also evident on aerial photographs, debris at the north eastern corner of the field which coincides with a modern paddock shown on historic mapping (18), and metal objects (possible plough parts) within the topsoil (19).
6.4.29 Finally, a large area of variable magnetic response of likely natural origin (colluviation) is recorded at the base of the steep slope to the south end of the site (20). These deposits may serve to mask archaeological remains beneath.
6.4.30 The remaining known heritage assets recorded within the site boundary, RSK ID 48 (a Mesolithic/ Neolithic flint working site) and RSK ID 53 (an agricultural outbuilding annotated on 1839 tithe mapping) were not detected geophysically.
6.5. Potential Effects and Significance
Assessment of Physical Impacts
6.5.1 Any physical impacts resulting from development proposals would typically occur during the construction phase. Specifically, impacts would occur through groundworks such as topsoil/ subsoil stripping, excavations for footings, the installation of access roads, and drainage.
40 stridetreglown.com Construction
6.5.2 There are four known heritage assets located within the site boundary (Table 6.5).
RSK Heritage Asset Importance Impact Impact Impact ID Magnitude Significance
48 A Mesolithic or Neolithic Low Below ground Moderate Slight flint working site was impact through found to the east of vegetation Deane Heath Copse. Two planting flint fabricators were also (screening discovered. mitigation)
51 NMP Cropmark site, Negligible Below ground Moderate Negligible probable quarry impact through vegetation planting (screening mitigation)
52 NMP Cropmark site, Negligible Footings for Major Slight probable quarry development
53 Outlying agricultural Negligible Footings for Major Slight building noted on 1839 development tithe map
Archaeological potential Uncertain Below ground Moderate Uncertain of ridge indicated through impact through geophysical survey vegetation planting (screening mitigation)
Table 6.5: Assessment of Physical Impact to Known Heritage Assets
6.5.3 A review of associated traffic measures beyond the site boundary has confirmed no physical impact would occur to designated heritage assets as a result of any road works; namely the grade II listed milestone on the A30 (RSK ID 41), located 50m east of the site boundary.
6.5.4 The assessment confirms a slight negative physical effect of significance on three heritage assets and a negligible negative physical effect of significance on one heritage asset.
6.5.5 Design iterations have largely avoided the primary area of archaeological potential within the site boundary (Figure 6.3). There is also an area of undefined potential (due to colluvium cover) adjacent to the A30 (Figure 6.2).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 41
42 Operation
6.5.6 No physical effects are anticipated during the operational phase of the development.
Decommissioning
6.5.7 Following the implementation of appropriate mitigation at pre-construction stage there would be a neutral impact on the archaeological resource within areas of infrastructure, and thus no physical effects are anticipated from groundworks associated with any future decommissioning phase.
Assessment of Visual Impact to Setting
6.5.8 Desk and field-based assessment has determined that no significant visual impact to the setting of any designated heritage assets is anticipated in the vicinity of the application site as a result of the development proposals.
Construction
6.5.9 Any visual impacts to setting during construction would be temporary and of a similar nature to those during operation. A full and detailed assessment is presented in the operation section below.
Operation
6.5.10 The scope of the visual impact assessment and the heritage receptors considered has been determined in accordance with the wishes of the BDBC Conservation Officer.
6.5.11 Visualisations included in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) chapter are referenced by viewpoint (VP) number.
Conservation Areas
Dummer Conservation Area (RSK ID 1) (VP7):
6.5.12 Dummer Conservation Area lies between 0.9 – 1.5km to the south of the application site (Figure 6.1) and includes listed buildings (RSK IDs 2, 3, 4, 5 & 7) within the 1km study area, and more in the 1-2km study area. There are no specific effects on individual listed buildings, and the conservation area is assessed as a single entity, with reference to these further designated elements.
6.5.13 In summary, the conservation area is linear, with predominantly axial views to the east and west, and its special character is appreciated from the roads which run along its centre. These values would not be affected by the development. There would be views of the proposed development from the rear elevated windows of properties defining the northern boundary of the conservation area along Up Street.
6.5.14 The Dummer Conservation Area Appraisal (BDBC, 2003) is drawn upon for detailed assessment, as follows.
6.5.15 The conservation area is divided into three main areas, (1) Down Street; (2) Church Corner and Farleigh Lane, and (3) Up Street, Tower Hill and Dummer Down Lane.
6.5.16 Areas (1) and (2) are situated at lower elevations with no long-distance views of the application site. There would be no visual effects from these areas.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 43
6.5.17 Area (3) is located on a ridge, however, the special character – “enclosed residential”, is appreciated from the street, whereby no views to the surrounding countryside are available. There would be no effect on this street scene’s special character.
Photograph 6.1. Axial views along Dummer Conservation Area (Up Street). Looking west.
6.5.18 In the conservation area appraisal document, specific views of grade I All Saints’ Church in its wider context are highlighted, specifically those from Manor Farm and the cemetery, both of which would remain unaffected by the proposed development since the views are enclosed and shielded from long-distance views of the application site.
6.5.19 The majority of views of note in the appraisal document, describing prominent individual buildings, ascribing ‘rural’ character, and those demonstrative of ‘agricultural heritage’ are contained ‘within’ the conservation area, and would thus be similarly unaffected.
6.5.20 Similarly ‘important spaces’ such as the seven sisters cherry trees would remain unaffected, as would those ‘views in’ to the conservation area on its five approaches.
6.5.21 Of note are views outwards from the conservation area and the contribution of open land, which “cannot be underestimated” according to the appraisal document. Specific views noted include those of open pasture from Manor Farm which are southwards (the opposite direction of the application site), and would remain unaffected. However, the development would be introduced into noted views from Tower Hill and the cemetery. The higher elevations of the application site is visible 1km away, separated by a large open field and the M3/A30 (see Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) VP7).
44 stridetreglown.com
Photograph 6.2. View of the application site (beyond A30 tree line) from Tower Hill at west end of Dummer Conservation Area. Looking north.
6.5.22 The architectural significance and special character of the conservation area would remain unaffected. Whilst some views from properties within the conservation area would be altered, the degree of separation renders the change very slight. On the whole, the effect on the conservation area would be negligible.
North Waltham Conservation Area (RSK ID 55):
6.5.23 North Waltham Conservation Area is located between 1.7 – 2.2km to the west of the application site.
6.5.24 Due to the local topography (situated on a west-facing slope), the conservation area and the listed buildings contained therein falls entirely outwith the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) for the development. A site visit has shown in addition that belts of mature vegetation are situated between the conservation area and the development.
6.5.25 The conservation area exhibits a ‘compact’ character, however, as highlighted in the North Waltham Conservation Area Appraisal (BDBC, 2004), “the village setting allows extensive views towards the surrounding countryside”; these views include those from significant areas such as from the focal points of St Michael’s Church and The Green, and from Kyte Abbey, and also those on exit from the conservation area to each of the cardinal points.
6.5.26 No view of the surrounding countryside either from within or towards the conservation area would be affected by the proposed development, and visual change would be neutral.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 45
Scheduled Monuments
Three Round Barrows Near Bulls Bushes Farm (RSK ID 56):
6.5.27 The nearest Scheduled Monuments are located c.1.5km to the north west of the site. There is no intervisibility with the proposed development area and distance and topography shields any view of the site, therefore visual change to the setting of this monument would be neutral.
Listed Buildings
Milestone on A30 at Ganderdown - 50 miles from London (RSK ID 41):
6.5.28 The nearest designated heritage asset to the site is a grade II listed milestone, located c.50m from the site’s southern boundary on the A30. Visually, although proximal to the site, views are shielded by Ganderdown Copse, and the defining relationship with the A30, the most significant element of the monument’s setting, would be retained.
6.5.29 Traffic may be increased at the location, however, the significance of the asset related to traffic, and the change in setting, would be neutral.
Photograph 6.3. Listed Milestone on A30, looking west towards site (beyond road sign).
Southwood Farmhouse (RSK ID 6) (VP 4):
6.5.30 Grade II listed Southwood Farmhouse is located 450m to the east of the proposed development in an open setting. The significance of the designated assets lies in its architectural value, including a grouped element with outbuildings with matching architectural detail in its curtilage.
6.5.31 The main elevation of the farmhouse is orientated towards the north east, overlooking associated (and more modern) farm buildings.
46 stridetreglown.com 6.5.32 The farm’s drive leads a viewer to the west, in the direction of the proposed development, a view in which LVIA VP 4 suggests that the proposed development would be visible. This view from upper windows of the property itself is shielded by a row of mature trees, and cottages and further trees beyond.
6.5.33 The visual change would be brought about on leaving the property only, which is within the setting of the listed building, and is currently open with no modern elements. This visual change does not directly affect the significance of the listed building, and is considered to be negligible.
Photograph 6.4. Southwood Farmhouse Looking north east
Photograph 6.5. Looking west along farm’s driveway towards site.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 47
Non-designated heritage assets
Kempshott Park (RSK ID 54) (VP 8):
6.5.34 The heritage significance of Kempshott Park (a locally-listed park) is significantly diminished since its conversion to a golf course. The 1km distance between the course and the proposed development, as well as the intervening presence of Winchester Road, Peak Copse, and Ganderdown Copse would shield the heritage asset from any significant change in views. The proposed development therefore represents no significant impact on the setting of this asset (see LVIA VP 8).
The Sun Inn (RSK ID 57):
6.5.35 The significance of the Sun Inn lies in its historical relationship with the A30, as a traveller’s rest. In addition, previous archaeological assessments have indicated a significant time-depth of occupation in the vicinity, and the below-ground archaeological value of the area is therefore acknowledged.
6.5.36 Visually, the Sun Inn’s significance does not relate in any way to the application site. Regardless, tall conifer trees form a visual barrier between the inn and the site, and no change would occur as a result of the development.
Photograph 6.6. The Sun Inn. Looking north east towards site.
48 stridetreglown.com
RSK Heritage Asset Importance Impact Impact Impact ID Magnitude Significance
1 Dummer Conservation High View from Negligible Slight Area elevated rear of properties on Up Street
6 Southwood Farmhouse High View along Negligible Slight driveway on leaving property
41 Milestone on A30 at High None None None Ganderdown
54 Kempshott Park Medium None None None
55 North Waltham High None None None Conservation Area
56 Three Round Barrows High None None None Near Bulls Bushes Farm
57 The Sun Inn Low None None None
Table 6.6. Assessment of Visual Impact to Setting of Known Heritage Assets.
Decommissioning
6.5.37 If the Hampshire Critical Treatment Hospital is decommissioned and removed, any slight visual impacts to designated heritage assets and their settings would be fully reversed.
6.6. Mitigation
Further Assessment
6.6.1 Whilst anticipated impacts on known heritage assets have been minimised throughout the design process, there remains a potential for development impact to previously unknown heritage assets.
6.6.2 Archaeological trial trenching is recommended to test for the presence of previously unknown archaeological sites which may be present at the site.
6.6.3 A geophysical survey of the site (Archaeological Surveys Ltd, August 2014) has identified at least 12 targets for archaeological trial trenching (Figure 6.2). Background noise may mask other remains, and therefore any proposed programme of intrusive assessment will also need to test some seemingly (geophysically) ‘blank’ areas.
6.6.4 Current development plans (Figure 6.3) do not propose building on the ridge, the area of high archaeological potential defined in the baseline report and confirmed through geophysical survey, however the area will be utilised for the planting of vegetation screening which may cause a below ground impact.
6.6.5 It is therefore recommended that this area is subject to archaeological trial trenching. This would enable full archaeological characterisation of the site and inform any immediate changes in design.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 49
6.6.6 Trial trenching could also target the four archaeological sites identified within the site boundary from desk-based assessment (Figure 6.1):
RSK ID 48: A Mesolithic/Neolithic flint working site discovered in 1967 but not verified; RSK IDs 51 & 52: Probable chalk quarries visible as cropmarks on aerial photos; and RSK ID 53: An agricultural outbuilding annotated on 1839 tithe mapping.
6.6.7 The location of the potentially significant archaeological site RSK ID 48 has not been verified to date. It is recommended fieldwalking of freshly ploughed land is undertaken in advance of any proposed archaeological trial trenching. This will verify the presence of surface artefacts and help define trial trench locations.
6.6.8 Trial trenching should be carried out according to a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) comprising a trench location plan and the trial trenching strategy and methodology.
6.6.9 The results of the trial trenching should be presented as a stand-alone report, supported by appropriate figures and illustrations.
6.6.10 The results of the trial trenching will identify any heritage constraints to the proposed development, and would be used to define the need for, and scope of any further mitigation phases.
Mitigation
6.6.11 Strategies for archaeological mitigation with regards to physical impact typically consider two options. These are:
Preservation in situ: the preservation without disturbance of sensitive archaeological remains, this can be achieved through alterations to the proposed development layout; and Preservation by record (excavation): where preservation in situ is not feasible or desirable an alternative mitigation is pre-construction archaeological excavation. This consists of a detailed programme of archaeological fieldwork to preserve, by record, the archaeological value of the heritage asset.
6.6.12 It is anticipated that, following definition through archaeological trial trenching, a strategy for either of the above options could be agreed and implemented at pre-construction stage by planning condition.
6.6.13 Physical protection of the grade II listed milestone on the A30 in the form of fencing is recommended during the construction phase of the project.
6.6.14 No mitigation is required during operation in relation to visual impacts to designated heritage assets and their settings.
Important Hedgerows
6.6.15 As far possible, it is recommended that the “important” hedgerows surrounding the site are preserved in any development proposals.
6.7. Residual Effects
Physical Effects
6.7.1 If mitigation measures are undertaken, no significant physical effects to the historic environment are anticipated as a result of implementation of the development as proposed.
50 stridetreglown.com 6.7.2 The assessment confirms a slight negative physical effect of significance on three heritage assets and a negligible negative physical effect of significance on one heritage asset.
6.7.3 In addition there are areas of archaeological potential which are yet to be defined (by trial trenching).
6.7.4 Following definition, it is anticipated that a scheme of archaeological mitigation comprising discrete areas of preservation in situ and/or preservation by record could be agreed and implemented by condition at pre-construction stage.
6.7.5 It is anticipated that, following implementation of a programme of mitigation there will be no requirement for archaeological mitigation at construction, operation, or decommissioning stages.
Visual Effects
6.7.6 Slight residual visual effects at two designated heritage assets or their settings are anticipated.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 51
7. Landscape and Visual Impact
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) undertaken for the proposed Hampshire Critical Treatment Hospital (the ‘proposed development’).
7.1.2 The landscape assessment has considered the effects of the proposed development on the landscape as an environmental resource and the visual assessment has considered the effect of visual change on receptors (identified as residents, visitors to the area, people working in the area etc). Landscape and visual effects have been considered for the construction, operational and post-mitigation (i.e. residual effects once mitigation has reached maturity) phases of the proposed development.
7.1.3 The landscape and visual assessments have been undertaken in parallel, and have been informed by a combination of desk and site based appraisal techniques and professional judgement.
7.1.4 The following sections of this chapter include:
A summary of relevant planning policy; A description of the methodology for the assessment, including details of the study area and the approach to the assessment of effects; A summary of consultation; A review of baseline (existing) conditions; Details of the project which are relevant to the LVIA, including measures proposed as part of the project to avoid or reduce environmental effects i.e. embedded mitigation; An assessment of the likely effects for the construction and operational phases of the project, taking into account the embedded mitigation measures proposed; Identification of any further mitigation measures required in relation to likely significant landscape and visual effects (principally perimeter screen planting); and Assessment of any residual effects following the implementation and maturity of mitigation measures.
7.2. Policy & Legislative Context
7.2.1 Conventions, legislation, policies and policy guidance of direct relevance to the landscape and visual assessment are considered within this section. Identified landscape designations relevant to this chapter are illustrated on Figure 7.1.
52 stridetreglown.com
Figure 7.1 Policy/Designation Plan
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 53
European Landscape Convention
7.2.2 The context of landscape policy in the United Kingdom can be placed within the broad framework provided by the European Landscape Convention (ELC) (2000). The ELC was signed by the British Government in February 2006 and signals a commitment to support the aims of the Convention, which include promoting landscape protection, management and planning. It provides a definition of ‘landscape’, as follows:
“Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.”
National Policy and Policy Guidance
7.2.3 National landscape policy guidance relevant to this report is found within the following documents:
Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Planning Practice Guidance.
7.2.4 Planning Practice Guidance identifies that “one of the core principles in the National Planning Policy Framework is that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside…this includes designated landscapes but also the wider countryside”.
7.2.5 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies the need to “take account of the different roles and character of different areas … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”. Landscape character assessment is advocated as a tool for understanding such local distinctiveness.
7.2.6 Paragraph 156 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to set out policies for the “conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape”.
Local Policy
7.2.7 The site is located within the administrative boundary of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC). In terms of development policy within the local authority, the emerging local plan is progressing towards adoption in 2016. Prior to the adoption of the emerging local plan, saved policies from the following document remain:
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (2006) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Adopted Local Plan.
7.2.8 Policies of relevance to landscape and visual related issues are listed below:
Policy D8: Rural Exceptions states:
“..Development proposals should complement the character of the rural settlements and the character of the surrounding landscape.”
Policy E1: Development Control states:
“Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. All development proposals should therefore [amongst other considerations]:
54 stridetreglown.com i) Respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building;
ii) Provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme, where appropriate, enabling the development to successfully integrate with the landscape and surrounds, and not result in the loss of or have a potentially adverse impact on protected trees…”
Policy E6: Landscape Character states:
"Planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.
Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. In particular they should respect, and improve the following:
i) the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area as defined in the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment;
ii) visual amenity and scenic quality;
iii) the setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements;
iv) the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas;
v) trees, hedgerows, water features and other landscape elements and features; and
vi) historic landscapes, features and elements
The designation of the North Wessex Downs AONB reflects the national importance of that landscape..."
7.2.9 In addition to the Development Plan, BDBC have adopted a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which refers to Landscape and Biodiversity, which is:
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (2008) Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document
7.2.10 The SPD supports a number of Saved Policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan, including E1 and E6. One of the key aims of this document is to “ensure that new developments respect the character of the local landscape, successfully incorporate features of landscape importance and, where appropriate, include the creation of a high quality functional landscape within the sites.” Specific aims of the SPD in relation to the development of larger scale development proposals are:
A landscape character assessment should be undertaken with reference to published local landscape character assessments; A visual assessment should be undertaken of the proposal; A tree survey should be undertaken; Avoidance of significant landscape and biodiversity effects through careful design. Mitigation measures must only be used where avoidance through design is not achievable; and All proposals should aim to enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the receiving environment.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 55
Landscape Designations
7.2.11 No part of the site or study area falls within a nationally or locally designated landscape.
7.2.12 The boundary of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is approximately 3.5 km north, north-west of the site boundary and is shown on Figure 7.1.
7.2.13 Although not landscape designations, it is acknowledged that two villages within the study area contain Conservation Areas: Dummer (1.0 km south of the site); and North Waltham (1.5 km south-west of the site).
7.3. Method
7.3.1 The purpose of this LVIA is to identify and describe the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposed development and to determine whether or not they will be significant. The LVIA considers the effects of the proposed development on both the landscape as an environmental resource and on people's visual amenity. The intended use of this environmental information is to inform stakeholders and to assist decision making. Through the application of experienced professional judgement this LVIA categorises the significance of landscape and visual effects as either:
‘Highly significant’ - an effect that, in the professional opinion of the landscape and visual assessor, should carry substantial weight in decision making; ‘Significant’ - an effect that, in the professional opinion of the landscape and visual assessor, should carry some weight in decision making; or ‘Not significant’ - an effect that, in the professional opinion of the landscape and visual assessor, should not carry weight in decision making (i.e. a minor or negligible effect).
7.3.2 Table 7.1 provides an overview of the approach to the assessment of landscape and visual effects, including the six considerations which are combined using experienced professional judgement to reach a conclusion with regards to the significance of effect on each receptor.
Nature of receptor Nature of effect
Susceptibility to Value Degree of Geographical Duration Reversibility change High change Extent Permanent Reversible High Medium High Extensive Long-term Partially Medium Low Medium Medium Medium-term reversible Low Low Localised Short-term Irreversible Negligible / No Not applicable change
Level of effect / Significance of effect Major / Highly significant Moderate / Significant Minor / Not significant Negligible / Not significant
Table 7.1: Landscape and visual impact assessment considerations and terminology
56 stridetreglown.com Guidance
7.3.3 LVIA does not follow prescribed methods or criteria. This assessment is based on the principles established and broad approaches recommended in the following documents:
The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA3); Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Agency (2002) Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland; and The Landscape Institute (2011) Advice Note 01/11: Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment
7.3.4 In accordance with GLVIA3 the assessment methodology is tailored to the specific requirements of the proposed development, its specific landscape context and its likely significant effects. The methodology used for this assessment reflects the principal ways in which the proposed development is considered likely to interact with existing landscape and visual conditions as a result of:
The temporary effects of construction of the proposed development; and The introduction of large scale buildings (including a six storey building) within a rural landscape setting.
The LVIA Process
7.3.5 The LVIA has been undertaken in a sequence of iterative stages:
Identification of aspects of the proposed development that may give rise to significant effects on the landscape resource or on visual amenity; Description of baseline landscape and visual conditions. For the landscape assessment this provides an understanding of the character and value of the landscape resource. For the visual assessment this identifies the people in specific locations that may be visually affected; Identification of the landscape and visual receptors that may be affected by the proposed development and an initial assessment of the likely significant effects upon them; Identification of mitigation measures appropriate to the proposed development and its landscape context (initial assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development and identification of mitigation opportunities has informed the evolution of the design of the proposed development); and Assessment of the residual landscape and visual effects of the proposed development incorporating mitigation and categorisation of their significance to decision makers
Scope of the LVIA
7.3.6 Refer to Appendix 7.1 for details of the scoping process which has informed the scope of this chapter. However, in summary, the scope of the LVIA refers to assessment of the effects during the construction phase followed by an assessment of the completed project in year 1 and year 15 (to enable consideration of plant maturity).
Baseline studies
7.3.7 Baseline landscape and visual assessments are undertaken in parallel, and are informed by a combination of desk and field based techniques.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 57
Baseline desktop assessment
7.3.8 Preliminary identification, description and evaluation of the existing landscape and visual context of the study area involved a desk based review and interrogation of the following information sources:
Responses obtained through the scoping and consultation processes; Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial photography relating to existing landform, vegetation, settlement patterns, promoted viewpoints and drainage regimes; Plans containing information relating to landscape designations and landscape related policies at the local, regional and national level; Engineering data and schematic plans relating to the proposals and their construction; The Multi-Agency Geographical Information for the Countryside website; managed by Natural England (available at http://www.magic.gov.uk); National landscape character areas (NCAs) as defined by Natural England; and Local Landscape Character Assessments, as published and defined in: Hampshire County Council (May 2012) Hampshire Integrated Character Assessment; and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (2001) Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment
Study Area Selection and Viewpoint Consultation
7.3.9 Following the findings of the preliminary landscape and visual desk and site based assessment, the boundary of the study area has been defined as a 3.0 km radius around the site boundary. It is has been established that the nature and form of the proposed development will be such that no significant landscape and visual effects will be experienced outside of this study area. The study area provides a boundary to the focus of assessment, identification of key receptors and the selection of representative viewpoints and it is shown on Figure 7.1.
7.3.10 A 3.0 km study area is considered to be appropriate, however it is acknowledged that the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is located 3.5 km north, north-west of the site and a viewpoint (VP13) is included from within its south-eastern extent to ensure the effects on the AONB are adequately represented.
7.3.11 A provisional list of viewpoints was submitted to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) during September 2014 for their consideration. A response was received from Mike Townsend on 30th September 2014 which acknowledged the viewpoints selected and requested that the following locations also be considered in finalising the list:
1) The M3; 2) Footpaths on the northern edge and leading out of Dummer; 3) Footpath to the north-west of VP5; 4) Eastern edge of North Waltham; 5) Footpath through Southwood Farm (NE of VP4); 6) Further SE of VP1 along the lane that is adjacent to the site boundary. 7) Maidenthorn Lane to SW of site; 8) Other points along the A30 close to the site; and 9) Hounsome Fields; and Golf Course.
58 stridetreglown.com 7.3.12 The following are responses to the requests from BDBC:
1) It is difficult to identify locations on the M3 motorway which are safe to site a viewpoint location and take photography. However, VP8 (M3 Overbridge) has been retained from the provisional list which was submitted to BDBC and VP6 is located in close proximity; 2) VP7 is located in the location requested; 3) VP5 is located on the footpath requested; 4) The ZTV (Figure 7.6) has identified that there is no visibility from this location. However, VP12 has been added on Maidenthorn Lane which is located to the south of North Waltham; 5) There is no visibility of the site from Southwood Farm and this position was not considered necessary, particularly given the inclusion of VP4 and VP6 which do have views of the site; 6) VP11 has been added to satisfy this request; 7) VP12 has been added; 8) No safe locations to take photography were identified on the A30, however it will be considered in the text; and 9) Similar to the response to point 5, is no visibility of the site from here and this position was not considered necessary, particularly given the inclusion of VP4 and VP6 which do have views of the site.
Project Envelope
7.3.13 The LVIA considers a ‘realistic worst case’ approach to the project design parameters, which will include reference to the maximum dimensions and to the likely physical appearance of the proposed development, (materials etc) and the duration of the construction programme.
7.3.14 These ‘realistic worst case’ development parameters (specifically from a landscape and visual perspective) are identified within the Assessment Parameters section of this chapter.
Baseline field assessment
7.3.15 The field survey was undertaken during periods of clement weather from public highways, public rights of way (PRoW) and publically accessible areas, including areas of public open space. The site was visited during September 2014, December 2014, and January 2015.
7.3.16 Site work involved:
A corroboration of the findings of the desktop review; Gathering of additional information on landscape elements, character, views and localised screening; and Taking photographs from proposed representative viewpoints.
Assessment of landscape effects
Landscape receptors
7.3.17 The landscape receptors for the effects of the proposed development are identified as:
Landscape elements (e.g. existing tree cover, hedgerows, etc); Landscape character areas (local or national); and Designated landscape resources (e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 59
7.3.18 Landscape character assessment (as recommended by Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland; Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Agency, 2002) has been used as a tool to understand the landscape in the vicinity of the site and specifically:
The typical elements that make up the landscape, including physical influences (geology, soils, landform, drainage and water bodies), land cover (vegetation types and patterns) and the influence of human activity (land use and management, character of settlement and buildings, presence of engineered features and field pattern); The character of the landscape including any distinctive landscape character types or areas and their key characteristics; and Any important aesthetic, perceptual or experiential qualities of the landscape, such as its scenic quality, cultural associations, tranquillity or naturalness.
7.3.19 The significance of the likely effects of the proposed development on the identified landscape receptors has been assessed using professional judgement. As is set out in Table 7.1, this may take into account a number of different considerations including: the susceptibility of different landscape receptors to the likely change that will be associated with the proposed development; the value or importance that is attached to the receptors; and the degree, geographical extent, duration and reversibility of the change to the landscape that is likely to arise.
7.3.20 The relevance and weighting of these various considerations will vary depending on the type of landscape receptor being assessed. For example, ‘susceptibility’ may carry more weight in the assessment of effects on landscape character areas and designated resources whereas ‘extent’ may or carry more weight in the assessment of removal of landscape elements.
60 stridetreglown.com Susceptibility to change
7.3.21 The susceptibility of the landscape refers to its ability to accommodate the changes likely to be brought about by the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation. Table 7.2 provides a list of key characteristics and attributes that have been used in this assessment as indicators of higher or lower levels of landscape susceptibility. The table is indicative rather than prescriptive and the susceptibility of the landscape is categorised as: High; Medium; or Low.
Key characteristics Attributes indicating higher Attributes indicating lower susceptibility to the development susceptibility to the development
Scale Small-scale landform/landcover; fine <---> Large-scale landform/land cover; coarse grained; enclosed; sheltered grained
Enclosure Open <---> Enclosed
Landform A flat, uniform landscape <---> An undulating landscape
Landcover and Complex, irregular or intimate <---> Simple, regular landscape patterns; Pattern landscape patterns; diverse land cover uncluttered, sweeping lines; consistent land cover;
Built structures General absence of strongly <---> Engineered forms/land use pattern; engineered, built or manmade frequent presence of man-made elements, influences such as existing electrical brownfield or industrial landscapes; infrastructure, roads, a geometric field presence of contemporary built structures; pattern or watercourses. electrical infrastructure; and commercial Predominance of traditional or historic forestry settlements, buildings and structures
Naturalness and Landscape with predominance of <---> Non-natural landscape; busy and noisy; Tranquillity perceived natural features and forms. human activity and development; Sense of peace and isolation; remote prominent movement and empty; little or no built development
Table 7.2: Susceptibility of the landscape character to change
Value or Importance
7.3.22 The value of a landscape may reflect communal perception at a local, regional, national or international scale and may be informed by a number of factors including scenic beauty, tranquillity, wildness, cultural associations or other conservation or recreation interests. It is also the case that a landscape with characteristics that suggest relatively low susceptibility to change may be judged to be of high value because of special values attached to it. Although landscape value or importance is usually determined by reference to statutory or local planning policy designations, an absence of such designation does not automatically imply a lack of value as other factors, such as scarcity, may be considered relevant. The value or importance of landscape elements is also considered.
7.3.23 The degree of landscape value or importance is a matter for reasoned professional judgement. Where relevant to the assessment, the value or importance of landscape elements, character areas or designated resources is categorised as either:
High: which may refer to: an international designated landscape (rare cases only) – e.g. World Heritage Site; or a nationally designated site, e.g. National Park, AONB, Registered Historic Park or Garden;
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 61
Medium: which may refer to a locally designated landscape, i.e. it has been identified by local planning authorities within a local plan policy or landscape character assessment as demonstrating a particular value; or Low: which may refer to a landscape which is valued at a local scale by local communities but has no documented evidence of value (i.e. in a policy, designation or character assessment).
Degree of change
7.3.24 The degree of likely landscape change is assessed as: High; Medium; or Low, by reference to the criteria set out in Table 7.
Degree of change Definition
High The proposed development will form a prominent landscape element, or will result in a substantial alteration to key landscape characteristics.
Medium The proposed development will form a conspicuous landscape element, or will result in a partial loss of or alteration to key landscape characteristics.
Low The proposed development will form an apparent, small landscape element, or will result in a minor alteration to key landscape characteristics.
Negligible The proposed development will be a barely perceptible landscape element, or will not change the key landscape characteristics.
Table 7.3: Degree of change criteria (landscape)
Geographical Extent of change
7.3.25 This is based on an informed professional judgement and the extent of the change will vary depending on the nature of the proposal. The geographical extent of a landscape effect is assessed as:
Extensive – the change may influence an extensive area, possibly including several landscape types and/or character areas; Medium – the change may influence the wider landscape type and/or character area within which the site is located; or Localised – the change may be within the site itself and its immediate setting.
Duration of change
7.3.26 For this scheme the following categories of duration of effect have been adopted:
Short-term – an effect likely to last up to two years; Medium-term – an effect likely to last between two to five years; Long-term – an effect likely to last between five and twenty years; or Permanent – an effect likely to last more than twenty years.
62 stridetreglown.com 7.3.27 It should be noted that the Proposed Development referred to in this assessment will be Permanent which will be consistent for all receptors. However, the construction phase will be temporary and duration of change will therefore be a consideration.
Reversibility of change
7.3.28 In terms of the reversibility of landscape change, the following categories have been adopted:
Reversible – an effect which is entirely reversible, i.e. the landscape can be restored to its original state prior to the development occurring; Partially reversible – the landscape can be partially restored to its original state prior to the development occurring; or Irreversible – the landscape is considered to be irreversibly altered following the occurrence of the development.
7.3.29 To assist in the understanding of reversibility of change as one of the considerations in judging the likely significance of a landscape effect, examples of irreversible change would be: the loss of ancient woodland due to a development; or the substantial alteration to a landform due to a quarrying operation.
Level and significance of landscape effects
7.3.30 The level of landscape effect is categorised using a four point scale: Major; Moderate; Minor; or Negligible. The level of effect is assessed by combining all of the considerations and criteria set out previously. This is described by GLVIA3 as an ‘overall profile’ approach to combining judgements and requires that all the judgements against each of the identified criteria (i.e. susceptibility; value; degree of change; extent of change; duration of change; and reversibility of change) are utilised to allow an informed professional assessment of the overall level of landscape effect.
7.3.31 The relative weight attributed to each consideration is a matter of professional judgement and will vary depending on the specific landscape receptor being assessed. For example, susceptibility is more relevant to landscape character than to the removal of landscape elements such as tree cover and short term reversible effects on the landscape may still be judged to be highly significant to decision makers. Where possible to do so with a reasonable level of professional objectivity, the effects of the proposed development on the landscape are identified as likely to be generally considered positive (beneficial), neutral or negative (adverse).
7.3.32 The significance of landscape effects is categorised as: Highly Significant; Significant; or Not Significant. The judgement on the significance of effect is informed directly by the level of effect that is identified as follows:
A Major level of effect is considered to be Highly Significant; A Moderate level of effect is considered to be Significant; and A Minor or a negligible level of effect is considered to be Not Significant.
7.3.33 GLVIA3 states the following with regard to the judgement of significant landscape effects:
“There are no hard and fast rules about what makes a significant effect, and there cannot be a standard approach since circumstances vary with the location and landscape context and with the type of proposal. At opposite ends of a spectrum it is reasonable to say that:
Major loss or irreversible negative effects, over an extensive area, on elements and/or aesthetic and perceptual aspects that are key to the character of nationally valued landscapes are likely to be of the greatest significance;
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 63
Reversible negative effects of short duration, over a restricted area, on elements and/or aesthetic and perceptual aspects that contribute to but are not key characteristics of the character of landscapes of community value are likely to be of the least significance and may, depending on the circumstances, be judged as not significant; Where assessments of significance place landscape effects between these extremes, judgements must be made about whether or not they are significant, with full explanations of why these conclusions have been reached.”
Assessment of visual effects
Visual receptors
7.3.34 The visual receptors for the effects of the proposed development consist of:
Residential properties (within settlements and individual properties); Public rights of way (including footpaths, bridleways and designated trails); and Roads.
7.3.35 To help identify visual receptors the area within which the proposed development may potentially be seen, a site survey has considered the scale of the proposed development and the location of visual screens such as landform, vegetation and buildings. Visual receptors include residents, the public or community at large, visitors and people travelling through the area.
7.3.36 It is not practicable to assess the visual effect on every visual receptor potentially affected by the proposed development. Representative viewpoints have therefore been selected to represent a range of visual receptor types, viewing distances and directions.
7.3.37 The significance of the likely visual effects of the proposed development on identified receptors has been assessed using professional judgement. As was set out in Table 7.1, this may take into account a range of considerations including: the susceptibility of people in different contexts to the likely visual changes that will be associated with the proposed development; the value or importance that they are considered likely to attach to the existing view; and the degree, geographical extent, duration and reversibility of the visual change that is likely to arise.
Susceptibility to change
7.3.38 People’s susceptibility to visual change varies depending on their purpose for being in a particular location (principally whether for residence, recreation, travel or employment). The susceptibility to change of different categories of visual receptor is assessed on a scale of: High; Medium; or Low, and is typically defined based on the categories of viewer set out in Table 7.4.
Level of Typical Receptors susceptibility High People with a particular interest in the available view or with prolonged viewing opportunities, such as:
Promoted viewpoints (often recognised by the provision of interpretation), promoted scenic drives or tourist routes Tourist, visitor and/or heritage destinations providing a specific, important and highly valued view Recreational hilltops and peaks Residential locations Ornamental parks and public open spaces Nationally or locally named trails and cycle routes
64 stridetreglown.com Medium People with a general interest in their surroundings or with transient viewing opportunities, such as:
General and incidental footpaths and rights of way Residential distributor and local road network General public open spaces, recreation grounds and play areas Low People with a limited or passing interest in their surroundings, such as:
Places of employment Major highways (sensitivity may be higher in scenic locations) Commercial and industrial buildings Indoor facilities Commuters
Table 7.4: Susceptibility of visual receptors
Value or importance
7.3.39 An assessment of visual amenity value or importance refers to the judgement of whether any particular value or importance is likely to be attributed by people to their available views. For example, views experienced by travellers on a highway may be considered to be more highly valued due to the scenic context or views experienced by residents of a particular property may considered to be less valued or important due to a degraded visual setting. The degree of value or importance is therefore a matter for reasoned professional judgement. Where relevant to the assessment, the value or importance of visual amenity is categorised as either: High; Medium; or Low.
Degree of change
7.3.40 The degree of likely visual change is assessed as High; Medium; or Low by reference to the criteria set out in Table 7.5.
Degree of change Definition
High The visual changes associated with the proposed development will form a prominent element within the view, resulting in a prominent change to the quality and character of the view.
Medium The visual changes associated with the proposed development will form a conspicuous element within the view, resulting in a conspicuous change to the quality and character of the view. Low The visual changes associated with the proposed development will form an apparent small element within the view, without affecting the overall quality and/or character of the view. Negligible The visual changes associated with the proposed development will result in a barely perceptible change in the view, or will cause ‘no change’ to the existing view.
Table 7.5: Degree of change criteria (visual)
Geographical extent of change
7.3.41 The geographical extent of a visual effect is assessed as: Extensive; Medium; or Localised. This is based on an informed professional judgement and reflects the extent of the area over which the changes will be visible.
7.3.42 However this consideration is not applicable when the assessment refers to a single visual receptor or viewpoint, such as a single residential property.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 65
Duration of change
7.3.43 For this scheme the following categories of duration of visual effect have been adopted: Short term – an effect likely to last up to two years; Medium term – an effect likely to last between two to five years; Long term – an effect likely to last between five and twenty years; and Permanent – an effect likely to last more than twenty years.
Reversibility of change
7.3.44 In terms of the reversibility of visual change, the following categories have been adopted: Reversible – an effect which is entirely reversible, i.e. the view could be restored to that which was experienced prior to the occurrence of the development; Partially reversible – the view could be partially restored to that which was experienced prior to the occurrence of the development; or Irreversible – the view is considered to be irreversibly altered following the occurrence of the development.
Level and significance of visual effects
7.3.45 The level of visual effect is categorised using a four point scale: Major; Moderate; Minor; or Negligible. The level of effect is assessed by combining all of the considerations and criteria set out above. This is described by GLVIA3 as an ‘overall profile’ approach to combining judgements and requires that the all the judgements against each of the identified criteria (i.e. susceptibility; value; degree of change; extent of change; duration of change; and reversibility of change) are utilised to allow an informed professional assessment of the overall level of visual effect.
7.3.46 The relative weight attributed to each consideration is a matter of professional judgement and will vary depending on the specific visual receptor being assessed. For example, the geographical extent of visual change is more relevant to an area or route than to a fixed viewpoint and short term reversible visual effects may still be judged to be highly significant to decision makers. Where possible to do so with a reasonable level of professional objectivity the visual effects of the proposed development are identified as likely to be generally considered positive (beneficial), neutral or negative (adverse).
7.3.47 The significance of visual effects is categorised as: Highly Significant; Significant; or Not Significant. The judgement on the significance of effect is informed directly by the level of effect that is identified as follows:
A Major level of effect is considered to be Highly Significant; A Moderate level of effect is considered to be Significant; and A Minor or a Negligible level of effect is considered to be Not significant.
7.3.48 GLVIA3 states the following with regard to the judgement of significant visual effects:
“There are no hard and fast rules about what makes a significant effect, and there cannot be a standard approach since circumstances vary with the location and context and with the type of proposal. In making a judgement about the significance of visual effects the following points should be noted:
Effects on people who are particularly sensitive to changes in views and visual amenity are more likely to be significant; Effects on people at recognised and important viewpoints or from recognised scenic routes are more likely to be significant;
66 stridetreglown.com Large-scale changes which introduce new, non-characteristic or discordant or intrusive elements into the view are more likely to be significant than small changes or changes involving features already present within the view.”
Visualisations
7.3.49 The assessment of potential visibility from selected viewpoints has been aided by the use of visually representative material. Visualisations are illustrations that aim to represent an observer’s view of a proposed development. To this end, a series of computer generated photomontages have been produced for agreed viewpoint locations within the study area. The photomontage illustrations presented within this chapter, together with field surveys, were used to assist professional judgement in the robust assessment of the potential impact of the proposed development.
7.3.50 The following advice note has been referenced in the production of visually representative material:
The Landscape Institute (2011) Advice Note 01/11: Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment
7.3.51 It should be stressed that visualisations provide a tool for assessment, an image that can be compared with an actual view in the field. They should not be considered as a substitute to visiting a viewpoint in the field.
7.3.52 Photomontages combine a photograph of an existing view with a computer-generated image. They provide photo-realistic, rendered representations of how the proposed development may look in the context of the existing landscape, as would be seen in a photograph, but not as would appear to the human eye in the field. Visualisations have been produced using Autodesk 3ds Max 2015 software.
7.3.53 A comprehensive photographic study has been undertaken with 360-degree high-resolution digital photography taken at each viewpoint. Viewpoint locations were visited and photographed using a digital SLR camera with a 30mm lens to achieve the same view as that of a 50mm lens on a standard 35mm film SLR camera. Photography was then merged using Panorama Factory stitching software.
7.3.54 With regards to the inclusion of proposed planting mitigation within visualisations, proposed trees are shown at Year 1 at the height they will be planted. This would mostly relate to trees at less than 0.5 m in height, however a proportion of the tree mix will be shown up to a maximum of 4.0 m in height. At Year 15, trees will be shown at a maximum of 8.0 m in height. This assumes a growth scenario of 0.5 m per year applied to planting which will initially be 0.5 m in height. It is acknowledged that some planting will be up to 4.0 m at Year 1, however a worst case scenario in terms of growth rates has been taken.
Zone of Theoretical Visibility
7.3.55 A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) was produced as part of the desktop work and has been used to focus the study area and visual assessment in particular. The approach taken was as follows:
The software used was ESRI Spatial Analyst; The terrain data used was Ordnance Survey Terrain 5m data and main woodland blocks were inserted into the model to better reflect the actual visibility on site. Woodland blocks were inserted at a consistent height of 10 m, however on site it is estimated that most woodland blocks inserted would be taller than this given their level of maturity; and
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 67
The ZTV was produced based on the highest component of the site, which is the CTH building. This was inputted to the model at 179.2 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), which was the provisional roof height at the time of production of the ZTV (February 2015).
7.3.56 It should be noted that the ZTV is utilised as an additional tool to understand the potential visibility of a Proposed Development and is intended to complement site based surveys.
7.4. Baseline
Site Description
7.4.1 The site is located approximately 2.0 km south-west of the town of Basingstoke, within the county of Hampshire. The site consists of one large field, currently in arable use, with hedgerows and occasional hedgerow trees defining all boundaries. There are mature woodland copses located adjacent to the western and eastern boundaries. The A30 road is located adjacent to the south-eastern boundary of the site; the M3 motorway is located 0.4 km south of the site; and a local access road (Trenchard Lane) is adjacent to the north-eastern boundary. The ground level rises steadily from the south-eastern boundary at 138.0 m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) to the north-western boundary which is located on a plateau at approximately 160.0 m AOD.
Landform
7.4.2 The landform within the study area is illustrated on Figure 7.2.
7.4.3 As described previously, within the site itself the ground level rises steadily from the south- eastern boundary at 138.0 m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) to the north-western boundary which is located on a plateau at approximately 160.0 m AOD. Beyond the ridge in the northern- western extent of the site, the land falls away in height. Due to the slope in the site, it faces in a south-easterly direction and is effectively screened from view to the north and north-west.
7.4.4 The landform within the wider study area gently undulates, however there is a general fall from higher ground in the south-east to the lower ground of the north-west. Notable landform features are:
The highest ground level within the study area is located approximately 3.0 km to the east of the site, in the vicinity of Foxhall and is 208.0 m AOD; The lowest ground level within the study area is located approximately 4.5 km to the north- west of the site, in the vicinity of Ashe Park, also within the North Wessex Downs AONB and is 89 m AOD; and A distinct feature of the local landform which is more localised to the site is located approximately 0.5 km to its south-east at its nearest point. This refers to a shallow valley through which the M3 motorway passes in a south-west to north-east direction. The site is on the north-western elevated slope of the valley and the village of Dummer is located on the south-eastern slope of the valley.
68 stridetreglown.com Figure 7.2 Landform Plan
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 69
Landscape Character
7.4.5 Landscape character has been appraised from the national level to the local scale commensurate to the proposed scheme. Description and classification of existing character has involved consideration of the context of the site and study area. A summary of the relevant published landscape character assessments is provided in the following sections.
National Landscape Character
7.4.6 National Character Areas (NCAs), produced by Natural England, divide England into 159 landscape character areas. The site and 3.0 km study area (excluding Basingstoke) is located within the following character area profile:
NCA Profile 130: Hampshire Downs (2014) Natural England
7.4.7 The key characteristics of Profile 130 which are relevant to the site are:
"The rolling, elevated, chalk arable downland has an open, exposed character that provides open skies and long-distance views; Elevated plateaux and upper valley slopes are characterised by extensive open tracts of large, low-hedged fields with thin chalky soils, shelterbelts, and ancient semi-natural woodland blocks on clay-with flint caps on some of the steeper slopes; In the sheltered valleys and to the east of the area, the network of hedgerows, interspersed by numerous areas of oak/ash or hazel woodland coppice and smaller meadow fields, gives a strong sense of enclosure; A network of distinctive and ancient droving roads and trackways is a particular feature across the Downs; The settlement pattern varies between the relatively dense strings of villages along the lower river valleys and the very low-density, nucleated settlements in the upper reaches of the rivers and on the Downs."
7.4.8 The 'Drivers of Change' section of Profile 130 identifies that there is pressure on the landscape in the character area from development, due to its proximity to London, and states:
"In terms of visual impact this is most notable around Basingstoke because of its exposed location on the Downs rather than in the valleys."
County Landscape Character
7.4.9 Hampshire Integrated Character Assessment (May 2012) published by Hampshire County Council, identifies 25 character types, and a further 62 landscape character areas, within the county. The proposed development falls within the ‘Open Downs’ character type, and is located within '7b Hannington and Dummer Downs' character area, the key characteristics of which are:
"Large open arable farmland enclosed with low hedgerows, trees and extensive woodland blocks; Varied field pattern; Varying intervisibility due to areas of extensive semi-natural woodland blocks and small linear plantations on more open slopes; Notable areas of parkland landscape; Settlement consists of nucleated, small hamlets and scattered farms located on hilltops or within valleys;
70 stridetreglown.com Quiet and unspoilt rural character with a sense of openness and space, the northern part of which is designated AONB."
7.4.10 This character assessment identifies the forces for change within each character area, and the opportunities which these forces present and the following are of relevance:
Key Quality: Generally unspoilt rural character, with a sense of remoteness, tranquillity and limited intrusion from people, traffic and noise, except where motorways, main roads and other infrastructure routes cut through the landscape.
Threats - Continuing visual and noise intrusion of motorway and trunk roads, locally reducing the tranquillity of the landscape; - Other infrastructure such as pylons and radio masts remain locally prominent on skylines in parts of the character area; - The openness of the landscape means that potential new development or tall structures would be visually intrusive.
Opportunities - Explore measures to reduce the visual and acoustic impact of main roads on levels of tranquillity, primarily through sensitive screen planting; - Retain rural character, sense of openness and space, and long views. Use planning policies and conditions to seek to minimise impacts on them from new development or prominent features; - Use AONB management plan policies to retain the quality of the rural landscape in the northern part of the area.
Table 7.6: Forces of change within 7b Hannington and Dummer Downs
Local Landscape Character
7.4.11 Refer to Figure 7.3 for the local character areas.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 71
Figure 7.3 Landscape Character Plan
72 7.4.12 The most relevant published local landscape character assessment to the proposed development site and study area is:
Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment; Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (June 2001)
7.4.13 The assessment divides Basingstoke and Deane into 20 distinct character areas, and the site is located within 17: Dummer and Popham Down character area, the key characteristics of which that are relevant to the site are:
"Varying landscape pattern comprising open farmland, semi-enclosed fields and road network; Some unspoilt areas, but others suffer significantly from the visual and noise intrusion of three major roads (M3, A30 and A303) which run through the valley; Predominantly large-scale arable fields; Degree of enclosure created by woodland blocks close to the M3 and A30/A303 corridor, particularly at junction 8 where the complexity of the roads creates small pockets of land; Varying intervisibility within the site, generally being high but impeded by woodland blocks and landform; and Scattered farmsteads and the villages of Dummer and North Waltham, linked by a network of narrow lanes."
7.4.14 The 'Key Issues' section states the following:
"Weakened landscape structure across the more extensive, open landscape types, resulting from hedgerow removal or neglect and loss of broadleaf woodland to agricultural intensification; Management of hedgerows (particularly in more open areas) and field patterns of historic significance, and retention of tree saplings; Management of road verges and hedgebanks; and Visual and noise intrusion of major roads and other urban land uses on rural qualities of the landscape."
7.4.15 In addition to the host character area, the following are also of relevance to the assessment:
14: Oakley/Steventon Down, which is located 0.1 km north-east of the site boundary at its nearest point; and 16: Basingstoke Down, which is located 0.6 km east of the site at its nearest point.
7.4.16 The key characteristics of character area 14: Oakley/Steventon Down are:
“Rolling chalkland with unifying pattern of large woodland blocks, trees and hedgerows, giving a discernible sense of place; Mosaic of arable farmland, managed parkland and mixed woodland. The latter brings semi- enclosure to much of the area and, where more extensive in the south, creates a more enclosed, intimate landscape; Unspoilt, rural and remote character, with limited intrusion from people, traffic and noise, the northern third of the area lying within the North Wessex Downs AONB; Generally medium to large-scale arable fields enclosed within a generally intact, well- managed hedgerow and woodland structure;
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 73
Generally low to moderate intervisibility within the area, with frequent woodland blocks and strong hedgerow structure minimising long or panoramic views; Dispersed settlements within the area, ranging in size from the large village of Oakley to the smaller villages, many hamlets, and scattered individual properties, linked by a network of narrow roads.”
7.4.17 The key characteristics of character area 16: Basingstoke Down are:
“Rolling landform to the north, becoming more undulating and northward sloping to the south; Predominantly large-scale farmland, lacking a distinctive sense of place; Provides landscape setting for the western and southern parts of Basingstoke, whilst the western third of the area lies within the North Wessex Downs AONB. Urban influences affect much of the area, with hospital and golf course development north of Basingstoke, further golf courses south-west of Basingstoke, and significant noise intrusion from M3 and A-roads; Open character formed by large-scale, arable fields; Low, well-cut hedgerows and very few woodland blocks, although shelter belt planting exists north of Basingstoke; High intervisibility within the area due to the lack of woodland or strong hedgerow structure, enabling views of Basingstoke from many parts of the character area; and Limited settlement outside Basingstoke, with scattered isolated farmsteads and small villages/hamlets, linked by relatively small, narrow roads, contrasting with effective but intrusive road network linking Basingstoke with surrounding areas via the M3 and A-roads. Roman road defines the abrupt, straight, western built edge to Basingstoke, and the M3 corridor marks a similar sharp edge on the southern side.”
7.4.18 The following character areas are acknowledged as being partly within the study area but are not considered to be relevant to the assessment given the lack of inter-visibility with the proposed development:
19: Ellsfield and Clay Plateau and Valley; and 20: Candover Valley
Summary
7.4.19 Landscape character has been appraised from the national level to the local scale commensurate to the proposed scheme. The assessment of existing character has involved consideration of the context of the site and study area using published landscape character assessments and field based observations. A summary of the relevant published landscape character assessments has been provided and following site survey work and the review of published landscape character assessments, a landscape character description of the site and study area can be provided.
7.4.20 The site is a large scale arable field, which rises significantly in ground level from the south- eastern boundary to a plateau at the north-western boundary. The site is lined by low clipped hedgerows, and occasional lines of scattered mature deciduous trees along the boundaries. Two small, deciduous woodlands also feature around the periphery of the site: an unnamed woodland in the western corner; and Ganderdown Copse in the eastern corner. The landcover across the wider landscape is a patchwork of open and semi-enclosed, large scale arable fields and woodland mosaic, resulting in a degree of enclosure and moderate intervisibility.
74 stridetreglown.com 7.4.21 The eastern boundary of the site is defined by a narrow lane, which links with a wider, intricate network of narrow winding lanes. This contrasts with the larger scale A30, which defines the southern boundary of the site but is well screened from surrounding areas by adjacent woodland. In addition to the A30, the M3 motorway is located approximately 0.5 km south-east of the site, which is also screened by adjacent embankments and mature woodland and does not form an obvious part of the landscape character of the study area.
7.4.22 Settlement is scattered, and consists of individual farmsteads and the villages of North Waltham (1.5 km south-west of the site) and Dummer (1.0 km south of the site). Larger settlements within the study area comprise: the town of Oakley, which is located 1.5 km north of the site; and, Basingstoke, located 1.5 km east of the site at its nearest point.
Visual Baseline
Visual Context
7.4.23 Given the undulating nature of the landform and the generally high levels of woodland cover within the study area, visibility of the existing site is primarily limited to areas in close proximity and to occasional locations within the wider study area which are not screened by woodland and hedgerows. Aside from Basingstoke and Oakley, which form a small proportion of the study area, there is a relatively low level of built development and the primary screens to views are woodland cover and landform undulations.
7.4.24 Views of the site from the north and north-west are not possible due to the nature of its landform, as it has a sloping, south-easterly aspect. The highest part of the site, its north- western boundary, is visible as a line of hedgerow and intermittent hedgerow trees and forms the visible horizon in that direction of view. In addition, there is visual separation between the site and the largest settlement within the study area, Basingstoke, which is located 1.5 km east of the site at its nearest point. A ridge at the south-western extent of Basingstoke and intervening vegetation combine to screen views of the site. There is no inter-visibility between the site and the urban form of Basingstoke therefore.
7.4.25 As there are no prominent visual features on the existing site, it is not easily identifiable within surrounding views. However, woodland copses located adjacent to the western and eastern extents of the site boundary are more readily identifiable in views. The most open views into the site are from:
Directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site on the local access road; From a public footpath located approximately 0.5 km south-west of the site; and From elevated positions between 0.5 and 1.5 km south and south-east of the site, including the northern extent of the village of Dummer.
7.4.26 The general visual context is illustrated on Figures 7.4 and 7.5.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 75
Figure 7.4 Visual Context Plan
76
Figure 7.5 Visual Context Plan
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 77
Visual Receptors
7.4.27 Settlement pattern within the locality of the site (approximately a 1.5 km radius) is limited to individual properties and small settlements. Settlements within 1.5 km area: Dummer, which is located 0.6 km south, south-east of the site at its nearest point; Oakley, which is located 1.5 km north of the site; and North Waltham, which is located 1.5 km south-east of the site. The largest settlement within the study area is Basingstoke, which is located 1.5 km east of the site at its nearest point.
7.4.28 Intervening vegetation largely restricts views toward the site from individual residential properties and settlements, however some views are possible from the rear of properties at the western extent of Dummer.
7.4.29 There are various public rights of way throughout the study area, with some views of the site from these receptors likely. Public rights of way that have direct or glimpsed views of the site are: a public footpath located approximately 0.5 km south-west of the site; the Wayfarer’s Walk, located approximately 0.2 km east of the site; and a public footpath located adjacent to Dummer, approximately 1.0 km south of the site.
7.4.30 The nearest road to the site is Trenchard Lane, which is a local access road that forms part of the eastern boundary of the site. There are direct views into the site from this road. The largest roads within the study area are the A30, which passes along the southern boundary of the site, and the M3 motorway, which is located 0.5 km south of the site. There are views into the site from the A30 as it passes the site, however much of the road is surrounded by tree cover which limits views out. There are glimpsed views from the M3 as vehicles are travelling in an easterly direction, approximately 0.7 km to the south, south-west of the site. However, embankments and vegetation located directly adjacent to the motorway provide an effective screen to views from the majority its extent within the study area.
Representative Viewpoints
7.4.31 The following table provides details of the representative viewpoints that have been included with the assessment, including their existing (baseline) views. Viewpoint locations are illustrated on Figure 7.4 and 7.5.
78 stridetreglown.com No. Name Distance & Direction from Location Detail & Baseline description of view The Site and OS Location
VP1 Road adjacent to site 0.0 km NE Located on a public highway adjacent to the site. Receptors are road users, pedestrians and SU 58129 47822, 159 m equestrians. The view is direct across the site, provided through a gap in boundary hedgerow planting at a field entrance. The site slopes down from this elevated position at its northern extent and is an open, arable landscape. Woodland bounds the western and south-eastern extents of the site.
VP2 Wayfarer’s Walk – East of Site 0.2 km E Located on a locally designated recreational route. Receptors are pedestrians. SU 58398 47800, 161 m The view from this footpath is across open arable farmland which is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees, restricting views of the site. The arable landcover within the site is screened by intervening vegetation. Vegetation consists mostly of native deciduous species and views of the site are more likely during winter months when trees are not in leaf. Some longer range views are possible of the rolling rural landscape in a south-westerly direction.
VP3 Wayfarer’s Walk – North of 0.5 km N Located on a locally designated recreational route. Receptors are pedestrians. Site SU 57848 48173, 146 m The view from this footpath is across undulating and open arable farmland which is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees. The site itself is screened from view due to the presence of a ridge at the northern extent of the site, however a line of hedgerow and occasional mature trees is visible on the northern boundary, marking its location.
VP4 New Cottages at Southwood 0.0 km E Residential properties in relative proximity to the site. Receptors are residents of the properties and Farm SU 58608 47553, 142 m pedestrians on the Wayfarer’s Walk. The view of the main body of the site from the ground floor of each these residential properties is screened by adjacent hedgerow and trees, however upper storey oblique views are possible across adjacent open arable farmland. The site is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees, restricting views of it. Vegetation consists mostly of native deciduous species and views of the site are more likely during winter months when trees are not in leaf.
VP5 Footpath near to the Sun Inn 0.4 km SW Located on a footpath in relative proximity to the site. Receptors are pedestrians. SU 57999 46708, 139 m The view from this footpath is across open arable farmland which is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees. The arable landcover within the southern extent of the site is visible. Woodland copses are visible directly adjacent to the north-western and south-eastern corners of the site and there is a line of hedgerow and mature trees directly adjacent to this position which screens views of the nearby A30 road. Vegetation within the view consists mostly of native deciduous species therefore a view of the northern extent of the site is more likely during winter months when trees are not in leaf.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 79
VP6 Wayfarer’s Walk – South-east 0.4 km SE Located on a locally designated recreational route. Receptors are pedestrians. of Site SU 58776 46985, 156 m Viewpoint 6 is representative of users of a locally designated trail. There are no designated landscapes within the view. There is a rural scenic context to the view, however the visual setting of this viewpoint is partly degraded by the directly adjacent roundabout and connecting A30 road, albeit which are visible in the opposite direction to the site.
VP7 Dummer 1.1 km S Located on a footpath leading north from the village. Receptors are residents of the properties and SU 58338 45921, 163 m pedestrians on the footpath. This viewpoint is located directly adjacent to the rear of properties at the western extent of Dummer and affords views across the undulating landscape towards the site. The arable landcover within the site is glimpsed on a south-easterly facing slope amongst the surrounding mosaic of blocks of woodland and other arable fields. The A30 road and M3 motorway are located in the intervening landscape to the site, however they are glimpsed through intervening vegetation, with summer views almost entirely screened.
VP8 Wayfarer’s Walk - M3 1.0 km E Located on a locally designated recreational route crossing the M3 motorway. Receptors are Overbridge SU 59741 47314, 159 m pedestrians. This viewpoint is located on an overbridge, crossing the M3 motorway. Views are directed along the motorway. Views out towards the site are screened by mature vegetation adjacent to the motorway.
VP9 Foxhall 2.4 km ESE Located beside Farleigh Lane. Receptors are road users and pedestrians. Broadly representative SU 61111 46869, 200 m of views from the south-eastern extent of the study area. This viewpoint is located at the highest part of the study area and views out are across an undulating landscape which has a high level of woodland cover and arable farmland. The site is screened from view by intervening vegetation and it is assumed that winter views would not be possible given the density of the intervening vegetation.
VP10 Bridleway, Basingstoke 1.7 km NE Located on a bridleway adjacent to Basingstoke. Receptors are pedestrians and equestrians on SU 59454 48991, 139 m the bridleway. Given the enclosed nature of Basingstoke and the lack of views out in the direction of the site from properties within its boundary, this location is not considered to be representative of views from properties. The view towards the site is screened by landform undulations primarily with additional screening provided by intervening hedgerow and tree cover.
80 VP11 Beside Ganderdown Copse 0.0 km E Located on a public highway adjacent to the site. Receptors are road users, pedestrians and SU 58430 47489, 146 m equestrians. Requested by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The view is direct across the site, provided through a gap in boundary hedgerow planting at a field entrance. The site slopes up from this lower position at its eastern extent and is an open, arable landscape. Woodland bounds the south-eastern extents of the site, in close proximity to this viewpoint.
VP12 Maidenthorn Lane, North 1.3 km SW Located on a public highway leading south-east out of the village of North Waltham. Receptors are Waltham SU 57111 46315, 157 m road users and pedestrians. Views out from the road are largely screened by adjacent hedgerow, however this viewpoint provides a rare gap in the hedgerow. The view in an easterly direction towards the site is across an undulating arable landscape. Large woodland blocks define the skyline and are particularly visible in proximity to the site. There are a small cluster of farm buildings located at the base of the valley to the south-east of this location and the M3 motorway is glimpsed.
VP13 North Wessex Downs AONB 5.1 km NW Located on a locally designated recreational route with the North Wessex Downs AONB. Receptors SU 55661 52294, 125 m are pedestrians. Views out are in south-easterly direction with views to the west and north screened by the landform and woodland. The view in a south-easterly direction towards the site is across an undulating landscape which consists of arable land and large woodland blocks. Woodland cover defines the skyline and is particularly visible in proximity to the site. The site itself is screened from view at this considerable distance (5.1 km) due to screening by intervening landform and woodland.
Table 7.7: Representative Viewpoints
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 81
7.5. Assessment Parameters
Introduction
7.5.1 This section briefly sets out the key parameters and assumptions made to support the landscape and visual impact assessment. Full details of the development options being considered are provided in Chapter 3, ‘Description of the Project’.
7.5.2 It should be noted that design parameters which do not appear in the following table are considered not to have the potential to have a material bearing on the outcome of the assessment, for example: internal components of permanent structures within the proposed development which will not be externally visible.
Potential effect Maximum adverse scenario assessed
Construction
Landscape and Within the proposed development site boundary and during a construction period of visual effects approximately 2.5 years of activity, the presence of:
- temporary construction compounds;
- plant equipment and construction vehicles;
- cranes; and
- stockpiled materials.
During construction, the creation of two separate access points and widening of Trenchard Lane will require the removal of approximately 80.0 m of hedgerow from the southern corner of the site and approximately 200.0 m of hedgerow from the eastern corner of the site. In addition, a single mature tree will be removed from the southern corner of the site. This has been identified by a tree survey as being a mature Ash tree which has been rated as BS5837 Category C.
82 stridetreglown.com
Operation
Landscape and Within the development boundary and for the life of the project, the installation of: visual effects - a Critical Treatment Hospital (CTH) which will be located at the approximate centre of the site. This will consist of six floors and will have a height of approximately 31 m above ground level which will be approximately 179.0 m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum);
- a Cancer Treatment Hospital (CTC) which will be located within the western extent of the site. This will consist of three floors and will have a maximum height of approximately 163 m AOD;
- an Energy Centre which will be located in the eastern extent of the site. This will consist of a building, which is 163 m AOD, and a stack, which is approximately 33 m high and would be at approximately 181 m AOD;
- an Ambulance Station, which will be located in the eastern extent of the site. This will be approximately 9.5 m in height;
- A Pathology building, which will be located in the eastern part of the site. This will be approximately 9.5 m in height’;
- The introduction of two new access routes into the site. This will involve use of Trenchard Lane, which will provide access into the eastern part of the site and will introduce a new roundabout at the southern extent of the site, connecting to the A30.
The area of the entire site is approximately 24 ha and there will landform alterations within the site to accommodate the buildings and car parking areas.
The main building elements will be located between existing contour lines 147.0 m and 158.0 m AOD.
Table 7.9: Key Parameters for Assessment
Embedded Mitigation
7.5.3 The landscape and visual assessment process has run in parallel with the development of the scheme design and has therefore inputted to the design process. The following are the key elements of landscape and visual mitigation which are embedded within the design of the proposed development:
Layout: The masterplan for the site has been developed with a consideration of its landform and in particular the slope from north-west down to the south-east. Development has been avoided on the highest part of the site at its north-western extent to avoid increased visibility of the proposed development from within the surrounding study area and subsequent increased landscape and visual effects. In addition, the layout has incorporated sufficient space has been retained around the central core of proposed buildings and parking areas. This has allowed for: the retention of existing planting; the inclusion of open space; and inclusion of planting on the periphery of the site. Material selection: The materials selected to be used as part of the CTH and CTC buildings are intended to be sympathetic to the surrounding context, i.e. subdued colour tones and materials have been applied to ensure that the building appears balanced within its context, particularly on upper storeys. There is no precedent in terms of a similar development within the locality of the site and therefore an acknowledgement of the surrounding rural context has informed the selection of materials and colours. As mentioned previously, the LVIA process has run parallel with the design process and has enabled more detailed consideration of the surrounding landscape and visual context in selection of materials.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 83
Referring to the Stage 3 Report: Volume 2: Architecture and Masterplanning, the hospital form is expressed as a series of layers or strips of material. The base intended to ‘root the building into the landscape’, utilising a robust material, such as a precast concrete panel or proprietary brickwork cladding system. Linear strips would connect the main building with the roof top plant rooms and will be clad in a flint coloured ‘rain screen’ cladding. The cladding will have a slightly textured surface with a matt finish to avoid glare from a long distance and to help ‘blend’ the building into the landscape in order to minimise visual impact. Inter connecting blocks (between the linear strips) will be tonally lighter than the flint coloured linear strips and set-back to provide articulation between each material. The proprietary curtain wall and glazing system will be arranged using a maximum of four panel sizes set out in a ‘random’ pattern. Proprietary vertical fins fitted to the curtain wall and window sections will provide solar shading to windows and help break down the mass of the elevation. Retention of landscape elements: Aside from the removal of limited extents of hedgerow at the southern and eastern extents of the site (approximately 80 m and 200 m respectively) and the removal of one Ash tree at the southern extent of the site, all boundary trees and hedgerow have been retained as part of the development proposal for the site; and Lighting: Lighting of the proposed development has been considered from an early stage of the development of the deign proposal. A full lighting assessment has been undertaken which can be referred to in: Lighting Impact Assessment: Hampshire Critical Treatment Hospital, ref. 47073027 (URS, March 2015). However, in summary of its approach and findings: the proposed external lighting scheme has been designed in accordance with all relevant British Standards, the Institute of Light and Lighting Guidelines and guidance provided by the Society of Light and Lighting; and the external lighting scheme has been design to minimise horizontal light spill, sky glow, light trespass and glare
7.6. Potential Effects and Significance
Construction Effects
Landscape Effects
7.6.1 The main landscape effects which are associated specifically with the construction phase of the proposed development relate to the introduction of construction operations, related structures, equipment, landform alterations and stockpiling of materials for a temporary period within the site boundary and the subsequent effects on landscape character.
7.6.2 Specific aspects of the construction operations which have the potential to give rise to effects on the landscape for a temporary period are:
The presence of a construction compound; The creation of internal access tracks and the movement of construction vehicles within the site and directly adjacent to the site; and; The use of tall construction equipment, such as cranes; The removal of extents of hedgerow: beside the A30; and along Trenchard Lane, in the eastern extent of the site; and Landform alterations to the site, including topsoil stripping and stockpiling of materials.
7.6.3 The construction operations will form a conspicuous element in the open landscape of the study area given the relative complexity of their appearance and scale. Construction operations will also be in a state of change as construction progresses, which indicate a higher degree of landscape change. Removal of hedgerow, particularly in the eastern extent of the site, refers to the loss of mature landscape elements.
84 stridetreglown.com 7.6.4 It is considered that there will be a likely significant landscape effect on the host character area (17: Dummer and Popham Down) due to the construction operations, however this will be temporary in duration (2 ½ years) and the construction processes and phase will not give rise to additional significant landscape or visual effects that would not also be associated with the completed scheme, i.e. construction will be no more harmful to the landscape than the completed operational development.
Visual Effects
7.6.5 As was described previously within the landscape assessment, the main visual effects which are associated specifically with the construction phase relate to the introduction to the site of construction operations and related structures and equipment for a temporary period.
7.6.6 Specific aspects of the construction operations which have the potential to give rise to visual effects for a temporary period are:
The presence of a temporary construction compound; The stockpiling of materials on site; The use of taller construction equipment, including cranes; and The movement of construction vehicles.
7.6.7 The construction operations will form a visually conspicuous element in the open landscape of the study area given the relative complexity of their appearance and scale. Construction operations will also be in a state of change as construction progresses, which indicate a higher degree of visual change.
7.6.8 It is considered that there will be likely significant visual effects on the following representative viewpoints due to the construction operations:
Viewpoint 1, which is located directly adjacent to the site on its northern boundary and will have close range views of the construction operations, albeit partly screened by the sloping landform within the site; Viewpoint 2, which is located 0.2 km east of the site and will experience views of taller construction operations, such as cranes operating with ground level activity partly screened by intervening vegetation; Viewpoint 3, which is located 0.5 km north of the site and will experience views of activity at the northern extent of the site due to screening by the sloping landform of the site; Viewpoint 4, which is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and will experience close-range views of hedgerow removal along Trenchard Lane and construction vehicle movements; Viewpoint 5, which is located 0.4 km south-west of the site and would have clear views of much of the construction activity on site; Viewpoint 6, which is located 0.4 km south-east of the site and would particularly have views of taller construction operations, such as cranes operating with ground level activity partly screened by intervening vegetation; Viewpoint 7, which is located 1.1 km south of the site and would particularly have views of taller construction operations, such as cranes operating with ground level activity partly screened by intervening vegetation; and Viewpoint 11, which is located within to the eastern boundary of the site and will experience close-range views of hedgerow removal along Trenchard Lane and construction vehicle movements.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 85
7.6.9 In summary, there are likely to be significant effects on: roads in close proximity to the site, i.e. Trenchard Lane and the A30; residential receptors on Trenchard Lane, to the east of the site and on Dummer, to the south of the site; and public rights of way, such as on the footpath located 0.4 km south-west of the site.
7.6.10 It is noted however that the effects will be temporary in duration (2 ½ years) and the construction processes and phase will not give rise to additional significant visual effects that would not also be associated with the completed scheme.
Operational Effects
Landscape Effects
7.6.11 Landscape effects which are associated specifically with the operational phase of the proposed development, immediately following completion of construction operations but prior to the implementation of mitigation planting, primarily relate to the introduction of a built form into the landscape and the subsequent effects on landscape character within the study area in addition to the loss of some landscape elements.
7.6.12 Given that the existing site predominantly consists of arable landcover, the alteration in land cover relates to a loss of arable land as a component of the landscape character and not a direct loss of a valuable landscape element. Arable land cover is widely accepted as being of relatively low value as a landscape element. The majority of hedgerow and trees on the site boundary will be retained. However, the introduction of two new access points and the widening of Trenchard Lane will require the removal of some mature hedgerow in the southern and eastern corners of the site (approximately 80.0 m of hedgerow from the southern corner, approximately 200.0 m of hedgerow from the eastern corner) in addition to a single mature Ash tree in the southern corner. This refers to a direct loss of landscape elements, however given that there is a continuous line of hedgerow planting with occasional hedgerow trees on the majority of the site boundary, this will amount to partial loss of the overall boundary hedgerow cover.
7.6.13 Landform alterations are required to accommodate the development, such as around the base of the CTH building in the centre of the site and at the helicopter pad in the southern extent of the site. Overall, the site will retain its existing north-west to south-east downwards slope as perceived from the majority of the character area, however it is acknowledged that there will be some alterations to the landform within the site.
7.6.14 The effects of the proposed development are considered to primarily relate to the host landscape character area (as described in the Baseline section of this chapter and illustrated on (Figure 7.3) which is the published character area 17: Dummer & Popham Down (BDBC, 2001). In addition, the proposed development has potential to give rise to effects on the adjacent character areas: 14: Oakley/ Steventon Down; and 16: Basingstoke Down.
Host Landscape Character Area: 17: Dummer and Popham Down
7.6.15 The characteristics of the host landscape character area, 17: Dummer and Popham Down, that indicate its susceptibility to the type of changes associated with the proposed development include:
That it consists predominantly of large-scale arable fields, which indicates low susceptibility. However, there is a varied landscape pattern, including open arable farmland, semi-enclosed fields and woodland copses, which indicates medium susceptibility; That it contains a relative degree of openness with some enclosure created by woodland blocks, which indicates medium susceptibility;
86 stridetreglown.com That this is a gently undulating landscape which indicates medium susceptibility; That certain parts of the character area are subject to visual intrusion from the M3, A30 and A303. The part of the character area within which the site is located, i.e. the north-eastern extent, is partly influenced by the A30, which is directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, and to a lesser extent, the M3, which for the most part is located in cutting and is surrounded by woodland as it passes through the study area. This indicates low to medium susceptibility; and That there is limited influence of built development of a similar scale to the proposed development within the character area. The character area largely consists of scattered farmsteads and small settlements. This indicates a high susceptibility.
7.6.16 On balance, having considered all of the factors above, the susceptibility of the host landscape to the type of changes likely to arise as a consequence of the proposed development is considered to be Medium. Although a largely open rural landscape with frequent woodland copses, it is already subject to the influences of large scale highway infrastructure and its large scale somewhat reduces its susceptibility to the introduction of a large built form.
7.6.17 There are no landscape designations within the site and wider host character area and the landscape is considered to be of only local value. The host landscape character area is therefore of Low value.
7.6.18 Considering the degree of landscape change due to the proposed development, the following are the likely changes that would occur:
The introduction of a large-scale built development (i.e. a hospital) into a rural location which has a limited level of existing built development and none within the specific site within which the development is to be located. It is acknowledged that the south-western extent of Basingstoke falls within the 3.0 km study area, however the baseline surveys have identified limited visual connection between the site and Basingstoke, i.e. the urban form of Basingstoke has limited influence on the host landscape character area. Existing built development within the host character area consists mainly of isolated farmsteads and small settlements, such as Dummer and North Waltham. The M3 motorway passes through the southern extent of the study area, however it demonstrates limited intervisibility with the site due to screening by landform and vegetation. Changes due to the Proposed Development would be experienced across parts of the northern and eastern extents of the character area; The introduction of a tall (six-storey) building to the site and host character area, which includes only low-level built development, i.e. two-storey residential properties. In addition to the considerable footprint that the development would have, the height of the CTH would extend the influence of the development across a wider extent of the character area than the lower level parts of the development, such as the CTC building; The introduction of a stack within the eastern extent of the site which would also be a new feature within the host character area; and New access points and the widening of Trenchard Lane, which require the loss of extents of mature hedgerow.
7.6.19 In summary, the proposed development would form a prominent and highly contrasting element on the site and in the host character area and the degree of landscape change would be High.
7.6.20 The permanent development would alter the site directly and a notable extent of the host landscape character area and would therefore be considered to have a Medium geographical extent of change. The duration of change would be Permanent. The landscape change would be Partially Reversible which considers the alterations to the landform of the site against the limited loss of landscape elements (trees and hedgerow) which would be required.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 87
7.6.21 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there would be a Major adverse level of landscape effect due to the proposed development. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Highly Significant.
14: Oakley/ Steventon Down
7.6.22 The defining characteristics of the landscape character area, 14: Oakley/ Steventon Down (located 0.1 km north-east of the site) that indicate its susceptibility to the type of changes associated with the proposed development are:
That it has a distinct sense of place due to its unifying pattern of woodland and hedgerows which indicates high susceptibility; It is a gently undulating landscape which indicates medium susceptibility; That it is a mix of large-scale arable farmland, managed parkland and mixed woodland which indicates medium susceptibility; There is limited built development and roads are predominantly local rural access routes. This indicates high susceptibility; and There is only low to moderate intervisibility within the area due to the rolling landform and frequent woodland cover which indicates a medium to high susceptibility.
7.6.23 Having considered all the above factors, the susceptibility character area 14 to the type of changes proposed is considered to be High.
7.6.24 The North Wessex Downs AONB is located within part of this character area and the landscape is considered to be nationally valued. This landscape character area is therefore of High value.
7.6.25 There would be no direct change to character area 14 as the development will be located outside its boundary, however there is potential for indirect effects due the visual influence of the development on the character area. Considering the degree of landscape change due to the proposed development, the following are the likely changes that would occur:
The introduction of a large development just outside the boundary of this character area will have a visual influence on a small proportion of its central and eastern extents. Large scale woodland blocks and the undulation nature of the landform will limit the visual influence that the development imposes. In particular, a ridge that is located at the north- western extent of the site boundary limits views of the proposed development from this character area; and From the occasional locations that do have a view of the development, this will be largely limited to the upper storeys of the proposed CTH building. Given that there are no developments of this scale which are visible within this character area, it will have an influence on its landscape character.
7.6.26 In summary, the proposed development would form an apparent element from a limited extent of this character area which does exhibit limited intervisibility, therefore the degree of landscape change is considered to be Low.
7.6.27 The permanent development would alter a small extent of the host landscape character area and would therefore be considered to have a Localised geographical extent of change. The duration of change would be Permanent. The landscape change would be Reversible as the development would not directly alter this character area.
7.6.28 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there would be a Minor adverse level of landscape effect due to the proposed development. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Not Significant.
88 stridetreglown.com 16: Basingstoke Down
7.6.29 The defining characteristics of the landscape character area, 16: Basingstoke Down (located 0.6 km east of the site) that indicate its susceptibility to the type of changes associated with the proposed development are:
That it is predominantly large-scale open farmland lacking a distinctive sense of place which indicates low susceptibility; That it is a relatively open landscape, indicating medium susceptibility; It is a gently undulating landscape which indicates medium susceptibly; and That urban influences affect much of the area, such as: the adjacent town of Basingstoke; golf courses; a hospital to the north of Basingstoke; and the M3 motorway. This indicates low susceptibility.
7.6.30 Having considered all the above factors, the susceptibility of the landscape to the type of changes proposed is considered to be Low.
7.6.31 There are no landscape designations within this character area and the landscape is considered to be locally valued. The host landscape character area is therefore of Low value.
7.6.32 There would be no direct change to character area 16 as the development will be located outside its boundary, however there is potential for indirect effects due to a possible visual influence of the development on the character area. However, the locations from which there is potential visibility of the proposed development are likely to be limited in extent and would be within the very western extent of the character area. The degree of landscape change due to the introduction of the development located just outside the character area boundary is therefore expected to be Negligible.
7.6.33 Based on the judgement of degree of landscape change to this character area, it is considered that the effect will be Not Significant.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 89
Summary of Operational Landscape Effects (Prior to Mitigation)
7.6.34 Table 7.12 summarises these assessments:
Receptor Nature of receptor Nature of effect Level of effect / Significance Susceptibility Value Degree of Extent of Duration of Reversibility Change Change Change of Change
17: Dummer & Medium Medium High Medium Permanent Partially Major adverse/ Popham Down reversible Highly (Host Character Significant Area)
14: Oakley/ High High Low N/A Permanent Reversible Minor adverse/ Steventon Down Not significant
16: Basingstoke Low Low Negligible N/A N/A N/A Not Significant Down
Table 7.12: Summary of landscape effect during operation (prior to mitigation)
Visual Effects
7.6.35 Refer to Figures 7.4 and 7.5 which illustrate the location of visual receptors referred to here. In addition, Figure 7.6 illustrates a theoretical zone of visibility of the proposed development, i.e. a worst-case visual envelope.
7.6.36 The main visual effects during the operational phase of the proposed development, immediately following completion of construction operations, relate to the introduction of a large-scale built development into the existing view experienced by identified visual receptors and the subsequent effects on the visual amenity of those receptors. Given that the proposed development involves limited loss of arable landcover within the site, which is of low visual interest, and the majority of boundary hedgerow and trees will be retained, the visual effects primarily relate to the introduction of a large-scale built development into the view and a limited extent of removal of existing features which contribute to existing views. However, the loss of hedgerow, particularly in the eastern extent of the site will be acknowledged within relevant viewpoints.
7.6.37 The following section identifies the visual effects on representative viewpoints during the construction period. Plates are included within a separate Appendix.
Viewpoint 1: Road adjacent to site (0.0 km NE of the site) (refer to Plate 1.1)
7.6.38 The view is direct across the site, provided through a gap in boundary hedgerow planting at a field entrance. The site slopes down from this elevated position at its northern extent and is an open, arable landscape. Woodland bounds the western and south-eastern extents of the site. This viewpoint is considered to be of Low susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.39 Viewpoint 1 is representative of car users and cyclists on a local access road (Trenchard Lane), which is adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the site. There are no designated landscapes within the view and the ridgeline at the northern extent of the site screens long-range views. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
90 stridetreglown.com 7.6.40 The top three storeys of the CTH building will be visible from this location, above the intervening ridge line at the northern extent of the site which screens views of the majority of the proposed development. In addition there will be a glimpsed view of the stack in the eastern extent of the site and the very top level of the CTC building in the western part of the site. The proposed development will be prominent within the view from this location and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.41 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the road. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.42 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Moderate adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Highly Significant.
Viewpoint 2: Wayfarer’s Walk – East of Site (0.2 km E of the site) (refer to Plate 2-1).
7.6.43 The view from this footpath is across open arable farmland which is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees, restricting views of the site. The arable landcover within the site is screened by intervening vegetation. Vegetation consists mostly of native deciduous species and views of the site are more likely during winter months when trees are not in leaf. Some longer range views are possible of the rolling rural landscape in a south-westerly direction. This viewpoint is considered to be of Medium susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.44 This viewpoint is representative of users of a locally designated trail. There are no designated landscapes within the view. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.45 The upper storeys of the CTH building and stack will be visible from this location, through and behind the intervening vegetation. The proposed development will be prominent within the view of the rural landscape from this location and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.46 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the footpath. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.47 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Major adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Highly Significant.
Viewpoint 3: Wayfarer’s Walk – North of Site (0.5 km N of the site) (refer to Plate 3-1)
7.6.48 The view from this footpath is across undulating and open arable farmland which is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees. The site itself is screened from view due to the presence of a ridge at the northern extent of the site, however a line of hedgerow and occasional mature trees is visible on the northern boundary, marking its location. This viewpoint is considered to be of Medium susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.49 Viewpoint 3 is representative of users of a locally designated trail. There are no designated landscapes within the view. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 91
7.6.50 The highest two storeys of the CTH building will be visible from this location above the intervening ridgeline which is located at the northern extent of the site, which screens views of the majority of the proposed development. In addition there will be a glimpsed view of the stack which is located within the eastern extent of the site. The proposed development will be conspicuous within the view from this location and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.51 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the footpath. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.52 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Moderate adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Significant.
Viewpoint 4: New Cottages at Southwood Farm (0.0 km E of the site) (refer to Plate 4-1)
7.6.53 This viewpoint is located directly adjacent to the site and specifically the Trenchard Lane road works within its eastern extent. However, the focus of the description will be on the main body of the site, which is 0.2 km to the west of this location.
7.6.54 The view of the main body of the site from the ground floor of each these residential properties is screened by adjacent hedgerow and trees, however upper storey oblique views are possible across adjacent open arable farmland. The site is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees, restricting views of it. Vegetation consists mostly of native deciduous species and views of the site are more likely during winter months when trees are not in leaf. This viewpoint is considered to be of High susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.55 Viewpoint 4 is representative of a small cluster of residential properties. There are no designated landscapes within the view. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view which residents are assumed to value highly. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.56 As mentioned previously, the upgraded road works to Trenchard Lane, which is directly opposite this viewpoint, will be visible at close-range. The widening involves the loss of mature hedgerow on the northern extent of the road and the loss of part of the adjacent field, which is currently grassland. The upper storeys of the CTH building and stack will be visible from this location, above the intervening vegetation on road and field boundaries, which screens views of the majority of the proposed development. The proposed development would be visible on the skyline, however it would not appear notably overbearing at this distance due to the presence of surrounding mature tree cover within the view. The proposed development will be conspicuous within an oblique view from these properties, however the changes to Trenchard Lane, including loss of hedgerow, will be dominant in the view and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.57 The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.58 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Major adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Highly Significant.
92 stridetreglown.com Viewpoint 5: Footpath near to the Sun Inn (0.4 km SW of the site) (refer to Plate 5-1)
7.6.59 The view from this footpath is across open arable farmland which is bounded by mature hedgerow and trees. The arable landcover within the southern extent of the site is visible. Woodland copses are visible directly adjacent to the north-western and south-eastern corners of the site and there is a line of hedgerow and mature trees directly adjacent to this position which screens views of the nearby A30 road. Vegetation within the view consists mostly of native deciduous species therefore a view of the northern extent of the site is more likely during winter months when trees are not in leaf. This viewpoint is considered to be of Medium susceptibility to change.
7.6.60 Viewpoint 5 is representative of users of a footpath which links the A30 to the village of North Waltham. There are no designated landscapes within the view and it appears to experience limited usage. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.61 The majority of the development will be visible from this location due to the lack of intervening screening. In particular the main CTH building will be the focus of the view. In addition, the CTC building will be visible within the western extent of the site and the stack will be visible within the eastern extent. The development would partly set in front of a backdrop of woodland, however the upper three storeys of the CTH building and the stack in particular would be visible above the existing skyline formed by the landform and mature woodland, exposing it to a greater extent in the view. The development would form the dominant element in the view and will appear incongruous with the surrounding rural context. The degree of visual change due to the proposed development is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.62 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the footpath. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.63 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Major adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Highly Significant.
Viewpoint 6: Wayfarer’s Walk – South-east of Site (0.4 km SE of the site) (refer to Plate 6-1)
7.6.64 This viewpoint is from an extent of the Wayfarer’s Walk which is located beside an elevated roundabout at Junction 7 of the M3 motorway. Views are focused in a north-westerly direction towards the site. The arable landcover within the site is glimpsed amongst the surrounding mosaic of blocks of woodland and arable fields on a south-easterly facing slope. The A30 road is located just to the south of the site, however it is screened from view by adjacent woodland. This viewpoint is considered to be of Medium susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.65 Viewpoint 6 is representative of users of a locally designated trail. There are no designated landscapes within the view. There is a rural scenic context to the view, however the visual setting of this viewpoint is partly degraded by the directly adjacent roundabout and connecting A30 road, albeit which are visible in the opposite direction to the site. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Low.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 93
7.6.66 The CTH building and stack will be clearly visible on the skyline from this location, above the intervening ridgeline which is located at the northern extent of the site. The CTH building will form a conspicuous feature within the view, particularly because it will be a taller feature than adjacent woodland copses. The site broadly tilts to face this position and although there will be partial screening of the southern extent of the site due to intervening vegetation, ground level activity within the site, such as vehicle movements, will be visible from here. The proposed CTC building will be visible however it will be set against a backdrop of woodland planting which limits how conspicuous it would appear. The proposed development will be conspicuous within the view from this location and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.67 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the footpath. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.68 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Moderate adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Significant.
Viewpoint 7: Dummer (1.1 km S of the site) (refer to Plate 7-1)
7.6.69 This viewpoint is located directly adjacent to the rear of properties at the western extent of Dummer and affords views across the undulating landscape towards the site. The arable landcover within the site is glimpsed on a south-easterly facing slope amongst the surrounding mosaic of blocks of woodland and other arable fields. The A30 road and M3 motorway are located in the intervening landscape to the site, however they are glimpsed through intervening vegetation, with summer views almost entirely screened. This viewpoint is considered to be of High susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.70 Viewpoint 7 is representative of views from the northern extent of a small settlement. There are no designated landscapes within the view. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view which residents are assumed to value highly. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.71 The upper storeys of the CTH building and stack will be visible on the skyline from this location, above the intervening vegetation on road and field boundaries, which screens much of the proposed development from view. Lower level development, such as car parks and roads, will be effectively screened by intervening vegetation. The CTC building within the western extent of the site, will be visible, however it will be set below a backdrop of the undulating landform and woodland cover. The proposed development will be conspicuous from these properties and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.72 The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.73 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Moderate adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Significant.
Viewpoint 8: Wayfarer’s Walk - M3 Overbridge (1.0 km E of the site) (refer to Plate 8-1)
7.6.74 This viewpoint is located on an overbridge, crossing the M3 motorway. Views are directly along the motorway. Views out towards the site are screened by mature vegetation adjacent to the motorway. This viewpoint is considered to be of Low susceptibility to visual change.
94 stridetreglown.com 7.6.75 Viewpoint 8 is representative of users of a local public right of way which passes over the M3 motorway. There are no designated landscapes within the view and it appears to experience limited usage. The visual setting can be considered to be degraded by the M3 motorway. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Low.
7.6.76 The development will be entirely screened from this location due to screening effect of intervening vegetation. There will therefore be No Change to the view.
Viewpoint 9: Foxhall (2.4 km ESE of the site) Refer to Plate 9-1.
7.6.77 This viewpoint is located at the highest part of the study area and views out are across an undulating landscape which has a high level of woodland cover and arable farmland. The site is screened from view by intervening vegetation and it is assumed that winter views would not be possible given the density of the intervening vegetation. This viewpoint is considered to be of Medium susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.78 Viewpoint 9 is representative of users of a local road within the highest part of the study area. There are no designated landscapes within the view. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.79 The development will be entirely screened from this location due to screening effect of intervening vegetation. There will therefore be No Change to the view.
Viewpoint 10: Bridleway, Basingstoke (1.7 km NE of the site) (refer to Plate 10-1)
7.6.80 This viewpoint is from a bridleway, adjacent to the residential properties within the south- western extent of Basingstoke, however given the enclosed nature of the residential areas, this location is not representative of views from properties. The view towards the site is screened by intervening vegetation and landform undulations. This viewpoint is considered to be of Low susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.81 Viewpoint 10 is representative of users of a public right of way directly adjacent to the largest settlement within the study area. There are no designated landscapes within the view. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is both a rural and urban context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Low.
7.6.82 The development will be entirely screened from this location due to screening effect of intervening vegetation. There will therefore be No Change to the view.
Viewpoint 11: Beside Ganderdown Copse (0.0 km E of the site) (refer to Plate 11.1)
7.6.83 The view is direct across the site, provided through a gap in boundary hedgerow planting at a field entrance. The site slopes up from this lower position at its eastern extent and is an open, arable landscape. Woodland bounds the south-eastern extents of the site, in close proximity to this viewpoint. This viewpoint is considered to be of Low susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.84 Viewpoint 1 is representative of car users and cyclists on a local access road (Trenchard Lane), which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. There are no designated landscapes within the view and adjacent woodland cover and the landform undulations screen long-range views. However, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 95
7.6.85 The side access point into the site and the ambulance station will be visible at close-range from this location. In addition there will be a view of the CTH building behind the ambulance station. The proposed development will be prominent within the view from this location given its proximity and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be High.
7.6.86 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the road. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.87 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Moderate adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Significant.
Viewpoint 12: Maidenthorn Lane, North Waltham (1.3 km SW of the site) (refer to Plate 12-1)
7.6.88 This view is from a local access road which leads south from North Waltham village. Views out from the road are largely screened by adjacent hedgerow, however this viewpoint provides a rare gap in the hedgerow. The view in an easterly direction towards the site is across an undulating arable landscape. Large woodland blocks define the skyline and are particularly visible in proximity to the site. There are a small cluster of farm buildings located at the base of the valley to the south-east of this location and the M3 motorway is glimpsed. This viewpoint is considered to be of Low susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.89 Viewpoint 12 is representative of car users and cyclists on a local access road, which leads to North Waltham. There are no designated landscapes within the view, however, the visual setting cannot be considered to be degraded and there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.
7.6.90 The side western elevation of the proposed development from this location and in particular the upper storeys of the CTH building. However, the development will be in line with surrounding woodland, i.e. it will not breach the visible skyline. The proposed development will form an apparent, small element within the view from this location, which does include the M3 motorway to the south-east, and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be Low.
7.6.91 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the road. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.92 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Minor adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Not Significant.
Viewpoint 13: North Wessex Downs AONB (5.1 km NW of the site) (refer to Plate 13-1)
7.6.93 This view is from a public right of way. Views out are in south-easterly direction with views to the west and north screened by the landform and woodland. The view in a south-easterly direction towards the site is across an undulating landscape which consists of arable land and large woodland blocks. Woodland cover defines the skyline and is particularly visible in proximity to the site. The site itself is screened from view at this considerable distance (5.1 km) due to screening by intervening landform and woodland. This viewpoint is considered to be of Medium susceptibility to visual change.
7.6.94 Viewpoint 13 is representative of users of a right of way which is within a designated landscape, i.e. the Wessex Downs AONB. In addition, there is a rural scenic context to the view. The visual amenity value of this receptor is therefore considered to be High.
96 stridetreglown.com 7.6.95 The upper level of the proposed development, i.e. the CTH building and stack, will be glimpsed at long range on the skyline from this location, above the intervening landform undulations and high level of woodland cover. Considering the distance from the site, the proposed development will form an apparent, small element within the view and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be Low.
7.6.96 The geographical extent of visual change would be limited to a Localised extent of the footpath and AONB. The duration of visual change will be Permanent. The visual change will also be theoretically Reversible.
7.6.97 Combining all of these criteria, it is considered that there will be a Minor adverse level of visual effect during operation. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Not Significant.
Summary of Visual Effects during Operation (Prior to Mitigation)
7.6.98 Table 7.13 summarises the visual effects on representative viewpoints:
Receptor Nature of receptor Nature of effect Level of effect / Significance Susceptibility Value Degree of Extent of Duration Reversibility Change Change of Change of Change
VP1 Low Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible Moderate adverse/ Significant
VP2 Medium Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible Major adverse/ Highly Significant
VP3 Medium Med. Medium Localised Perm. Reversible Moderate adverse/ Significant
VP4 High High High Localised Perm. Reversible Major adverse/ Highly Significant
VP5 Medium Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible Major adverse/ Highly Significant
VP6 Medium Low Medium Localised Perm. Reversible Moderate adverse/ Significant
VP7 High High Medium Localised Perm. Reversible Moderate adverse/ Significant
VP8 Low Low No change N/A N/A N/A No change
VP9 Medium Med. No change N/A N/A N/A No change
VP10 Low Low No change N/A N/A N/A No change
VP11 Low Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible Moderate adverse/ Significant
VP12 Low Med. Low Localised Perm. Reversible Minor adverse/ Not Significant
VP13 Medium High Low Localised Perm. Reversible Minor adverse/ Not Significant
Table 13: Summary of visual effect during operation (prior to mitigation)
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 97
7.6.99 The representative viewpoints represent a range of visual receptor types, viewing distances and viewing directions within the study area. In consideration of the residential receptors within the study area, which have been identified as being the highest sensitivity receptors in this study, the following locations have been identified as experiencing significant visual effects:
A highly significant effect on nearby cottages at Southwood Farm (Viewpoint 4); and A significant effect on properties within the northern extent of Dummer (Viewpoint 7). This mostly refers to a rear, upper storey view from properties.
7.6.100 It should be noted that that no significant effects have been identified on any other settlements within the study area, i.e. North Waltham, Oakley and Basingstoke.
7.6.101 In addition to the identified significant effects on residential receptors, the following significant visual effects have been identified on publicly accessible locations:
A significant effect on locations on Trenchard Lane (Viewpoints 1 and 11); Significant and Highly Significant effects on locations on the Wayfarer’s Walk (Viewpoints 2, 3 and 6); A significant visual effect on a footpath located 0.4 km south-west of the site (Viewpoint 5); and There is also potential for a Significant effect on a small extent of the A30 as it passes directly past the site. This is a high speed road and road users are considered to be of Low susceptibility to change, however there is potential for a High degree of change as road users pass the site which indicates the potential for a Significant effect. No significant effect has been identified on the M3 motorway due to the level of screening provided by adjacent embankments and vegetation and the subsequent limited extents which have views of the site.
7.6.102 It should also be noted that no significant visual effect has been identified on locations within the North Wessex Downs AONB.
7.6.103 In summary, the scale of the proposed development and the lack of similar development within the study area been assessed as giving rise to likely significant and highly significant visual effects on residential receptors, roads and public rights of way. However, it is of note that the identified significant and highly significant visual effects are located within a maximum 1.1 km radius of the site and screening is provided by landform undulations and woodland cover within the wider study area. The screening effect of the landform and woodland cover is illustrated in the ZTV, Figure 7.6, which demonstrates that the northern, western and southern extents of the 3.0 km study area would experience very limited views of the proposed development.
Proposed Mitigation
7.6.104 Refer to Figure 7.7 for an illustration of the proposed landscape and mitigation for the site.
98 stridetreglown.com
Figure 7.6 – zone of Theoretical Visbilibty
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 99
Figure 7.7 Landscape and Visual Mitigation 100 7.6.105 Landscape and visual mitigation proposals have been developed from an early stage of the proposed masterplan for the site and are therefore integral to the overall proposal. As previously mentioned, boundary hedgerow and trees are to be retained with only limited losses to allow for access points into the site. Existing hedgerows will be reinforced and extended on the majority of boundaries of the site with appropriate native species. New belts of woodland are to be planted on the perimeter of the site, the aim of which is to create a ‘woodland ring’ around the hospital buildings. The woodland planting on the perimeter of the site is intended to provide landscape and visual mitigation of the proposed built development and integrate the proposal into its wooded surroundings. Given that the site is currently an open arable field, the proposed woodland planting will significant increase the number of trees here.
7.6.106 Tree planting, which will be carried out immediately following the completion of construction of the proposed development, will consist of 20% of larger tree stock, including a proportion of approximately 3.0 to 4.0 m high standard trees. This is intended to instantly provide a level of visible planting on the site and filter some close range views of the lower portions of the development, including access roads. The remainder of the tree planting within the site will be a mixture of smaller feathered trees and transplants.
7.6.107 Full details of planting proposals are provided in the Stage 3 Report: Volume 3: Landscape Architecture, however the key species proposed for woodland areas on site are:
Fagus sylvatica (Beech); Quercus robur (Oak); Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam); Tilia cordata (Lime); Populus tremula (Aspen); Pinus sylvestris (Scots Pine); Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir); and Betula pendula (Silver Birch).
7.6.108 Proposed hedgerow and scrub edge species include:
Crataegus monogyna (Hawthorn); Acer campestre (Field maple); and Ilex aquifolium (Holly).
7.6.109 There is a focus on the selection of native species for planting proposals, however consistency has been sought with trees which are found within the locality of the site which does include non-native species, particularly with regards to evergreen planting which is included for its all year round screening effect and ability to act as a shelterbelt.
7.7. Residual Effects
7.7.1 Residual effects are assessed within this section at Year 1, i.e. immediately following the implementation of proposed planting, and at Year 15, i.e. once planting has reached a level of maturity such that it would provide landscape and visual mitigation of the Proposed Development as intended in its original design.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 101
Landscape
7.7.2 The planting proposals for the site will create a ‘woodland ring’ around the buildings within the site. The inclusion of a proportion of tree stock of up to approximately 4.0 m in height will provide a level of instant visual effect at Year 1 and will contribute to a partial integration of the development into the surrounding character, which does include numerous woodland copses. This measure has the potential to enhance landscape elements on site.
7.7.3 Proposed mitigation planting which will be located on the perimeter of the site has been described previously in the Assessment Parameters section of this report. Approximately 15 years post completion of the development the planting is expected to have reached a level of maturity such that it will provide mitigation of operational landscape effects of the proposed development. Proposed planting will integrate the proposed development into the surrounding landscape character through:
the limiting of the influence that the development has on the surrounding character due to the screening effect of the planting proposals; and enhancement of the site through the inclusion of appropriate woodland and species and increase of the volume and quality of landscape elements on site.
17: Dummer & Popham Down (Host Character Area)
7.7.4 Considering the host landscape character area, woodland planting proposals on the perimeter of the site have the potential to reduce the level of landscape effect which was identified prior to implementation of mitigation. This was identified as being: a High degree of change; and a Major Adverse level of effect, which is Highly Significant.
7.7.5 At Year 1, given the height and scale of the proposed CTH building in particular, the proposed planting will have a limited effect in screening the development in views from within the character area, other than from the directly adjacent local access road (Trenchard Lane) which is in such proximity that woodland planting will partially screen views into the site. Proposed woodland planting therefore primarily refers to an enhancement of landscape features on site, assisting in integrating the proposed development into the host character area which does include a number of woodland copses. At Year 1 the proposals will have a limited effect in integrating the development when compared to mature woodland within the host character area. It remains therefore that there would be: a High degree of landscape change; and a Major Adverse level of effect, which is Highly Significant.
7.7.6 At Year 15, the degree of change due to the proposed development will reduce to Medium due to the establishment of the woodland planting proposals which will integrate the development partially into its surroundings. The level of effect is considered to be Moderate Adverse and this will be as Significant.
14: Oakley/ Steventon Down
7.7.7 It remains that there will be no direct change to character area 14 at Years 1 and 15 as the development will be located outside its boundary, however likely indirect operational effects have been identified due to the visual influence of the development on the character area.
7.7.8 Prior to the establishment of mitigation: the degree of change was identified as being Low; and the level of effect Minor adverse, which is Not Significant.
102 stridetreglown.com 7.7.9 At Year 1, the planting will not have reached a level of maturity such that it will mitigate the landscape effects on this character area and there will be no alteration from the assessment of effect prior to the implementation of mitigation. The Year 1 operational degree of change identified is primarily due to the visibility of the upper levels of the CTH building from parts of the character area and at Year 15 planting which is located on the northern boundary of the site will screen views of the proposed development from locations which will experience views at Year 1. In addition, the woodland planting will be consistent with views of surrounding woodland copses. At Year 15, the degree of landscape change due to the proposed development will therefore reduce to Negligible due to the establishment of the woodland planting proposals. This remains as Not Significant.
16: Basingstoke Down
7.7.10 A Negligible level of effect was identified prior to the implementation of mitigation due to the limited visibility of the proposed development. At Years 1 and 15, the Negligible level of effect due to the proposed development will remain, despite the establishment of woodland around the perimeter of the site. This remains as Not Significant.
Summary of Residual Landscape Effects
7.7.11 Table 7.14 summarises these considerations:
Receptor Nature of receptor Nature of effect Level of effect / Significance Susceptibility Value Degree of Extent Duration of Reversibility Change of Change of Change Change
17: Dummer Medium Medium High Medium Permanent Partially Major adverse/ & Popham reversible Highly Down (Host Significant Character Area) Year 1
17: Dummer Medium Medium Medium Medium Permanent Partially Moderate & Popham reversible adverse/ Down (Host Significant Character Area) Year 15
14: Oakley/ High High Low N/A N/A N/A Not significant Steventon Down
14: Oakley/ High High Negligible N/A N/A N/A Not significant Steventon Down
16: Low Low Negligible N/A N/A N/A Not Significant Basingstoke Down
16: Low Low Negligible N/A N/A N/A Not Significant Basingstoke Down
Table 14: Summary of residual landscape effect
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 103
Visual
7.7.12 At Year 1, proposed mitigation planting will be implemented at a maximum height of 4.0 m, with the majority of mitigation planting being less than 0.5 m in height. Approximately 15 years post completion of the development, proposed planting is expected to have reached a level of maturity such that it will provide mitigation of operational visual effects of the proposed development. Proposed planting will provide a visual screen to some views of the proposed development and will visually integrate the proposed development into the surrounding context. The following provides an assessment of the visual effects of the proposed development on representative viewpoints at Years 1 and 15 post completion of the proposed development:
Viewpoint 1
7.7.13 At Year 1, newly planted trees within the northern extent of the site will partially filter views of the CTH building and stack. Despite the filtering to the view of tree planting in close proximity to this viewpoint, the proposed development will be conspicuous within the view from this location and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to reduce to Medium, the level of effect Minor Adverse and the significance of effect Not Significant.
7.7.14 At Year 15, the degree of change to the view from Viewpoint will reduce to Low due to the limited visibility of the proposed buildings within the site. Proposed mitigation planting at the northern extent of the site will have reached a level of maturity which will effectively screen the buildings within the site from view. The introduction of woodland planting will complement nearby woodland copses, however it will restrict views across open fields. The level of effect is therefore considered to be Minor Adverse which is Not Significant.
Viewpoint 2
7.7.15 At Year 1, trees and hedgerow located on an intervening field boundary will continue to screen the view of the majority of the proposed development including ground level features such as car parks and public spaces. However, the proposed development will remain prominent within the view of the rural landscape from this location and the degree of visual change is therefore considered to be High, the level of effect Major Adverse and the significance of effect Highly Significant.
7.7.16 At Year 15, proposed mitigation planting on the eastern perimeter of the site will not provide a screen to views of the upper storeys of the CTH building and the stack. It therefore remains that there will be a Major adverse level of visual effect at Year 15. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will remain as Highly Significant.
Viewpoint 3
7.7.17 At Year 1, the proposed planting will cause a negligible reduction in the degree of change that was identified prior to the implementation of mitigation. The degree of change therefore remains as Medium; the level of effect Moderate Adverse, which is Significant.
7.7.18 At Year 15, the degree of change to the view from Viewpoint will reduce to Low due to the limited visibility of the proposed buildings within the site. Proposed mitigation planting at the northern extent of the site will have reached a level of maturity which will effectively screen the buildings within the site from view. The introduction of woodland planting will complement nearby woodland copses and does not disrupt any long-range views, and it will enhance the view to a limited extent. The level of effect is therefore considered to be Neutral which is Not Significant.
Viewpoint 4
7.7.19 A Major adverse level of visual effect was identified prior to the implementation of mitigation.
104 stridetreglown.com 7.7.20 At Years 1 and 15, proposed mitigation planting on the eastern perimeter of the site will not provide a screen to views of the upper storeys of the CTH building, ambulance building and the stack, although at Year 15 it is acknowledged that hedgerow would be fully mature and established along the widened Trenchard Lane.
7.7.21 Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect at Years 1 and 15 will remain as Major Adverse, which is Highly Significant.
Viewpoint 5
7.7.22 Prior to implementation of mitigation, a Major Adverse and Highly Significant effect was identified.
7.7.23 At Year 1, newly planted trees will be visible within the southern and western extents of the site, however they will be of limited height at this stage and will contribute to a limited extent of screening within this view. The degree of change will therefore remain as High; the level of effect Major Adverse, which is Highly Significant.
7.7.24 At Year 15, proposed mitigation planting on the western perimeter of the site will provide a screen to views of the lower level activity within the site, such as vehicle movements and pedestrian areas, therefore the degree of change is considered to reduce to Medium. However, upper storeys of the CTH building, ambulance building and the stack will remain as the focus of views of the proposed development It therefore is considered that at Year 15 there will be a Moderate adverse level of visual effect at Year 15. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will be Significant.
Viewpoint 6
7.7.25 At Year 1 and Year 15, proposed mitigation planting within the southern and eastern extents of the site will not provide a screen to views of the upper storeys of the CTH building and the stack. It therefore remains that there will be: a Medium degree of change; a Moderate adverse level of visual effect, which is Significant.
Viewpoint 7
7.7.26 At Year 1 and Year 15, proposed mitigation planting within the southern and western extents of the site will limit views of lower levels of the development and of ground level activity (vehicle movements). However, it will not provide a screen to views of the upper storeys of the CTH building and the stack. It therefore remains at Years 1 and 15 that there will be: a Medium degree of change; a Moderate adverse level of visual effect, which is Significant.
Viewpoint 8, 9 and 10
7.7.27 At Years 1 and 15, it remains that there will be No Change to the view.
Viewpoint 11
7.7.28 The view from Viewpoint 11 will remain unaltered at Years 1 and 15 as it is a direct view through a proposed entrance and mitigation planting will have a limited effect on it. It therefore remains at Years 1 and 15 that there will be: a High degree of change; and a Moderate Adverse effect, which is Significant.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 105
Viewpoint 12
7.7.29 At Years 1 and 15, proposed mitigation planting within the western extent of the site will not provide a screen to views of the upper storeys of the CTH building and the stack. It therefore remains at Years 1 and 15 that there will be a Minor adverse level of visual effect at Year 15. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will remain as Not Significant.
Viewpoint 13
7.7.30 At Years 1 and 15, proposed mitigation planting within the northern extents of the site will not provide a screen to views of the upper storeys of the CTH building and the stack from this long- range viewpoint. It therefore remains at Years 1 and 15 that there will be: a Low degree of change; a Minor adverse level of visual effect at Year 15. Based on the judgement on the level of effect, it is considered that the effect will remain as Not Significant.
Summary of Visual Effects during Operation (Post-mitigation)
7.7.31 Table 7.15 summarises the visual effects on representative viewpoints following implementation of mitigation, at both Years 1 and 15:
106 stridetreglown.com Receptor Year Nature of receptor Nature of effect Summary of Level of effect / Significance Susceptibility Value Degree of Extent of Duration of Reversibility of Change Change Change Change
VP1 1 Low Med. Medium Localised Perm. Reversible Reduction to Minor Adverse (Not Significant) in Year 1 and Year 15 15 Low Med. Low Localised Perm. Reversible
VP2 1 Medium Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15, i.e. a Major adverse and Highly 15 Medium Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible Significant effect
VP3 1 Medium Med. Medium Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Year 1 (Moderate adverse/ Significant) Reduction at Year 15 to Neutral Not 15 Medium Med. Low Localised Perm. Reversible Significant
VP4 1 High High High Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15, 15 High High High Localised Perm. Reversible i.e. a Major adverse and Highly Significant effect
VP5 1 Medium Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Year 1 (Major adverse/ Highly Significant). Reduction at Year 15 to Major 15 Medium Med. Medium Localised Perm. Reversible adverse / Significant
VP6 1 Medium Low Medium Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 15 Medium Low Medium Localised Perm. Reversible i.e. a Moderate adverse and Significant effect
VP7 1 High High Medium Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 i.e. a Moderate adverse and 15 High High Medium Localised Perm. Reversible Significant effect
VP8 1 Low Low No change N/A N/A N/A
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 107
15 Low Low No change N/A N/A N/A No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15, i.e. No effect
VP9 1 Medium Med. No change N/A N/A N/A No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 15 Medium Med. No change N/A N/A N/A i.e. No effect
VP10 1 Low Low No change N/A N/A N/A No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 15 Low Low No change N/A N/A N/A i.e. No effect
VP11 1 Low Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 15 Low Med. High Localised Perm. Reversible i.e. a Moderate adverse and Significant effect
VP12 1 Low Med. Low Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 15 Low Med. Low Localised Perm. Reversible i.e. a Minor adverse and Not Significant effect
VP13 1 Medium High Low Localised Perm. Reversible No change to assessment at Years 1 and 15 15 Medium High Low Localised Perm. Reversible i.e. a Minor adverse and Not Significant effect
Table 15: Summary of residual visual effect (post-mitigation)
108 8. Ecology and Nature Conservation Effects
8.1. Introduction
8.1.1 This Chapter has been produced by Ecosulis Ltd on behalf of Stride Treglown to accompany a planning application for the construction of the new Hampshire Critical Treatment Hospital, Basingstoke. It summarises the ecological baseline conditions established through desk studies and field surveys between May 2014 and due for completion in July 2015, and then assesses the likely significant impacts of the development. Where these are assessed as significant, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or offset these impacts. Proposals are also included to ensure the development incorporates biodiversity enhancing features.
8.1.2 This report should be read in combination with Technical Appendix 8.1 – Baseline Ecology Report and Technical Appendix 8.2 – Detailed Ecological Impact Assessment.
8.2. Policy/Legislative Context
Planning and Biodiversity
8.2.1 Local authorities have a requirement to consider biodiversity and geological conservation issues when determining planning applications under the following:
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006); The Habitats Directive (EC Directive 9243/EEC); Environmental Impact Assessment (85/337/EEC as amended by directive 97/11/EC); Strategic Environmental Assessment (2001/42/EEC); and The Environment Act (1995).
8.2.2 And also the following planning policies:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG 2012); ODPM circular 06/2005 (Defra Circular 01/2005); and ODPM (March 2006) Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.
Legislation and policy documents
8.2.3 Relevant legislation and policy that have been consulted are detailed below:
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; The Protection of Badgers Act 1992; The Hedgerow Regulations 1997; National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG 2012);
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 109
UK BAP; and Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
8.3. Method
Desk Study
8.3.1 Hampshire Biodiversity Records Centre was asked to provide any information on species records within 2km of the site (within 4km for bats) and non-statutory site designations within 2km of the site (within 4km for bats)
Field Survey
8.3.2 A Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken by Ecosulis in May 2014. Additional Phase 2 surveys were undertaken by Ecosulis between May and November 2014. Dormouse surveys are on- going and will be completed in July 2015. A summary of the field surveys and methodologies undertaken is located within table x.1 below. Detailed methodologies are provided within Technical Appendix 8.1.
Survey Date Methods
Extended Phase 1 May 2014 Extended Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out Habitat Survey in accordance with JNCC (2010).
Hedgerow Survey May (main site) and The field survey information was used to identify September (additional area) those hedgerows that are ecologically important 2014 under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, those qualifying under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) and included with the BAP for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
Badger Survey May 2014 The survey followed recommended guidelines in Harris et al. (1989).
Bat Activity Survey September 2014 Bat surveys were undertaken based on current best practice guidance by BCT (2012), English Nature (20014) and JNCC (2004).
Dormouse Nest Tube September 2014 – Spring Survey methods followed those given in the Survey 2015 Dormouse Conservation Handbook (English Nature, 2006).
GCN Habitat Suitability May 2014 The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for the great Assessment (HSI) crested newt was developed by Oldham et al. (2000) and was applied according to guidance set out by the National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme (NARRS 2007).
Table 8.1 – Summary of field surveys and methodologies undertaken to date.
Assessment
8.3.3 The assessment and terminology used in the main body of this Chapter is based on guidelines issued by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) in 2006. Where required, the terminology has been adapted for consistency with other disciplines contributing to this Environmental Statement.
110 stridetreglown.com 8.3.4 The value assigned to habitats and species (features) adopts the recommendations for evaluating habitats given in the CIEEM guidelines (2006). The geographical value categories used in this assessment are: International (i.e. Europe), UK, National (i.e. England), Regional (South East) County (Berkshire), District (Maidenhead), Local (Bray Road), and Site (i.e. immediately within the zone of influence only).
8.3.5 An assessment of the presence of animal activity is based on visual evidence at the time of the survey, and apparent suitability of habitats present within the survey area. The assessment also considers the surrounding land and level of connectivity.
8.3.6 Refer to Technical Appendix 8.1 for the rationale for values assigned to each feature.
Significance Assessment
8.3.7 In assessing significance, the CIEEM guidelines suggest making a decision about whether an impact is positive, neutral or negative and significant or not independent of the value of the receptor. In the first place, significance is determined at the geographical level at which the receptor has been valued. If an impact is found not to be significant at this level, it is then considered at progressively lower levels.
8.3.8 The significance of the impacts has been assessed for each ecological receptor in the form of habitats and species from both the construction and the operation phases of the proposed development. The full range of effects from all stages of the development and their impacts on each of the ecological receptors identified at the site is set out within the text.
8.3.9 In order to provide consistency with other disciplines, the following terms are given below, to allow comparison.
8.3.10 If significant, the impact is identified as positive, negligible or negative.
Beneficial – advantageous or positive impact to an ecological receptor Negligible/Insignificant (neutral) – an effect that is likely to have a negligible influence, irrespective of other effects Adverse – detrimental or negative impact to an ecological receptor
8.3.11 Refer to Technical Appendix 8.2 for the detailed assessment methodology
Receptors
8.3.12 The following are identified as receptors and considered to be part of the EIA process:
Badgers; Bats; Dormice; Small mammals; Reptiles; and Amphibians.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 111
8.4. Baseline
General Description of the Site
8.4.1 The site comprises an arable field that is under active management with limited margins. Hedgerows bound the site, and a small hard-standing track is present along the north-eastern boundary of the site. The site is centred on OS grid reference SU 582 474 and covers approximately 23ha.
8.4.2 Two small woodland copses are present immediately adjacent to the site, adjacent to the north- west and south-east corners of the site. The M3 and A30 lie immediately south-east, and fields lie beyond the other boundaries of the site.
Designated Sites
8.4.3 There are no statutory designations located within 2km of the site (5km for bats) and thirteen SINC’s (Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation). The majority of the SINC’s include areas of ancient woodland, either semi-natural or replanted and the closest of these, Ganderdown Copse, is directly adjacent to the site to the south. Pardown Copse and Small’s Copse lie 1.2km to the north and Peak Copse lies 275m to the south east. Both SINC’s have records of dormice.
Habitats
8.4.4 A summary of habitat and species descriptions and assessment is provided within table 8.2. For a full description of habitats and species recorded on site, please refer to Technical Appendix 8.1.
Feature Qualifying Criteria Ecological Value
Habitats
Arable (includes The site comprises a large arable field currently under active management. Very Site Value improved grassland limited field margins are present. field margins) Limited opportunities for protected species. Common and widespread in the local area.
Hard-standing Generally subject to high levels of disturbance, providing no suitable habitat for Negligible (Includes small wildlife Value area of improved Common and widespread in the local area grassland)
Hedgerow Hedgerows on site are currently well-managed, but form part of the wider hedgerow Local Value (includes standard network therefore providing good opportunities for protected species trees) Common and widespread in the local area
Species
Badger One badger sett was recorded on site, and one off-site during the survey. No Local Value evidence of recent activity was noted, however some clear entrances are present. Hedgerows provide suitable foraging and commuting opportunities for badgers in combination with adjacent habitats. Woodland habitats immediately adjacent to the site provide high quality habitat for badgers.
112 stridetreglown.com Bats No evidence of roosting bats on site. Foraging and commuting bat activity has been Local Value recorded along the hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the access road including Barbastelle. Suitable foraging / commuting opportunities and opportunities within trees for roosting bats are present.
Dormice Woodland habitats provide suitable opportunities for dormice. Local Value (pending full No evidence of dormice activity has been recorded during surveys undertaken to survey data) date and therefore it is unlikely that dormouse is present. However, for the purpose of this assessment dormouse presence has been assumed in the absence of completed survey data.
Other Small No evidence of small mammals on site. Site Value Mammals Suitable foraging, commuting and refuge habitats for small mammals.
Birds Suitable opportunities for breeding birds, within hedgerows and foraging habitat Site Value within arable fields and hedgerows on site.
Reptiles No evidence of reptiles on site. Site Value Suitability for common reptiles on field margins
Amphibians No records of great crested newts on site, and no suitable breeding habitat Site Value apparent within 500m of the site. Limited suitability for great crested newts. Suitable terrestrial habitat for other common amphibians
Invertebrates Limited suitable opportunities for notable invertebrates on site. Site Value
Table 8.2 – Evaluation of Component Habitats and Species Assemblages
Mitigation
Potential Construction Phase and Operational Phase Impacts on Receptors (in the absence of mitigation)
8.4.5 The potential impacts of the proposed construction phase and operational phase of development on key ecological features and in the absence of mitigation are summarised within table 8.3 below.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 113
Feature Construction Phase Operational Phase
Designated sites No statutory site designations are located within 2km of the site (4km for The proposals for the site are unlikely to increase recreational pressures bats). on the SINC as hospital users are unlikely to access adjacent habitats. In addition, recreational areas will be provided within the site boundaries
further reducing the likelihood of adjacent habitats being disturbed. There A total of 13 SINC’s are present within 2km of the site. The closes of is a risk of indirect impacts at the operational phase, including changes to these, Ganderdown Copse, is directly adjacent to the site to the south and local hydrology and increased litter. designated for woodland habitats. Pardown Copse and Small’s Copse lie
1.2km to the north and Peak Copse lies 275m to the south east. Both SINC’s have records of dormice. It is not anticipated that the operation of the development will directly or indirectly impact other designated sites within 2km of the site.
Whilst these sites are not within the construction boundary for the site, in the absence of mitigation there is a risk that construction works may indirectly affect Ganderdown Copse SINC. Indirect impacts could include pollution from dust and litter, compaction of roots and disturbance from construction machinery and works, increased light and noise levels, and possible alterations in hydrology.
It is not anticipated that construction works will directly or indirectly impact other designated sites within 2km of the site due to their distance from the site.
Arable The scheme would result in the loss of all arable land on site, Arable land will be lost at the construction phase of development, and no approximately 21.3ha. This habitat is subject to regular disturbance from new arable habitat is proposed. As a result there are no anticipated its current agricultural use, including ploughing. As a result, arable land impacts at the operational Phase. provides very limited opportunities for wildlife.
Hard-standing The hard-standing track in the north of the site will be retained within the The hard-standing track in the north of the site will be retained within the scheme, as this provides arable access to adjacent land areas. Current scheme, as this provides arable access to adjacent land areas. It is not disturbance levels from farm vehicles limits opportunities for wildlife. anticipated that disturbance levels to this habitat will increase, as access roads to the hospital will be provided elsewhere within the scheme. Current disturbance levels from farm vehicles limits opportunities for wildlife.
114 Hedgerows Road widening in the east of the site will result in the loss of approximately No further removal of hedgerows is anticipated during the operation phase 600m of UK BAP and ecologically important hedgerow to development. of the scheme. Potential indirect impacts resulting from the scheme The scheme includes the retention of 1500m of hedgerow around the include disturbance from pedestrians, inappropriate management boundaries of the site. techniques, and pollution from litter.
In the absence of suitable protection measures, there is a risk of direct and indirect impacts on retained hedgerows including root damage and compaction from machinery, and pollution from litter and dust.
Badgers One outlier sett was recorded on woodland edge habitat in the east of the Hedgerows connecting to adjacent woodland will be retained within the site. Green buffers, including hedgerows and buffers, and woodland edge scheme, therefore maintaining opportunities for foraging and commuting habitats, will also be retained on the boundaries of the site to maintain badgers in the long-term. Whilst central areas of the site will be subject to foraging and commuting routes within the scheme. All arable land high levels of disturbance from vehicles, pedestrians and lightingand will (ploughed land) on site will be lost to development, however this provides be a well-managed environment, green buffers on the periphery will limited opportunities for foraging badgers. Adjacent habitats provide high provide high quality habitat for badgers. Existing arable land will be quality habitat for badgers, including sett habitat within woodlands, and replaced with new woodland planting, grassland seeding, and wildflower foraging and commuting opportunities. The habitats on site are likely to areas. This will significantly enhance the foraging and commuting form a small part of a wider badger territory with setts present off-site. opportunities for badgers in the local area. Badger territories vary greatly in size but a typical area in southern
England is around 70ha (Clark, 1994). The proposals will result in the loss of approximately 21.3ha of arable land, which would form around 30% of a Indirect impacts on badgers include increased disturbance to boundary typical badger territory, however arable land provides low quality habitat habitats from noise, lighting, and pollution from litter. for badgers.
The new development will bring an increased amount of vehicular traffic to Indirect impacts to foraging and commuting badgers include increased the east of the site. The scheme includes minor access roads which will lighting levels disrupting foraging behaviour and open trenches posing as not be used by high speed traffic and are unlikely to be used regularly at a trap hazard for badgers. Construction traffic may increase the risk of night; therefore the increased risk of road mortality is considered to be low. road mortality on the site; however, access roads are unlikely to be used at night at the construction phase of development, therefore reducing this risk to badgers.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 115
Bats Boundary habitats will be retained within the scheme, including the The operational phase of development will result in increased light levels majority of hedgerows and retained trees (1500m to be retained, 71% of within the central areas of the site, and boundaries if lighting levels are hedgerows on site). These will maintain suitable foraging and commuting unmitigated. This will include lighting within car parks and access roads. opportunities for bats in the local area. The works will involve the removal The proposals include the creation of additional woodland, grassland and of one stretch of hedgerow in the east of the site to allow for the widening scrub planting within buffers and open space habitat around the of the road (600m to be lost). This could result in a loss of connectivity for boundaries of the new site. New green and brown roof habitat is also foraging and commuting bats along this boundary, although connectivity proposed. These areas will provide high quality foraging and commuting will be retained in the wider area through adjacent hedgerows. The opportunities for bats. Unmitigated there is a risk of light spill onto these scheme will also result in the loss of approximately 21.3ha of arable land. areas which could impact on foraging and commuting behaviour. Arable habitat on site provides low quality habitat for foraging and
commuting bats, therefore this is unlikely to have a significant impact on bats using the local area. Arable land is relatively common and Potential indirect impacts include inappropriate habitat management widespread in the local area, further minimising the potential impact on the reducing the quality of retained and created habitats on site, including local bat population. inappropriate management of trees, and increased lighting levels.
Indirect impacts will include increased light levels, and noise/vibrations on site, which is likely to temporarily reduce the quality of the retained habitats, and damage to retained hedgerows and trees. Current conditions on site are likely to provide dark foraging and commuting areas for bats given the location of the site.
Dormice Hedgerow habitats provide suitable opportunities for dormice in No further habitat loss is anticipated during the operational phase of the combination with adjacent woodland, however no dormice have been development, and the maturation of woodland and tree planting recorded on site to date. For the purpose of this assessment, dormice enhancements will provide additional opportunities for dormice. Indirect presence has been assumed. The scheme will result in the loss of impacts include inappropriate management and disturbance reducing the approximately 600m of hedgerow habitat, but the retention of habitat quality of retained and created habitats. approximately 1500m of hedgerow linking to woodland parcels immediately adjacent to the site.
Indirect impacts could include increased light and noise levels on site, which is likely to temporarily reduce the quality of the retained habitats, and damage to retained hedgerows and trees.
116 Small mammals, The habitats on site provide limited opportunities for small mammals due No further habitat loss is anticipated during the operational phase of the including brown to the intensive management regimes on the site. Hedgerows and development, and the maturation of new tree planting/grassland will hare adjacent woodland provide suitable opportunities for small mammals, provide additional opportunities for small mammals. Indirect impacts including hedgehog, and will be retained within the scheme. The site is include inappropriate management and disturbance reducing the habitat likely to be used in combination with arable land and hedgerows in the quality of retained and created habitats. wider area. There is also potential for killing or injuring during vegetation clearance.
Indirect impacts could include increased light, noise and vibration levels on site, which is likely to temporarily reduce the quality of the retained habitats, and damage to retained hedgerows and trees.
Nesting birds The construction phase will result in the loss of arable land on the site. No further habitat loss is anticipated during the operational phase of the Based on the current management regimes and disturbance on the site, development, and the maturation of tree planting will provide additional arable land provides no suitable opportunities for ground nesting birds. nesting opportunities in the long-term. Indirect impacts include Limited margins are present, therefore the site supports limited to no inappropriate management and disturbance reducing the habitat quality of opportunities for farmland birds. The majority of hedgerow habitats will be retained and created habitats. There is likely to be an alteration in the retained within the scheme, with the exception of 600m of hedgerow species that use the central areas of the site from arable species to birds proposed for removal under the scheme. less sensitive to disturbance.
In the absence of mitigation, the hedgerow removal works risks injury or death to nesting birds and chicks. Retained habitats as well as proposed
tree planting will provide an overall increase in suitable nesting opportunities for common bird species in the long-term. However, in the short-term there will be a small temporary decrease in potential nesting
opportunities on site.
Indirect impacts include increased disturbance from machinery and construction activities.
Reptiles The majority of the site comprises intensively managed arable land, and The retention of the majority of hedgerow habitats will retain foraging and as such provides low suitability for reptiles. Hedgerows and small margins commuting opportunities for reptiles on site, in combination with adjacent provide suitable opportunities for reptiles in combination with adjacent habitats. The proposals include the creation of additional habitat, including habitats. The proposals include the retention of approximately 1500m of new woodland, grassland and scrub planting, which will enhance hedgerow, but will result in the loss of 600m. Hedgerow and arable land opportunities for reptiles within the site once established in the long-term. are relatively common in the local area, and as such the impact of the loss
of 21.3ha of arable land within the scheme is unlikely to be significant at the local level. Potential indirect impacts include increased disturbance and trampling.
Direct impacts to reptiles could include killing or injuring of reptiles using the site during vegetation clearance works.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 117
Amphibians Hedgerow habitats provide limited terrestrial habitat for common The retention of the majority of hedgerow habitats will retain foraging and amphibians. Arable habitat provides low quality habitat for amphibians. commuting opportunities for common amphibians on site, in combination The proposals will result in the loss of approximately 600m of hedgerow with adjacent habitats. The proposals include the creation of additional and 21.3ha of arable habitat. The proposals include the retention of 1500m habitat, including new woodland, grassland and scrub planting, which will of hedgerow on the boundaries of the site and will maintain connectivity for enhance opportunities for reptiles within the site. Potential indirect impacts common amphibians in the local area. include increased disturbance (noise and vibration), and trampling.
Invertebrates The proposals will result in the loss of approximately 21.3ha of arable land Potential indirect impacts on retained habitats include increased pollution and 600m of hedgerow. Approximately 1500m of hedgerows will be from litter, inappropriate management reducing refuge habitats and retained within the scheme to maintain opportunities for invertebrates. disturbance from noise and lighting. However, extensive habitat creation Arable land on the site is currently heavily managed, and as such provides works will be implemented on site and will provide an enhancement in the very limited opportunities for invertebrates. This habitat is relatively long-term. common in the local area, therefore minimising the impact on invertebrate
populations in the local area.
Table 8.3 – Summary of Potential Construction Phase and Operation Phase Impacts on Receptors (in absence of mitigation)
118 8.5. Potential Effects and Significance
8.5.1 Based on the impact descriptions and summary of key characteristics, and in order to inform mitigation for the proposals, the significance of the impacts on features (prior to any mitigation) is summarised in table 8.4 below. An ecologically significant impact is defined as an impact (adverse or beneficial) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area.
Feature Construction Phase Operational Phase Geographical Beneficial or Likelihood of Geographical Beneficial or Likelihood of Level of Adverse Significant Level of Adverse Significant Significance Impact Significance Impact occurring occurring Designated Local Adverse Probable Not significant - - Sites Arable Site Adverse Certain Not significant - - Hard-standing Not significant - - Not significant - - Hedgerows Local Adverse Certain Local Adverse Probable Badgers Local Adverse Probable Local Adverse Probable Bats Local Adverse Probable Local Adverse Probable Dormice Site Adverse Probable Not significant - - Small Local Adverse Probable Not significant - - mammals Nesting Birds Site Adverse Probable Not significant - - Reptiles Site Adverse Probable Site Adverse Probable Amphibians Site Adverse Probable Not significant - - Invertebrates Site Adverse Probable Not significant - -
Table 8.4 – Identification of the Significance of Impacts on Receptors
8.6. Mitigation
Inherent Mitigation
8.6.1 The informed design layout contains key areas for ecological benefit, which take into account recommendations outlined within Technical Appendix 8.1. These include:
Retention of hedgerows on the boundaries of the site to retain corridors and green infrastructure. These retained areas will be further enhanced through additional planting within buffers; Retention of adjacent woodland and enhancement to woodland edges through additional plating of woodland edge habitats, to include scrub habitats (8.6ha); Creation of additional open space habitats, including grassland habitat (0.2ha), wildflower buffers (7ha), swales, woodland and wet woodland areas; and Creation of green and brown roof habitat within the main building on site (0.1ha).
8.6.2 The most important ecological features have been retained wherever possible, and they will be enhanced with additional planting, particularly graded woodland edge planting. A large area of green space will be enhanced in the north of the site to maximise opportunities for wildlife.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 119
General Mitigation
Pre-Construction and Construction Phases
8.6.3 Prior to works commencing, protective fencing will be erected around all retained ecological features on site, namely the hedgerows, woodland (in accordance with BS5837 (2012)), and any areas of retained grassland to ensure minimal disturbance to habitats during works.
8.6.4 A Precautionary Method of Works (PMW) will be prepared outlining sensitive site clearance methods, including detail in respect to timing and species including badger, bats, small mammals, birds, reptiles and common amphibians (detailed below). Where practicable all vegetation removal will take place outside of the bird nesting season (generally between March and September, inclusive), or vegetation will be checked thoroughly by an ecologist prior to removal. The removal of any tree or hedgerow root stock suitable for hibernating small mammals and reptiles will be undertaken outside of the hibernation season. The sensitive timing of works, or precautions to be taken should works be unavoidable during sensitive periods, will be detailed within the PMW.
8.6.5 A general ecological briefing will be given to construction site workers informing them of the ecological value of habitats and species present on site, protection measures put in place, safe working methods relating to ecology, and contingency plans in case of discovery of a significant species during works
8.6.6 All of the above measures will be detailed in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (or similar) prepared prior to works commencing. This management plan will also include measures to prevent any indirect impacts on retained and adjacent habitats, such as pollution including dust emissions.
Operational Phase – Management Plan
8.6.7 An appropriate Management Plan will be implemented for areas of retained habitats and new planting to ensure that the habitats achieve and then remain in favourable condition for wildlife. This will include management of woodland, standard trees and grassland habitats
8.6.8 General management principles will include the following:
A minimal intervention and organic approach will be used. Weed killer and other chemicals will be used as little as possible on site. Spot removal of weeds will be carried out by hand where removal is necessary; Hygiene works will be avoided, for example, fungal fruiting bodies should not be removed nor trees felled because they have bracket fungi on them unless classified as dangerous by an arboriculturalist. Where possible, trees will be allowed to age naturally and dying trees will be allowed to decay in-situ. Where a tree poses a health and safety hazard, advice will be sought from an arboriculturalist. General tree works will conform to BS3998 (2010). Every effort will be made to avoid altering important features associated with the mature trees; Limited access to new planting to minimise disturbance, particularly woodland edge habitat which will be allowed to grow tall and bushy; Where possible planting will use species of a local native origin and those of specific wildlife value; Litter will be removed from the site as part of on-going general management; and Monitoring will be used to determine whether or not objectives for the site and component features (for example bats, birds and reptiles) have been met using focused and efficient data collection.
120 stridetreglown.com Specific On-Site Mitigation
Design Mitigation (Avoidance)
8.6.9 The scheme has been designed to avoid the areas of highest ecological value, including the boundary hedgerows and buffer. Green corridors have been retained on the boundaries of the site to maintain connectivity across the site and with suitable adjacent habitats, particularly adjacent woodland parcels.
8.6.10 A sensitive lighting design will be implemented on site, which will be in accordance with current CIE publication 150:2003 – guide on the limitations of the effect of obtrusive lighting from outdoor lighting installation. Where possible lights will be metal halide (white source) and not monochromatic and will refer to Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines (2008). This is expected to minimise lighting impacts, however, it is unlikely to remove them completely.
Habitat Creation / Enhancement
8.6.11 A large amount of habitat creation has been proposed within the scheme. This includes a large area of proposed new woodland including wet woodland in the south of the site (8.6ha), wildflower meadows (7ha), graded woodland edges and swales. In addition, the proposed main hospital building will support substantial areas of green and brown roof habitats (0.1ha). Management regimes in these areas will seek to create a range of swards heights. In particular, areas of tall, coarse grassland adjacent to woodland that will benefit a range of wildlife, including foraging bats and reptiles. An increase in the floral diversity as a result of this change in management of the grassland will benefit nectar-feeding invertebrates.
8.6.12 Whilst planting within the central areas of the site will be generally well managed and subject to high levels of disturbance, species incorporated within these areas will include species of benefit to wildlife.
8.6.13 Extensive enhancements to hedgerow habitats will also be undertaken, to include strengthening these boundaries through appropriate planting and management. Buffers will also be created adjacent to hedgerows to strengthen these features and to compensate for the loss of 600m of hedgerow on the eastern boundary.
Habitat Retention and Protection
8.6.14 Where necessary retained features (hedgerows) will be protected during the works with the use of barrier fencing and warning signs. Toolbox talks will be undertaken, to advise site workers of the protected status of habitats (and species) and/or the sensitivity of these areas to disturbance. Only the relevant contractors erecting the fencing will be allowed on site until all protective fencing has been installed. All contractors and subcontractors will be inducted and issued with a plan showing the alignment of protective fencing across the site, with the areas to be protected clearly marked. The fencing will remain in place until all building work is complete and monitored by an appointed person.
8.6.15 The alignment of general protective fencing will consider the location of mature trees where they are associated with a boundary, or where they occur as an isolated feature (as a minimum, tree protective fencing distances, as specified in Section 7, Table 1 of British Standard BS5837 “Trees in relation to Construction Recommendations” 2012 will be adhered to).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 121
Feature Construction Phase Operation Phase
Badger Retention and protection of adjacent woodland and Retention of woodland habitats, and hedgerow habitat habitats on the boundaries of the site, and appropriate management. Monitoring of site prior to works to assess for any new active setts Large areas of new planting, to include fruit and nut bearing species, to Noisy machinery not used after dark significantly enhance foraging CEMP and toolbox talk opportunities on site for badgers Sensitive lighting Trenches that are left open have a means of escape
Bats Retention and protection of hedgerows and buffers Enhanced foraging from appropriate adjacent to woodland habitats (including protective managing of buffer habitats and extensive fencing) enhancements to existing hedgerows and new planting Sensitive lighting scheme Sensitive lighting alongside habitats Provision of new roosting features (bat boxes) Maintain mixed age class of trees to ensure future potential roost sites
Dormice and small Retention and protection of retained hedgerow Enhanced foraging from appropriate mammals habitats (including protective fencing) managing of buffer habitats and extensive habitat creation, including 8.6ha. Sensitive lighting scheme Sensitive lighting alongside habitats European Protected Species Licence for hedgerow removal if dormice are recorded on the site Mixed structure within habitats, including encouraging fruit and nut bearing species
Nesting birds CEMP and toolbox talk Sensitive and appropriate management of habitats to retain and enhance nesting Sensitive timing of works opportunities on site. Retention of woodland and trees, including Management of buffers, including creating protection fencing marking an exclusion zone to longer edge zones on woodland edges contractors, will retain nesting opportunities for and boundaries, will enhance foraging birds. opportunities for foraging birds and create Provision of additional nesting opportunities in the areas with lower disturbance areas. form of bird boxes.
Reptiles Precautionary Method of Working to protect any Appropriate management of boundary reptiles on site during vegetation clearance works, habitats to enhance structural diversity including sensitive timings of works and and opportunities for reptiles on site. supervision by an Ecological Clerk of Works. Log piles will be created within woodland Habitat creation through additional scrub and habitats on site to provide additional grassland habitats along boundaries and within opportunities for reptiles. areas of open space.
CEMP
Other species Precautionary Method of Working to protect any Appropriate management of boundary common amphibians on site during vegetation habitats to enhance structural diversity clearance works, including sensitive timings of and opportunities for common amphibians works and supervision by an Ecological Clerk of on site. Works. Log piles will be created within woodland Habitat creation through additional scrub and habitats on site to provide additional grassland habitats along boundaries and within opportunities for common amphibians. areas of open space.
CEMP Habitat creation through additional scrub and grassland habitats along boundaries and within areas of open space.
122 stridetreglown.com Table 8.5 – Identification of the Significance of Impacts on Receptors
8.7. Residual Effects
8.7.1 A summary of the residual impacts (mitigated) on the features is provided below in table 8.6
Feature Residual Impacts
Post-Development Post-Development Medium-Term Long-Term
Designated sites Not Significant (Negligible) Local beneficial (Probable)
Arable Not Significant (Negligible) Not Significant (Negligible)
Hard-standing Not Significant Not Significant
Hedgerows Significant adverse (Minor) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Badgers Not Significant (Negligible) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Bats Not Significant (Negligible) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Dormice and Small Mammals Not Significant (Negligible) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Nesting birds Significant beneficial (Minor) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Reptiles Significant beneficial (Minor) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Amphibians Significant beneficial (Minor) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Invertebrates Significant beneficial (Minor) Significant beneficial (Minor)
Table 8.6 – Residual Impacts
8.8. Conclusion
8.8.1 The area proposed for development comprises well-managed and highly disturbed habitats. The retention and protection of woodland habitats and standard trees on the boundaries of the site will retain areas of highest ecological value on site. This, alongside appropriate and sensitive long-term management of these habitats provides opportunities for maintaining and enhancing opportunities for wildlife on site in the long-term.
Habitats
8.8.2 The masterplan for the site has been designed to ensure that the majority of hedgerows will be retained within the scheme to maintain connectivity across the site. This will maintain opportunities on site for a range of wildlife, as well as maintaining connectivity to suitable adjacent habitats. This will help to promote the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of species in the wider environment.
Species
8.8.3 In terms of the criteria used in this assessment, for those species present that receive statutory protection and other species identified as requiring conservation action measures have been proposed to protect from the negative effects of development. The impacts anticipated for the majority of species are either positive or negligible in the longer term.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 123
8.8.4 The development provides the opportunity to contribute to national, regional and local biodiversity targets by enhancing and creating habitat that is valuable to European protected species, including bats, and to nationally protected species including badger and breeding birds.
Assessment of the Development against UK BAP and LBAP Objectives
8.8.5 The opportunities provided by the development proposals would work towards a range of objectives set out within UK BAP and Basingstoke and Deane LBAP priority plans:
UK BAP Priority Action Plans and Basingstoke and Deane Biodiversity Action Plan
Bats (UK BAP) - retained hedgerow linking to adjacent woodland habitats will retain suitable roosting, foraging and commuting opportunities for bats. Retained boundary habitats will also provide continued foraging and commuting opportunities, and will maintain connectivity between the site and adjacent habitats. Hedgerows (UKBAP and Basingstoke BAP) – the majority of hedgerows will be retained within the scheme, however the proposals will result in the loss of appropriately 600m of hedgerow. The scheme includes enhancement to retained hedgerows through additional planting and appropriate long-term management to strengthen these green corridors. Calcareous grassland (Basingstoke BAP) – additional calcareous grassland will be created on the site to enhance areas of open space (7ha of wildflower planting proposed). This will provide a positive enhancement to the site and the local area. Green infrastructure (Basingstoke BAP) – retained hedgerows as well as additional habitat creation proposed will enhance the green infrastructure on the site. This will be enhanced through additional planting and appropriate long-term management.
Summary of Residual Impacts
8.8.6 In summary, the residual long-term impacts of the development have been assessed as not significant for hard-standing, and significant beneficial (minor) for the remaining receptors on or potentially using the site. The proposals will remove the habitat with low ecological value (arable land under active management), with the retention of the majority of hedgerows. In addition extensive woodland, wildflower and scrub planting is proposed within the scheme to significantly enhance opportunities for wildlife in the local area.
124 stridetreglown.com 9. Lighting Effects
9.1. Introduction
9.1.1 URS have been commissioned by Stride Treglown to undertake a Lighting Impact Assessment for the proposed external lighting scheme for Hampshire Critical Treatment Hospital. The aim of this report is to provide an assessment of the impact of the external lighting from the proposed development on the existing landscape and sensitive receptors.
9.2. Policy/Legislative Context
Legislative Background
9.2.1 Light pollution was introduced within the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005) as a form of statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act (the ‘EPA’, 1990), which was amended in 2006 to include the following nuisance definition:
“(fb) artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or nuisance.”
9.2.2 Although light was described as having the potential to cause statutory nuisance, no prescriptive limits or rules were set for impact assessment purposes. Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light produced by the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) has, therefore, been referred to for the purposes of this assessment.
9.2.3 Guidance produced by Defra, Statutory Nuisance from Insects & Artificial Light (2006) on s101 to s103 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005) has also been referred to which places a duty on local authorities to ensure that their areas are checked periodically for existing and potential sources of statutory nuisances - including nuisances arising from artificial lighting. Local authorities must take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of such nuisances from artificial light. Once satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or may occur or recur, local authorities must issue an abatement notice (in accordance with s80(2) of the EPA 1990), requiring that the nuisance cease or be abated within a set timescale.
Planning Policy Context
9.2.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and constitute the Government’s view on what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. A principal concept contained within the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development and with regard to artificial lighting, the NPPF states:
“…By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation…”
9.2.5 The site is located within the administrative boundary of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The Emerging Local Plan for Basingstoke and Deane Borough is currently not complete. Therefore, reference has been made to the Basingstoke and Deane Adopted Local Plan (July 2006), specifically Policy E1 Development Control, which states:
“… All development proposals should… minimise the potential for pollution of air and soil and not create noise or light which harms living and working conditions or the public’s enjoyment of the built and natural environment.”
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 125
International Guidance
Commission Internationale De L’Eclairage (CIE) 150: Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations (the ‘CIE 150’, 2003)
9.2.6 The purpose of CIE 150 is to aid in formulating guidelines for assessing the environmental effects of exterior lighting and to provide limits for relevant lighting parameters to control the obtrusive effects of exterior lighting to tolerable levels. CIE 150 refers to the potentially adverse effects of exterior lighting on both natural and man-made environments.
CIE 126: Guidelines for Minimising Sky Glow (1997)
9.2.7 This document gives general guidance for lighting designers and policy makers on the reduction of sky glow. The report gives recommendations about maximum permissible values for exterior lighting installations. These values are regarded as limiting values. Lighting designers should strive to meet the lowest criteria for the design. Practical implementation of the general guidance is left to national regulations.
National Guidance
Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) (2011) Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (the ‘ILP Guidance Notes’)
9.2.8 The ILP has proposed lighting guidance and criteria for local authorities with a recommendation that these are incorporated at the local plan level. The ILP Guidance Notes define various forms of light pollution and describe a series of environmental zones. The ILP Guidance Notes provide suitable criteria against which the effects of artificial lighting can be assessed. This assessment has been based upon these criteria.
Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) (2013) PLG 04 Guidance on Undertaking Environmental Lighting Impact Assessments
9.2.9 The aim of this guidance is to outline good practice in lighting design and provide practical guidance on the production and assessment of lighting impacts within new developments.
Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) (2001) TR05: Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements.
9.2.10 The ILP Technical Report 05 (ILP TR05) gives recommendations for maximum levels of luminance for illuminated advertisements and signage during hours of darkness. The recommended luminance levels vary dependent upon the illuminated area and what environmental zone (see ILP Guidance Notes) the assessed site falls into.
Environmental Zone Classification and Parameters
9.2.11 All standards consulted are nationally recognised documents, (some internationally, also) which deal with all design issues associated with external lighting. CIE Standards, the CIBSE and the Society of Light & Lighting guidance documents all apply a common Environmental Zoning system, which is summarised in Table 9.1 below.
126 stridetreglown.com Zone Surrounding Lighting Environment Examples
E0 Protected Dark UNESCO Starlight Reserves, IDA Dark Sky Parks
E1 Natural Intrinsically dark National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty etc
E2 Rural Low District brightness Village or relatively dark outer suburban locations
E3 Suburban Medium district brightness Small town centres or suburban locations
E4 Urban High district brightness Town/City centres with high levels of night-time activity
Table 9.1 Environmental Zones
Obtrusive Light Limitation for Exterior Lighting Installations
9.2.12 The ILP Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light provide guidelines and threshold values applicable to each Environmental Zone, which are reproduced in Table 9.2 below.
Environmental Sky Glow Light Intrusion into Luminaire Intensity l (K Building Zone ULR (max %) Windows Ev (Lux) (ii) candelas) (iii) Luminance L (i) (cd/m2) (iv)
Pre-curfew Post curfew Pre-curfew Post-curfew Pre-curfew
E0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E1 0 2 0(1*) 2.5 0 0
E2 2.5 5 1 7.5 0.5 5
E3 5.0 10 2 10 1 10
E4 15 25 5 25 2.5 25
Table 9.2 : Obtrusive Light Limitations For Exterior Lighting Installations – General Observersa
a Upward light ratio of the installation – maximum permitted percentage of luminaire flux for the total installation that goes directly into the sky. (ii) Vertical illuminance measured flat at the glazing at the centre of the window. (iii) Light intensity in kilo candelas. (iv) Luminance in candelas per square metre (cd/m2). (*) From public road lighting installations only.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 127
9.3. Method
Scope of the Assessment
9.3.1 The existing baseline conditions on site and in the surrounding area have been surveyed and assessed. The likely effects in relation to sensitive receptors have been assessed for both the construction and operational phases of the development. Sensitive receptors may include local residents, ecological receptors, the night-time amenity, and road users. Mitigation measures to reduce the effects of lighting have been provided.
Method for Baseline Lighting Survey
9.3.2 The extent of the study area for this assessment includes the site and its immediate surroundings and the key sensitive receptors which may be subject to a change in the existing lighting conditions or view of the night time scene.
9.3.3 Day and night-time site visits were undertaken on 4th and 5th December 2014 to ascertain the current baseline lighting conditions. A record was made of the types of lighting installations present or light sources visible, within the site, the surrounding area and at the selected viewpoint locations. The weather conditions on the 4th December were foggy with light drizzle during the day, and dry and cloudy during the evening, with a 97% waxing gibbous moon phase. On the 5th December the weather was dry with sunny intervals during the day and dry with clear skies in the evening, with a full moon. Night-time measurements and photographs were taken between 10pm and midnight on each day.
9.3.4 The viewpoint locations were selected to correspond with the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Chapter of the Environmental Statement as these have been identified to represent sensitive receptors. Table 9.3 lists the viewpoint locations considered in this assessment. These are shown in Appendix 2 and 3.
Viewpoint reference Location Description
VP01 Road adjacent to Site
VP02 Wayfarer’s Walk – East of Site
VP03 Wayfarer’s Walk – North of Site
VP04 New Cottages at Southwood Farm
VP05 Footpath near to The Sun Inn
VP06 Wayfarer’s Walk – South-east of Site
VP07 Dummer
VP08 Wayfarer’s Walk – M3 Overbridge
VP09 Foxhall
VP10 Bridleway Basingstoke
VP11 Beside Ganderdown Copse
VP12 Maidenthorn Lane, North Waltham
VP13 North Wessex Downs AONB
Table 9.3: Viewpoint Locations
128 stridetreglown.com 9.3.5 Measurements of point illuminance were recorded at each of the viewpoint locations. These were recorded on the ground at each location. Measurements were taken using a Konica Minolta T-10A Illuminance Meter (Serial no. 30013219/20012021).
9.3.6 Photographs were taken, where possible, at each viewpoint location to illustrate the current night time scene and lighting installations. Reference photographs for each viewpoint were also taken during the day time survey. Night time photographs were taken using a Canon EOS 6D Digital SLR Camera with a fixed focus Canon 50mm lens using manual settings. An exposure setting was chosen at each location to most accurately represent the view as seen by the human eye, although this can be subjective. The camera settings for each photograph have been recorded and are noted in section 5. Overlapping images were taken at various rotation angles and stitched together to create panoramic views as required.
Method for assessing proposed lighting
9.3.7 An external lighting design and strategy has been prepared by Hoare Lea for the Critical Treatment Hospital, excluding the Cancer Treatment Centre (CTC) where an external lighting design and strategy for the Cancer Treatment Centre has been prepared by BDP. An external lighting design for the roundabout at the southern entrance to the site has been prepared by Connect Consultants. The drawings and calculations provided by Hoare Lea, BDP and Connect Consultants, that form the basis of this assessment, are shown in Appendices 4 - 6. URS have replicated this design to inform the lighting impact assessment. (URS do not accept design responsibility for the lighting designs and strategies prepared by others.)
9.3.8 The site was modelled, replicating the design provided by others, using industry standard software Relux. Relux is a computer calculation package which utilises 3D modelling to model the real world output of chosen light fittings. The calculations are based on the luminaires at full output, with a maintenance factor of 1, to represent the worst case scenario. From these calculations, drawings illustrating the illuminance levels throughout the site and at the boundary have been produced so that the lighting scheme’s impact can be assessed (I.E: E01-layout, E02 illuminance levels). The calculation model (illustrated by illuminance levels on a drawing) does not include any proposed or existing planting/ hedgerows/ trees on site, or in the surrounding area, and in this instance it was not deemed necessary to model the site topography.
Exclusions
9.3.9 The building scheme/ internal layouts have not been sufficiently developed to provide final exit luminaires or any architectural lighting. These will be developed during the detailed design stages. Therefore, the effect from building mounted lighting has been excluded from this assessment.
9.3.10 The under canopy lighting at the entrance to the main building has been excluded from this assessment, as the lighting in this area that is currently shown on Hoare Lea’s lighting layout is indicative only, and will be further developed at detailed design stage.
9.3.11 The impact from internal lighting has also been excluded from this assessment.
9.3.12 The lighting for the Helipad is being designed by Hoare Lea, and indicative positions for three types of luminaires are shown on the layout drawings. However, the exact models of the luminaires is yet to be confirmed. Therefore, this lighting has been excluded from this assessment. Any high level aircraft warning lights are also excluded from this assessment.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 129
Impact Assessment and Significance Criteria
9.3.13 The effect attributed to each impact has been based on the magnitude of change as a result of the Proposed Development. The criteria used to assess the effects of artificial lighting has been derived from the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) (2011) Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light and PL04 Guidance on Undertaking Environmental Lighting Impact Assessments and is shown in Tables 9.4-9.6.
9.3.14 This methodology assesses potential impacts on receptors sensitive to light associated with the Proposed Development in comparison with the existing baseline conditions. The approach to this impact assessment is outlined below:
The nature of a receptor (receptor/ resource sensitivity) was classified as either very high, high, medium, low or very low based on the criteria shown in Table 9.4; The potential magnitude of impact is described as high, medium , low or negligible based on the criteria shown in Table 9.5; The classification of effects associated with the Proposed Development are then assessed as major, moderate, minor, or negligible, in accordance with the matrix shown in Table 9.6; and These effects are then described as significant or not significant according to the definitions set out in Table 9.7.
Sensitivity of a Receptor
9.3.15 There is currently no specific guidance on determining the sensitivity of a receptor in terms of lighting impact. Therefore for the purpose of this assessment it has been based on the environmental zone of each receptor location. The Environmental Zones are defined in Table 3.1 and the classification of sensitivity of resource / receptor will correspond to each Environmental zone as shown in Table 4.3 below.
Sensitivity of Resource/ Corresponding Environmental Zone Receptor
Very High E0
High E1
Medium E2
Low E3
Very Low E4
Table 9.4: Sensitivity of Receptor
130 stridetreglown.com Magnitude of Impact
9.3.16 The impact magnitude is considered to be a function of extent, duration, frequency and reversibility, and these aspects have been considered in the criteria. The criteria described in Table 4.4 have been used.
Magnitude of Impact Description
High Significant deterioration/ improvement in local conditions or circumstances
Medium Readily apparent change in conditions or circumstances
Low Perceptible change in conditions or circumstances
Negligible No discernible change in conditions or circumstances
Table 9.5: Magnitude of Impact
Classification of Effects
9.3.17 The classification of effects associated with the Proposed Development are then assessed as major, moderate, minor, or negligible, in accordance with the matrix shown in Table 4.5 below:
Sensitivity of Magnitude of Impact Resource/ Receptor High Medium Low Negligible
Very High Major Major Moderate Minor
High Major Major Minor Negligible
Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible
Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
Very Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
Table 9.6: Classification of Effects
Significance Criteria
9.3.18 The threshold values stated in the obtrusive light standards and guidance (refer to table 3.2) aim to control obtrusive light by limiting:
the illumination on surrounding properties, referred to as light intrusion, and limited by the vertical illuminance measured at the window of a neighbouring property; bright luminaires in the field of view, referred to as glare, and limited by the source intensity; sky glow, limited by the upward light ratio (ULR) of the installation; and the effects of over lit building facades and signs, referred to as Building Luminance and limited by the average luminance on the surface.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 131
9.3.19 These parameters form the primary basis for defining the effect criteria (refer to Table 4.6) and are described in more detail below. However, this assessment also gives consideration to light spill, ‘over’ lighting, energy consumption and the effect on flora and fauna, as these are also identified as being of environmental concern with regard to lighting installations. The distant view of light across the landscape, particularly in rural or dark landscapes (Light Presence), is another consideration; however this aspect is covered in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the project.
Light Intrusion (into windows)
9.3.20 Light intrusion is light that impacts on to a surface outside of the area designed to be lit by the installation concerned. It is somewhat subjective because it is difficult to define when, where and how much light is unwanted. An example of light intrusion is when spill light from a streetlight enters a window and illuminates an indoor area. The ILP guidance specifies limits for light intrusion entering windows in terms of environmental zones. The values in the table are the suggested maximum and need to also take into account the existing light intrusion at the point of measurement. Light intrusion is measured in illuminance on the vertical plane. Other forms of light intrusion are not specifically limited in the guidance, however it is becoming increasingly common to assess light spill at the boundary of a development, especially in ecologically sensitive areas.
Light spill
9.3.21 Light spill, sometimes referred to as stray light, is light emitted by a lighting installation, which falls outside the boundary of the property on which the installation is sited. This is usually measured in illuminance on a horizontal plane.
Glare
9.3.22 Glare is the uncomfortable brightness of a light source against a darker background. It can cause discomfort or a reduction in the ability to see details or objects, caused by an unsuitable distribution or range of luminance, or to extreme contrasts.
9.3.23 The ILP guidance sets limits for the luminous intensity of each luminaire in a potentially obtrusive direction, outside of the site being lit, in an attempt to control glare. It should only be applied to viewing directions that are likely to cause discomfort or disability glare. The guidance suggests that glare should be minimised by ensuring that the main beam angle of all lights directed towards any potential observer is not more than 70 degrees.
Sky Glow
9.3.24 Sky glow is the brightening of the night sky caused by outdoor lighting and natural atmospheric and celestial factors. Outdoor lighting contributes to sky glow by producing light that is either emitted directly upward by luminaires or reflected from the ground. This light is then scattered by dust and gas molecules in the atmosphere, producing a luminous background. The part of the sky glow which is attributed to man-made sources of luminous radiation is called Artificial Sky Glow. (Note: this assessment considers the impact of artificial sky glow only)
9.3.25 A major effect of sky glow at night is to reduce contrast in the sky. It has the effect of reducing one’s ability to view the stars. This is the most pervasive form of light pollution and can affect areas many miles from the original light source.
9.3.26 Sky glow is highly variable depending on immediate weather conditions, quality of dust and gas in the atmosphere, amount of light directed skyward, and the direction from which it is viewed.
132 stridetreglown.com 9.3.27 Measuring and predicting sky glow from artificial lighting is a very challenging task due to the number of factors involved. Sky glow caused by artificial light can be minimised by limiting the upward light output of luminaires used in a lighting installation.
Building and Signage Luminance
9.3.28 Building and signage luminance should be limited to avoid ‘over’ lighting and to relate to general district brightness. Building luminance is applicable to buildings directly illuminated as a night time feature as opposed to the illumination of a building caused by spill light from adjacent luminaires or luminaires fixed to the building but used to light an adjacent area.
9.3.29 Building and Signage Luminance is not applicable to this installation.
‘Over’ Lighting
9.3.30 ‘Over’ lighting is when an area is lit to a higher level of illuminance than the task/use requires. It is identified by the ILP guidance as being a major cause of obtrusive light and for wasting energy. Good design practice and adherence to the published lighting standards prevents ‘over’ lighting areas, which in turn helps to minimise upward reflected light.
Energy Consumption
9.3.31 Consideration should be given to the energy efficiency of the existing lighting installed on site and to minimising the energy consumption of any proposed lighting. Energy efficient luminaires, light sources and lighting controls should be selected.
The Effect on Flora and Fauna
9.3.32 Liaison with the project ecologist is required to identify any light sensitive receptors in terms of flora and fauna, so an assessment of the effect can be established.
The distant view of light across the landscape, particularly in a rural or dark landscape (Light Presence)
9.3.33 This report considers where light emitted from a light source, or light that is projected onto an area or building, can be viewed from outside the area it was provided for. This is light that does not reach an intrusive level, but can be seen, and has been termed “light presence”. This light presence may draw attention to the existence of a lighting installation or structure. This light cannot be accurately quantified, and is considered to be subjective.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 133
Nature Level of Descriptions Remedial Needs significance
Positive Major / substantial Significant improvement in night environment and/or a major decrease in the level of sky glow, light spill and glare beneficial effects on to surrounding areas and illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light intrusion), resulting in a noticeable or major improvement in baseline conditions and is well within the recommended CIE guidance levels. (Significant)
Moderate beneficial Noticeable improvement in the night environment and/or a moderate decrease in the level of sky glow, light spill effects and glare on to surrounding areas and illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light intrusion), resulting in a moderate improvement in the current baseline conditions and recommended CIE guidance levels. (Significant)
Minor beneficial Slight improvement in night environment and/or a minor decrease in the level of sky glow, light spill and glare on effects to surrounding areas and illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light intrusion), resulting in a perceptible improvement in baseline conditions and is within the recommended CIE guidance levels. (Not Significant)
Neutral None / negligible No significant effect or overall effects balancing out with a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow, light None spill and glare onto surrounding areas and illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light (Not Significant) intrusion) and would cause a negligible or barely discernible change to current baseline conditions.
Negative Minor adverse Slight increase in visibility of site, minor increase in the level of sky glow, light spill and glare on to surrounding Develop effects areas an illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light intrusion), would cause a minor appropriate levels perceptible change in baseline conditions, which are slightly above recommended CIE guidance levels but where and type of (Not Significant) current uses could still be maintained. mitigation
Moderate adverse Noticeable increase in visibility of site, moderate increase in the level of sky glow, light spill and glare on to effects surrounding areas and illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light intrusion), and would result in a noticeable effect on baseline conditions moderately in excess of the recommended CIE guidance levels. (Significant)
Major adverse Significant problems with increase in visibility of site, major increase in the level of sky glow, light spill and glare on effects to surrounding areas and illuminance levels at the windows of residential properties (light intrusion), and would result in a major effect on baseline conditions significantly in excess of the recommended CIE guidance levels. (Significant)
Table 9.7: Significance Criteria
134 9.4. Baseline
Assessment of Existing Environmental Zone
9.4.1 An assessment has been made of the existing Environmental Zone(s) by considering the baseline lighting conditions within the site, and at each viewpoint location.
Baseline Conditions within the Site
9.4.2 The site currently consists of one large field, currently in arable use, with hedgerows and occasional hedgerow trees defining all boundaries. There are mature woodland copses located adjacent to the western and eastern boundaries. The A30 road is located adjacent to the south- eastern boundary of the site and a local access road is adjacent to the north-eastern boundary. The ground level rises steadily from the south-eastern boundary at 138m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) to the north-western boundary which is located on a plateau at approximately 160m AOD.
9.4.3 The site and surrounding area is currently un-lit, with the adjacent local access road also being un-lit. The section of the A30 road that is located adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the site is also unlit. Street lighting is present along the A30, to the north-east of the site where the road enters Basingstoke.
9.4.4 The site and surrounding areas are currently considered to be classified as Environmental Zone E2 (medium sensitivity) in accordance with a rural location that has low district brightness, that is relatively dark but not intrinsically dark (see Table 3.1), following the baseline survey of the area. This is confirmed by Hampshire County Council’s Street Lighting Policy Document (4th edition), which illustrates environmental lighting zone classifications throughout the county of Hampshire. See Figure 9.1, which has been reproduced from the zoning image found in the Street Lighting Policy Document, and overlaid onto an ordnance survey map of the area with site location shown.
9.4.5 The areas of the site that are already lit are considered to be classified as Environmental Zone E3 (low sensitivity) in accordance with a suburban location with medium district brightness, considered to be small town centres or suburban locations.
Figure 9.1 – Image illustrating environmental zone classifications of the site and surrounding area
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 135
9.4.6 Table 9.8 summarises the Environmental Zone assigned to each viewpoint location, following the baseline survey and review of the Hampshire County Council’s Street Lighting Policy Document (4th edition). Further details of each viewpoint location are given in section 5.3.
9.4.7 All viewpoint locations are considered to be classified as Environmental Zone E2. Some are located on the boundary of an Environmental Zone E3, therefore this is denoted by an E2/E3 designation. The guidance on undertaking environmental lighting impact assessments states that the more stringent limitations should be applied to the assessment.
Viewpoint Environmental Zone Sensitivity reference
VP01 E2 Medium
VP02 E2 Medium
VP03 E2 Medium
VP04 E2 Medium
VP05 E2 Medium
VP06 E2 Medium
VP07 E2/E3 Low/Medium
VP08 E2/E3 Low/Medium
VP09 E2 Medium
VP10 E2/E3 Low/Medium
VP11 E2 Medium
VP12 E2/E3 Low/Medium
VP13 E2 Medium
Table 9.8: Environmental Zone and Sensitivity Assigned to Each Viewpoint
Lighting Appraisal of Viewpoint Locations
9.4.8 A lighting appraisal was carried out at each viewpoint location in accordance with the methodology described in Section 4 of this report.
9.5. Development Proposals of Relevance
Construction Phase
9.5.1 The primary reasons for lighting provision within the construction site will be for health and safety and security requirements.
9.5.2 The sources of artificial light that have been assumed to be present during the construction phase are:
Temporary floodlighting particularly during winter months; Floodlighting and security lighting associated with site access, on-going work areas, temporary car parking areas and on the exterior of construction compounds;
136 stridetreglown.com Lighting at height associated with construction of structures; Interior lighting within any temporary office units within any construction compounds. Crane warning lights.
9.5.3 The working hours for construction are anticipated to be typical industry hours (i.e. 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 to 13:00 on Saturday). It is assumed there will be no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Therefore, it is likely that temporary sources of artificial lighting will be required to enable the safe continuation of works in the early morning and late afternoons during the winter months when working hours fall within the hours of darkness. Lighting associated with the construction works is assumed to be temporary and intermittent in nature. It is assumed that some level of security lighting will be required at all times during the operational hours or darkness.
Operational Phase- Proposed Lighting
9.5.4 The external lighting installation has been designed in accordance with industry standards, guidance and recommendations in order to provide an adequate level of illuminance for security, safety and amenity throughout the site, whilst limiting obtrusive light, over-lighting and energy consumption.
9.5.5 The significant sources of lighting for the operational phase of the proposed development will be as follows:
Street lighting to roundabout at southern entrance to site; Lighting associated with pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes throughout the development; Lighting to car parking areas; Lighting to building entrances/ exits.
Recommended Lighting Levels
9.5.6 Table 9.9 summarises the levels of design illuminance and uniformity targeted for the externally lit areas within the proposed development. The values have been taken from BS EN 12464 Part 2: 2014.
Description of Area Type Average level of Uniformity Illuminance required (lux)
Areas and walkways used exclusively for pedestrians 5 0.25
Parking areas- for medium traffic 10 0.25
Vehicular Routes – Regular vehicle traffic (max 40km/h) 20 0.40
Vehicle turning, loading and unloading points 50 0.40
Table 9.9 Recommended Levels of Illuminance
9.5.7 The lighting to the southern site access roundabout has been designed to lighting class CE3 in accordance with BS EN 13201: Part 2: 2003, which requires 15 lux average illuminance and 0.4 uniformity.
9.5.8 Refer to Appendices 4-6 for the full calculation results.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 137
Strategy for Luminaire Type and Light Source
9.5.9 The luminaires selected for the southern site access roundabout are TECEO 2 LED luminaires manufactured by Urbis Lighting, mounted on 8m columns. The majority of external areas throughout the site, including vehicular routes, pedestrian and car park areas, utilise D-Series LED luminaires manufactured by Holophane, mounted on 6m columns. 1m high LED bollard luminaires manufactured by Erco, have been selected to light the pedestrian footpath leading into the site. The Cancer Treatment Centre also utilises 1m high Denver Elitie LED bollards manufactured by Holophane to light the pedestrian areas.
9.5.10 These luminaires have good light control and cut off angles to reduce light spillage, control glare and limit sky glow. The luminaires selected will have a neutral white colour temperature (approx. 4000K). The specified luminaires all have a 0% Upward Light Output Ratios (ULOR), except the Denver Elite bollard which has a 9.7-11.4% ULOR.
9.5.11 LED lighting will provide good colour rendering, greater than 60 Ra, to improve visibility and provide a safer environment in line with a ‘secured by design’ approach (colour rendering values from CIBSE SLL Code for Lighting). A colour rendering of greater than 60 Ra allows lower levels of illuminance to be specified and promotes a feeling of safety for pedestrians. Utilising this light source will provide an energy efficient solution with better options for control, as LEDs can be dimmed and switched instantaneously, unlike discharge lamps.
9.5.12 Building mounted luminaires that comply with the requirements for an E2 Environmental Zone will be chosen at detailed design stage.
External Luminaire Control Strategy
9.5.13 Lighting controls will be provided via a central computerised system with time clock and photocell inputs to minimise energy usage. Luminaires will be supplied complete with DALI addressable dimmable control gear so initial light output levels can be commissioned to meet standards without over-lighting (due to initial higher lumen outputs/ maintenance factors).The photocell control, will enable the luminaires to operate dusk until dawn, ensuring that no luminaires will be left on during daylight hours. The dimming schedule will be determined at detailed design stage.
9.5.14 Helipad lighting and anti-collision beacons will only be illuminated for a short period of time, when a helicopter is due to land or take off.
9.6. Potential Effects and Significance
Construction Phase
9.6.1 Construction impacts are temporary in their nature, however prior to mitigation there is potential for the development to result in adverse effects. Mitigation and residual effects are further discussed in Sections 8 and 9.
Operational Phase
9.6.2 The site is currently classified as Environmental Zone E2, with the proposed lighting for the site has being assessed in accordance with the limiting criteria for that zone, refer to table 3.1, in order to limit obtrusive light and light pollution to an acceptable level. However, it is likely that within the site boundary the classification will change to an E3 zone following the development, due to change in the baseline conditions and night time environment of the area.
138 stridetreglown.com Assessment of impact In terms of Obtrusive Light
9.6.3 The majority of light spill is contained within the boundary, however due to the nature of the lighting for the southern entrance roundabout, it is not expected that the horizontal light spill can be completely contained within the site boundary. However, the light spill is generally well contained, with light spill from the luminaires lighting the Main Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre.
9.6.4 The upward light ratio (ULR) of the installation has been calculated to be 0.00 %. The obtrusive light guidance allows for 2.5% ULR in an Environmental Zone E2, but being 0.00% this is considerably better than the recommendation for the zone.
9.6.5 The obtrusive light guidance states that Light Intrusion into windows should be limited to 5 lux pre curfew and to 1 lux post curfew, in Environmental Zone E2. The vertical illuminance at any residential properties surrounding the site will be within these limits.
9.6.6 The predicted levels of source intensity arising during the operational phase viewed from each viewpoint have been predicted at local ground level +1.5m. An average AOD for the site, thus the height of the luminaires, has been taken as 150m. (See Appendix 8 for full results.) The predicted levels of source intensity have been compared with the proposed criterion of 7500 cd for pre-curfew and 500 cd post-curfew. All of the predicted source intensity values are within the recommended limits.
9.6.7 It can be concluded that the installation will have minimal effects in terms of obtrusive light when considering horizontal light spill, sky glow, light trespass and glare.
Assessment of Impact In terms of effect on Flora and Fauna
9.6.8 The project ecologist has identified that retained boundaries need to be retained as foraging and commuting features. The woodland edge habitat and the western boundary of the site have been identified as key areas to be kept as dark as possible. It has been agreed that mitigation should be provided to ensure that light onto these hedgerows is <1 lux. Therefore, in addition to careful selection, aiming and positioning of luminaires, the proposed external lighting design incorporates back light shields on certain luminaires, as detailed on the accompanying drawings to minimise light spill onto these hedgerows. The calculations do not show the reduction in back light provided by the shields as there is no photometric data available for these shields to allow them to be incorporated into the calculation model. However, Hoare Lea have modelled the back shields and consulted with the luminaire manufacturer and are therefore satisfied that on completion of the lighting installation light spill onto the hedgerows will be below 1 lux. Mitigation has also been implemented within the landscape plans for the scheme. These mitigation measures are deemed to satisfy the requirements for ecology.
9.6.9 For further details refer to the LVIA and Ecology Chapters of the ES Statement.
Assessment of impact at each Viewpoint location
9.6.10 Each viewpoint has been assessed against the significance criteria shown in section 4 to establish the effects of the completed proposed development with lighting as described in section 6. The resulting effects and reasoning are shown in table 9.10. The development site and all surrounding areas have been classed as an Environmental Zone E2 (medium sensitivity), in accordance with a rural location that has low district brightness.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 139
Viewpoint Location Description Magnitude Effect Reasoning Location
VP01 Road adjacent to Site Low Minor Adverse effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of light spill or glare. And light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
However, when considering light presence, there will be a noticeable increase in the visibility of the site as the proposed lighting will be visible from this viewpoint. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP02 Wayfarer’s Walk – East of Low Minor Adverse effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at Site this location in terms of light spill or glare. And light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
However, when considering light presence, there will be a slight / perceptible increase in the visibility of the site. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP03 Wayfarer’s Walk – North Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at of Site this location in terms of light spill or glare. And light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be a perceptible increase 140 in the visibility of the site when considering external lighting, as the site is screened from view due to the landform undulations. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP04 New Cottages at Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at Southwood Farm this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion will be within the recommended limits.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site when considering external lighting, as the site is screened from view by adjacent hedgerows and trees. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP05 Footpath near to The Sun Low Minor Adverse effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at Inn this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
However, when considering light presence, there will be a slight / perceptible increase in the visibility of the site. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 141
VP06 Wayfarer’s Walk – South- Low Minor Adverse effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at east of Site this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
However, when considering light presence, there will be a slight / perceptible increase in the visibility of the site. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP07 Dummer Low Minor Adverse effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
However, when considering light presence, there will be a slight / perceptible increase in the visibility of the site. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP08 Wayfarer’s Walk – M3 Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at Overbridge this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be any change in baseline conditions in terms of a visibility of the site, as the site is screened from view by mature vegetation and land undulations adjacent to the motorway. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
142 VP09 Foxhall Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site when considering external lighting, as the site is screened from view by intervening vegetation. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP10 Bridleway Basingstoke Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site when considering external lighting, as the site is screened from view by intervening vegetation and landform undulations. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP11 Beside Ganderdown Low Minor Adverse effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at Copse this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
However, when considering light presence, there will be a noticeable increase in the visibility of the site as the proposed lighting will be visible from this viewpoint. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 143
VP12 Maidenthorn Lane, North Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at Waltham this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be a perceptible increase in the visibility of the site when considering external lighting, as the site is screened from view by the hedgerow adjacent to the road. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
VP13 North Wessex Downs Negligible Negligible effects There will be a barely perceptible change in the level of sky glow; no change at AONB this location in terms of light spill or glare. Also, light intrusion is not applicable at this location.
Therefore, the change to current baseline conditions in terms of obtrusive light will be negligible.
When considering light presence, there is unlikely to be any increase in the visibility of the site when considering external lighting, due to the distance from site and the site being screened from view by intervening vegetation and landform undulations. Refer to LVIA for further details of visual impact.
Table 9.10: Potential Effects of the Completed Development- Operational Phase
144 9.7. Mitigation
Construction Phase
9.7.1 Mitigation of the effects of the lighting installation during the construction phase will include:
Specifying working hours, uses of lighting, location of temporary floodlights and construction compound and agreeing these with the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council; Lighting to be switched off when not required specifically for construction activities or required for health and safety or security; Glare will be minimised by ensuring that the main beam angle of all luminaires are directed away from any potential observer into the centre of site wherever possible, and angled at less than 70 degrees from the horizontal; Light spill will be minimised by avoiding poorly sited luminaires located at the boundary of the development; Sky glow will be minimised by using modern flood lights with good photometric control, angled at less than 70 degrees from the horizontal and by using additional shields as appropriate; The selection of luminaires, including those required for night-time security, that are designed to minimise any obtrusive light; and The Contractor will be required to sign up to the “Considerate Constructors Scheme” and thereby act quickly and responsibly to rectify any lighting misaligned and/or found to be causing a nuisance.
9.7.2 These measures will form part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
Operational Phase
9.7.3 Mitigation of the effects of the lighting installation during the operational phase will be achieved by installing the proposed lighting design as outlined in this report, including back light shields to mitigate the impacts in terms of ecology.
9.7.4 Further mitigation measures beyond this are not deemed to be required.
9.8. Residual Effects
Construction Phase
9.8.1 It is predicted that following implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in section 8, overall there will be a minor adverse residual effect of lighting at the construction phase. The development area is assumed to currently fall into Environmental Zone E2 (medium sensitivity) in accordance with a suburban location with low district brightness, considered to be a rural area comprising of villages or relatively dark suburban locations.
Operational Phase
9.8.2 There are no significant residual effects predicted for the operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 145
9.9. Conclusion
9.9.1 The site is currently classified as Environmental Zone E2, in accordance with a suburban location with low district brightness, considered to be a rural area comprising of villages or relatively dark suburban locations.
9.9.2 The proposed external lighting scheme has been designed in accordance with all relevant British Standards, the Institute of Light and Lighting Guidelines and guidance provided by the Society of Light and Lighting, and will serve to ensure that safety and security of all areas of the development can be effectively maintained.
9.9.3 The external lighting scheme assessed within this report will not exceed the limiting criteria for an E2 zone. Therefore, it can be concluded that the installation will have minimal effects in terms of obtrusive light when considering horizontal light spill, sky glow, light trespass and glare. There will be a slight increase in the visibility of the site, however this has been mitigated as far as possible by the lighting design and further landscape and screening mitigation measures. Refer to the LVIA chapter for more detail on the visual impacts of the proposed development.
9.9.4 There are no significant residual effects predicted for the operational or construction phases of the Proposed Development when considering the proposed external lighting scheme and mitigation measures.
146 stridetreglown.com 10. Water Resources
Introduction
10.1.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely environmental effects of the proposed development with respect to hydrology, drainage and flood risk. This chapter also describes the methods used to assess the effects; the baseline conditions currently existing at the site and surrounding area; the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant negative effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been adopted.
10.1.2 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the site has been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance and consultation with the Environment Agency (EA). The FRA is provided as a separate application document. A Drainage Strategy has also been prepared to accompany the FRA and provides information on how surface water from the proposed development will be managed to ensure existing surface water management and flood risk are not compromised. The drainage strategy additionally outlines the proposed plans for the management of foul water from the development.
10.1.3 A summary of existing conditions on groundwater will also be provided within this chapter, primarily to identify the links between groundwater and surface water effects.
10.1.4 Ecological issues are also addressed separately in Chapter 8 Ecology.
10.1.5 Cumulative effects associated with hydrology, drainage and flood risk have additionally been considered in this chapter.
10.2. Policy/Legislative Context
10.2.1 The legislation, policy and guidance that has influenced the assessment is listed below.
National policy and guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012); National Planning Practice Guidance - Water Supply, Wastewater and Water Quality (2013); Water Resources Act (1991); Future Water (2008); Making Space for Water; Water white paper; and Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs).
Regional policy and guidance
Environment Agency River Basin Management Plan: South East River Basin District 2009-2015
10.2.2 Prepared by the Environment Agency (EA) in conjunction with wider stakeholders, the Environment Agency River Basin Management Plan aims to protect and improve the water environment and will inform planning decisions and policy making. The intention is for all water bodies to achieve good status as defined by the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). The plan is updated every six years.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 147
Local policy and guidance
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA), Hampshire County Council, 2011
10.2.3 The report has been prepared by Hampshire County Council to deliver their requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). The PFRA provides a high level overview of flood risk from a variety and combination of flood sources including surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses as well as the interaction with the main rivers, the sea and reservoir flooding, which fall under EA’s responsibility. The study includes identification of areas of significant historic and future flood risk.
10.2.4 The PFRA has been used to advise on the historic flood events occurring in the wider area and any particular issues linked with the types of flooding occurring in Hampshire.
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Halcrow 2010
10.2.5 The study has been completed by Halcrow in January 2010 in conjunction with the Borough Council, the Environment Agency and the local water companies.
Hampshire Groundwater Management Plan, Hampshire County Council 2013
10.2.6 The Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) for Hampshire has been prepared in partnership with other risk management authorities including the district councils, the Hampshire Association of Local Councils, the Environment Agency, water companies and others. It builds on work undertaken on the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hampshire. The GWMP provides a Surface Water Management Plan, which incorporates the projection of a joint action plan specific to groundwater flooding.
10.2.7 As mentioned in the report, the prediction of future groundwater flooding is relatively unsophisticated compared to modelling fluvial or surface water flooding. Currently there is no standard method of estimating future risk of groundwater flooding and existing approaches have tended to focus on the susceptibility of areas to groundwater flooding.
Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan
10.2.8 The Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan (2011-2029) was submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for formal examination on the 9 October 2014. At this stage, the development plan for the purposes of the determination of planning applications, consists of:
The saved policies of the Adopted Local Plan (1996-2011); and Interactive Policy Map for which policies apply to which areas.
Saved Policies of Basingstoke and Deane Adopted Local Plan (1996-2011)
10.2.9 Saved Policy A7 is relevant to the water environment and specifies that planning permission will be granted for developments provided that:
Sufficient water supply, surface water drainage, foul drainage and sewage treatment capacity already exist; or Additional capacity can be provided in time to serve the development; and The above matters would not lead to problems for existing users, or adversely affect the environment.
148 stridetreglown.com 10.3. Method
Methodology
10.3.1 The methodology adopted in this assessment involves the following:
Review of international, national and local legislation, policies and guidelines in relation to water quality, drainage and flood risk; Establishment of baseline conditions on and around the site through literature review, existing data obtained from the Environment Agency and Thames Water; Identification of sensitive receptors through desk study and consultations with the Environment Agency as reported within the FRA for the development; Identification of risks to water quality and flooding from development and hence the likely effects, magnitude of change and significance of environmental effects during both the construction and operational phases; Development of mitigation strategies through consultation with the design team; Identification of opportunities for enhancement of surface water quality and surface water management through design and mitigation; and Identification of residual effects and identification of cumulative effects.
10.3.2 The current baseline for the assessment is 2015. Effects are to be considered both during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. Effects are to be assessed in the context of whether they are permanent, temporary, direct or indirect.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 149
Assessment of effects
Receptor sensitivity
10.3.3 A qualitative assessment of receptor sensitivity is described in Table 10.1.
Sensitivity Criteria
High Water body of high amenity value, including areas of bathing and water sports are regularly practiced. Water body of good or high chemical or ecological status. Includes designated bathing waters, shellfish and salmonid fisheries. A source used for public water supply or designated as a source protection zone. Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA)/Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar site or highly sensitive aquatic ecosystem. Water bodies currently failing water quality objectives Areas which are highly vulnerable. With reference to flood risk, these can include essential infrastructure, emergency services and basement dwellings.
Moderate Water body of moderate amenity value including public parks, boating, non-contact sports, popular footpaths adjacent to water courses, or water courses running through housing developments/town centres. Water body of moderate ecological status and/ or non - public water supply or cyprinid fishery. Water body of nature conservation importance at the regional level or a moderately sensitive aquatic ecosystem e.g. Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Areas which are more vulnerable. With reference to flood risk, these can include hospitals, residential units, educational facilities and waste management sites.
Low Water body of poor ecological status. A source in close proximity to a source protection zone or abstraction point. Water body of particular local social/cultural/educational interest. Water body of low amenity value with only casual access, e.g. along a road or bridge in a rural area. Areas which are less vulnerable. With reference to flood risk, these can include retail, commercial and general industrial units, agricultural/forestry sites and water/sewage treatment plants.
Negligible Low sensitivity aquatic ecosystem. Water of poor ecological status. Water body of no amenity value, seldom used for amenity purposes, in a remote or inaccessible area. Areas which are considered to be water-compatible. With reference to flood risk, these can include flood control infrastructure, docks/marinas, pumping stations and recreational/landscape areas.
Table 10. 1 Criteria for determining receptor sensitivity
150 stridetreglown.com Effect magnitude
10.3.4 The qualitative criteria used to assess how far an effect deviates from the baseline condition, i.e. the magnitude of change, are described in Table 10.2.
Magnitude Criteria
Large Wholesale changes to the watercourse channel, route or hydrology. Significant changes to soil erosion or sedimentation patterns. Major changes to the water chemistry of surface run-off and groundwater. Changes to site resulting in an increase in discharge/run-off with flood/sewerage exceedance potential. A large increase to flood risk of water bodies and areas downstream. A large risk of flooding to site infrastructure and users, as determined by an on-site FRA in accordance with NPPF.
Medium Some fundamental changes to the watercourse and hydrology. Moderate changes to soil erosion or sedimentation patterns. Moderate changes to the water chemistry of surface run-off and groundwater. Changes to site resulting in an increase in discharge/run-off within system capacity. A medium increase to flood risk of water bodies and areas downstream. A medium risk of flooding to site infrastructure and users, as determined by an onsite FRA in accordance with NPPF.
Small Minor changes to the watercourse. Minor changes to soil erosion or sedimentation patterns. Minor changes to the water chemistry of surface run-off and groundwater. Changes to site resulting in slight increase in discharge/run-off well within drainage system capacity. A small increase to flood risk of water bodies and areas downstream. A small risk of flooding to site infrastructure and users, as determined by an onsite FRA in accordance with NPFF.
Negligible No change to the watercourse, run-off and soil erosion and sedimentation patterns and water chemistry. Very minor to no change in discharge run-off and increased pressure on sewer capacity. No increased flood risk to water bodies and areas downstream. No risk of flooding to site infrastructure and users, as determined by an onsite FRA in accordance with NPPF
Table 10.2 Criteria for determining magnitude of change / impact
Significance evaluation
10.3.5 The significance of a potential effect is derived by considering both the sensitivity of the feature and the magnitude of change, as demonstrated in Table 10.3
Magnitude of change / impact
Large Medium Small Negligible
Receptor High Major Major Moderate/Minor Negligible sensitivity Moderate Major Moderate Minor Negligible
Low Moderate/Minor Minor Minor Negligible
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Table 10.3 Matrix for determining effect significance
10.3.6 Note that moderate and major effects are considered to be ‘significant’.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 151
10.4. Baseline
Existing land use and site levels
10.4.1 The development site is bound to the south by A30 (Roman Road) and at close proximity to Junction 7 of M3 between Basingstoke and Winchester. A minor road is bounding the site to the East. The site is located southwest of Basingstoke, Hampshire, North of the town of Dummer. The site is currently Greenfield, an undeveloped site which is used for agricultural purposes covering 22.5 ha.
10.4.2 The site lies between approximately 135mAOD to 160mAOD, sloping from north-west to south- east at an approximate slope of 1:20 towards the A30. There is a depression at the south end of the site along the A30. The lowest point of the site at the south corner is at 135.00mAOD. A topographic survey and long section of the site are included as appendices to the FRA for the site, which forms Appendix X to the ES.
Existing surface water drainage
10.4.3 The site is currently defined as greenfield and is therefore not currently serviced by surface water infrastructure. In order to get a better understanding of the hydrological catchments draining through the site, surface elevation information covering the wider area beyond the topographic survey was obtained and analysed (further details provided in the FRA). The flow routes and catchment area draining through the site is shown in Figure 10.1.
10.4.4 The existing rate of run-off of the entire site (within the red line boundary) for the 1 in 100 year event including allowance for climate change has been estimated to be 56.7 l/s (2.56 l/s/ha).
152 stridetreglown.com Figure 10.1 Flow routes and catchment draining through site (Background map: Google Earth PRO)
10.4.5 The catchment area is approximately 100ha.
Existing foul water drainage
10.4.6 The site is Greenfield and is therefore not currently serviced by foul water sewerage infrastructure. The nearest Thames Water gravity sewers, suitable for use by the development, are located 1.5km east along the A30 and adjacent to Basingstoke Golf Club.
Surface water features
10.4.7 No main watercourses have been identified at the vicinity of the site.
10.4.8 The nearest surface water features to the site include:
Localised stream passing to the south of the site; River Test (Upper) – 4.5 km to the West-North-West – which is likely to drain the wider catchment that the site is located within.
10.4.9 The above water features are studied further in the following sections of this ES chapter.
Localised watercourse – water quality
10.4.10 No main rivers have been identified at the vicinity of the site. However, there is a localised watercourse which drains the catchment above the site, located to the south of the site. Further details of likely flows routes can be seen in the catchment flow route image in Figure 10.1.
10.4.11 The watercourse is not monitored under the Water Framework Directive. However, this watercourse is expected to drain into the larger River Test catchment and thus will influence the water quality of that watercourse, discussed in the following section of this chapter.
The River Test (Upper) – water quality
10.4.12 The on-site drainage currently connects to a stream to the south of the site, which is presumed to eventually connect to the River Test. There is potential for on-site activities to influence the water quality of the river through this connection.
10.4.13 The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) was transposed into national law through the Water Environment WFD (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 3242). The aim of this Directive is to provide an integrated approach to the management of water resources, particularly water quality, across Europe. As part of the Directive, River Basin Management Plans have been established.
10.4.14 The River Test falls within the South East Basin District. The associated River Basin Management Plan sets a number of actions to meet the requirements of the WFD.
10.4.15 The current ecological status of the River Test in this location is classified as moderate (Figure 10.2). This stretch of the river is not expected to meet good ecological potential in the next WFD planning cycle (2015-2021).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 153
Figure 10.2 Ecological status of the River Test (Upper) (EA website 24 February 2015)
10.4.16 Chemical status takes into account more polluting substances listed within the European Union Dangerous Substances Directive (and daughter directives) and Annex X of the European Union WFD - Priority List Substances. The chemical status of the River Test in this location does not require assessment under the WFD (Figure 10.3).
Figure 10.3 Chemical status of the River Test (Upper) (EA website 24 February 2015)
154 stridetreglown.com Groundwater
10.4.17 The British Geological Survey (BGS) map viewer has been used to identify the type of bedrock beneath the site. A thin layer of Topsoil of approximately 1.0m in depth is underlain by White Chalk, which is a very pervious bedrock. A Ground Investigation was completed over the site area in November 2014; the investigation confirms that the topsoil is silty clay, above a chalk bedrock. Groundwater was only encountered at one of the boreholes (BH10) at a steady water depth of 0.8m. No groundwater was encountered at the rest of the boreholes during the investigation or subsequent monitoring despite groundwater wells being installed up to 15m below the current surface level.
On-site flood risk
10.4.18 A detailed assessment of existing flood risk to the site and a full summary of consultations with the EA is provided in the FRA. A summary is provided below:
History of flooding
10.4.19 According to the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, significant flood events occurred in winter 2000-2001 within Hampshire with rainfall return periods estimated to range from 1:50 to 1:200. Flooding during this period was primarily due to spring flows and high groundwater levels and secondly from direct rainfall runoff from saturated ground. There are no records of flooding at the application site during those flood events.
10.4.20 The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Basingstoke and Deane Historic Flood map illustrates areas where localised flooding occurred up until 2012 when they were last updated. These localised floods were mainly caused by high groundwater levels preventing infiltration of rainwater into the soil and by inadequate drainage. As shown in Figure 10.3 the historic flood map indicates that a small area of the A30, 300m to the northeast of the site boundary was flooded.
10.4.21 The Environment Agency (EA) has no record of flooding occurring at the site. It should, however, be noted that not all flooding events are reported to the EA. The site owner has stated that he and his farmer tenants have never known the site area to flood.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 155
Figure 10.3 Area of historic flooding (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, SFRA, 2010) Area of historic flooding (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, SFRA, 2010)
Flood Mechanisms
10.4.22 As described in the SFRA, there are four basic flooding mechanisms that affect inland permeable catchments, described below:
High groundwater levels which rise above the ground surface locally (groundwater flooding); High groundwater levels producing high baseflow in the river channels which exceeds channel capacity (fluvial flooding); Localised surface water runoff (direct from overland flow); and Sewer flooding.
10.4.23 For the application site, it has been considered appropriate to assess only fluvial, surface water and groundwater flood risks, as there are no significant sewerage systems in the area.
Groundwater flooding
10.4.24 Groundwater flooding occurs where the water levels in rock and soil become high enough for the water to appear near to or above the ground surface. This type of flooding is most likely to occur in areas above significant aquifers, where there are underlying gravels, or porous or fractured rocks, sufficiently permeable to allow water to pass through. Groundwater levels within aquifers generally rise and fall according to an annual cycle, but periods of prolonged rainfall may cause water levels to rise above the ground surface.
10.4.25 During the development of the Groundwater Management Plan for Hampshire, the Hampshire County Council produced a map showing areas susceptible to groundwater flooding. The site does not fall under those areas.
156 stridetreglown.com 10.4.26 Groundwater flooding is a serious issue in Hampshire as a large proportion of the county is underlain by chalk as is the case for this site. During the winter of 2000/2001, extreme rainfall conditions prevailed across Hampshire, causing numerous flooding incidents. According to the SFRA, many of those incidents related to elevated groundwater levels and abnormally high spring flows. Most of those groundwater flood events were at their most significant in areas underlain by the chalk. However, there are no records of groundwater flooding incidents close to the site.
10.4.27 BuroHappold has undertaken groundwater monitoring during the winter of 2014/2015 at 8 borehole locations of varying depths (125mAOD to 148.6mAOD). The borehole locations are shown in the FRA. The results show that no groundwater was encountered in the boreholes at the lower part of the site. While rainfall during the autumn / winter period of 2014/2015 has not been exceptional it has been sufficient to characterise the average winter groundwater level.
10.4.28 As reported in the PFRA, a particular issue associated with groundwater flooding is the emergence of winterbourne streams. Winterbourne streams or ‘winterbournes’ are channels that are generally dry during summer but become watercourses from the groundwater stored in the underlying aquifer that is forced to the surface level during wet winters. Winterbournes only occur in areas of chalk bedrock, such as the site under consideration and in areas where groundwater levels are high. After consultation with the EA, it has been suggested that a winterbourne exits the ground at the east of the site, further discussed in the section below.
10.4.29 Based on the borehole data, the winter groundwater level at the site defined as Flood Zone 2 is over 15m below ground level. This suggests that groundwater flooding is considered to be a very low risk. The formation of a winterbourne at the site is extremely unlikely.
Flooding from rivers and the sea
10.4.30 According to the EA’s flood maps for planning, the site primarily lies within Flood Zone 1, with a depression to the south east of the site marked as lying within Flood Zone 2, as shown in Figure 10.4. No main watercourses have been identified at the vicinity of the site.
Figure 10.4 Risk of flooding from rivers and the sea – Site indicated by red line boundary (Contains Environment Agency information © Environment Agency and database right, 2015)
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 157
10.4.31 Flood levels have been provided by the EA for several locations along the south edge of the site. The values shown in Figure 10.5 are for the 1 in 1000 year event.
Figure 10.5 JFLOW modelled levels - Site indicated by red line boundary (Contains Environment Agency information © Environment Agency and database right, 2015)
10.4.32 Consultations with the EA have confirmed that the fluvial flood risk indicated originates from a spring which has been identified as exiting the ground south of the golf course by the A30 to the east of the site. It is difficult to exactly locate but the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) handbook has been used to estimate where it would appear and the corresponding input flows.
10.4.33 The modelling was undertaken using JFLOW and an input flow was used to calculate the flood extents. The model does not take into account groundwater flooding.
10.4.34 JFLOW uses a very coarse ground model and should only be taken as a guide. It uses averaged ground levels and filters out large bunds, drainage ditches and culverts. It is considered questionable whether the fluvial route shown on the flood map would reach the site based on the detailed survey topographical levels in the area of the A30; it is possible that these levels have effectively been flattened by the models averaging.
10.4.35 The EA considers the fluvial flood risk from the winterbourne to be very low for the site. The EA were unable to quantify the return periods which the spring would flow above ground, but stated flow would be as a result of high return period events caused by high rainfall intensities.
10.4.36 Based on the borehole records that show winter groundwater within the Chalk aquifer to be at least 15m below the site surface it seems unlikely that a winterbourne will form in the south east of the site. The indicated flow path of the watercourse from a nearby spring also appears unlikely due to the ground levels and morphology of the A30 which appears likely to intercept and block any surface water flow from the spring to the site.
158 stridetreglown.com 10.4.37 The risk of fluvial flooding at the site is therefore considered to be very low.
Surface Water flooding
10.4.38 Flooding from surface water occurs when intense, often short duration rainfall is unable to soak into the ground or enter drainage systems. This type of flooding is usually short duration, localised and associated with heavy downpours of rain.
10.4.39 Information on surface water flooding has been provided by the EA and supersedes the flood maps included in the SFRA. As shown in Figure 10.6 below, the largest part of the site lies in an area with very low likelihood of flooding from surface water (less than 1 in 1000 chance of rainfall occurring in any year) with a very small area along the southern end lying at medium and high likelihood of flooding (1 in 100 to 1 in 30 chance of rainfall occurring in any year). This area is a depression where, due to the lower ground levels, the surface water run-off from the site is ponding. It has been also suggested that a surface water run-off flow route formed at the wider catchment to the east of the site passes through the bottom of the site.
Figure 10.6 Risk of flooding from surface water (Contains Environment Agency information © Environment Agency and database right, 2015)
10.4.40 The EA clarified during the consultations with BuroHappold that the ground model information used for the surface water modelling is more detailed than the fluvial modelling. This difference in resolution produces different flow routes at the A30 junctions for the two EA maps.
10.4.41 It has been considered essential to identify the catchment area draining thorough the site at the depression to enable the design of any mitigation measures required to be put in place. In order to get a better understanding of the hydrological catchment draining through the site, surface elevation information covering the wider area beyond the topographic survey was required.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 159
10.4.42 Photogrammetric Digital Terrain Model topographic information have been used to determine the catchment boundaries outside of the area covered by the site topography survey. The information was provided in raster format with a resolution of 5m and accuracy of ±1m in the XY directions and ±1.5m in the Z direction (elevation). Review of the photogrammetric information and comparison with the site survey showed good agreement between the two and provided confidence to the analysis. The flow routes and catchment area draining through the site is shown in Figure 10.1. The catchment area is approximately 100ha.
Overall flood risk
10.4.43 The appraisal of risk shows that the proposed development is at:
Low risk of groundwater flooding and low likelihood of emergence of winterbournes; Very low risk of flooding from fluvial flooding; Very low risk of flooding from surface water flooding at the upper part of the site; and Medium to high risk of flooding from surface water flooding at the bottom of the site, caused by the upper catchment surface water run-off flow.
Identified receptors and their sensitivity
10.4.44 Potential receptors have been identified through the assessment of baseline conditions. Sensitivities have been applied as indicated in Table 10.4.
Receptor Sensitivity Justification
Localised Water High Drains to a water body that is failing to meet the quality standards of watercourse/spring quality the Water Framework Directive.
Capacity High Additional surface water runoff to the spring will increase the risk of flooding downstream
River Test (Upper) Water High Failing to meet the quality standards of the Water Framework quality Directive.
Water services infrastructure Moderate Waste water infrastructure may be running close to capacity (foul treatment)
Site users High Construction site workers and plant, and site users during operation
Table 10.4 Identified receptors and their sensitivity
10.5. Development Proposals of Relevance
10.5.1 Construction of the hospital and supporting infrastructure will include the potential for water polluting activities during the construction phase.
10.5.2 The development will introduce site users with an associated increase in foul water demand on associated infrastructure.
10.5.3 The development will lead to an increase in hardstanding, which could in turn increase surface water run-off rates without appropriate mitigation.
10.5.4 The development will bring a new hospital use to the site, which could be vulnerable to sources of flood risk as identified in NPPF, without appropriate mitigation measures.
160 stridetreglown.com 10.6. Potential Effects and Significance
Construction
10.6.1 The risks to the water environment during construction include:
Increase in sediment loads caused by site run-off containing elevated suspended sediment levels. This can result from land clearance, excavation, dewatering of excavations, stockpiles, wheel washing and movement of materials to and from the site; The release of hydrocarbons and oils into the on-site drainage system due to a large number of vehicles accessing the site, leakage from oil / fuel storage tanks and accidental spillages; Accidental leaks and use of hazardous materials, particularly concrete and cement products, which can be contained in uncontrolled wash-down water and surface water run- off; Dust and debris caused by poor management of site; Leaks or breakage of temporary sewerage system infiltrating groundwater and/or migrating to surface waters; and Flood risk to construction workers.
10.6.2 These effects can be identified as temporary (construction activities) or permanent (loss of habitat) and risks relating to the water environment as a result of this development are discussed in detail below and summarised in Table 10.5. The assessment will take account of mitigation already incorporated within the project design; supplementary mitigation measures will then be discussed.
Operation
10.6.3 The risks to the water environment during operation include:
Pollutants contained within surface water run-off contaminating water bodies; Increased flood risk caused by increased surface water run-off rates during storm events and poorly maintained surface water management features. Blockages in the on-site surface water drainage system could cause surface water network to surcharge and pose flood risk to the development and surroundings. Sediment build up in the surface water drainage system could also reduce the capacity of the system to handle design flows; and Sewerage infrastructure may not have enough capacity to receive increased foul discharges to the network and waste water treatment works.
10.6.4 These effects are discussed in detail below and summarised in Table 10.6 and are assessed before mitigation measures, that are not inherent within the scheme design, are considered.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 161
Evaluation & assessment of the significance of the effects identified
Increased sediment loads
10.6.5 Site run-off containing elevated suspended sediment levels can result from land clearance, excavation, dewatering of excavations, stockpiles, wheel washings and movement of materials to and from the site. Run-off with high sediment loads can have adverse effects on water bodies through increasing turbidity (thus reducing light penetration and reducing plant growth), and by smothering vegetation and bed substrates (thus effecting on animal communities through the destruction of feeding areas, refuges and breeding / spawning areas). Indirect adverse effects can also be associated with suspended sediments that have inorganic or organic contaminants (e.g. heavy metals and pesticides, respectively).
10.6.6 Increased sediment loads have the potential to impact the localised water course and the River Test through the existing drainage regime. Without appropriate mitigation, the magnitude of change on the localised water course and the River Test is likely to be medium and small respectively. When considering receptor sensitivity of these two watercourses, the overall significant effect to water quality is considered to be major adverse and moderate to minor adverse respectively.
Hydrocarbons and oils
10.6.7 The release of hydrocarbons and oils into the on-site drainage system is a common form of pollution on construction sites. There is a risk such pollution will increase during construction with heavy duty vehicles accessing the site. This increases the likelihood of leakage from oil / fuel storage tanks and accidental spillages. Oils and fuels that are washed from surfaces into the on-site drainage system are likely to discharge to watercourses.
10.6.8 Hydrocarbons form a film on the surface of the water body, deplete oxygen levels and can be toxic to freshwater fish. Even at very low concentrations the film can negatively affect the visual appearance of the water body. The effect would be temporary, and water quality within the affected water body would improve over time as pollutants disperse and are treated by natural processes.
10.6.9 Increased hydrocarbons and oils have the potential to impact the localised water course and the River Test through the existing drainage regime. Without appropriate mitigation, the magnitude of change on the localised water course and the River Test is likely to be medium and small respectively. When considering receptor sensitivity of these two watercourses, the overall significant effect to water quality is considered to be major adverse and moderate to minor adverse respectively.
Accidental leaks of and use of hazardous materials
10.6.10 The use of concrete and cement products on-site can present a pollution risk because of the potential for uncontrolled release of wash-down and surface water run-off. If these activities are not carried out in designated areas, wastewater may enter a water body and adversely affect the combined sewer and aquatic environment. Concrete products are highly alkaline and corrosive; fish can be physically damaged and their gills blocked, and both vegetation and the bed of the water body can be smothered.
10.6.11 During construction there is an elevated risk of potential leaks or accidental spillage of hazardous chemicals infiltrating to groundwater or migrating to surface water bodies. However, it is only when large quantities of hazardous substances are spilled, or the spillage is directly into the water body, that a significant risk of acute toxicity will arise in the receiving water body. The magnitude of any change will depend on the scale and nature of any potential incident and thus is difficult to predict.
162 stridetreglown.com 10.6.12 For the most part, effects are likely to be temporary; water quality within the affected water body will improve over time as pollutants are dispersed and diluted.
10.6.13 Considering any spillage would not be direct and the likely nature of chemicals used on site, the magnitude of change on the localised water course and the River Test is likely to be medium and small respectively. When considering receptor sensitivity of these two watercourses, the overall significant effect to water quality is considered to be major adverse and moderate to minor adverse respectively.
Dust and debris
10.6.14 Construction activities located on site have the potential to release dust and debris that may be blown into adjacent water bodies. Increased dust levels in water bodies may reduce the levels of light reaching aquatic plant and animal species. Debris blown into water bodies can decrease the recreational and aesthetic quality of the water body. Effects will however be temporary; water quality within the affected water body will improve over time as dust and debris settle or are trapped by vegetation.
10.6.15 The impact of dust blowing directly into water bodies will be medium for the localised watercourse and therefore major in significance without appropriate mitigation. The River Test is too far away to be directly impacted by dust and debris and therefore direct impacts will be negligible. Dust will indirectly affect the River Test through settling on site and transference by the localised watercourse and the effect of this is acknowledged in the assessment of increased sediment loads within surface water run-off earlier in this construction assessment.
Leak or breakage of the temporary sewerage system
10.6.16 Leaks and breakages of sewers from the temporary toilet facilities on-site during construction works may result in crude sewage infiltrating groundwater or being washed into the site drainage system. Sewage contains high levels of nutrients, organic matter, coliforms and suspended solids. These can result in nutrient enrichment and eutrophication, smothering of bottom-dwelling organisms and plants, and significantly reduced oxygen levels. The effect would be temporary as water quality within the affected water body would improve over time as organic matter is dispersed and treated by natural processes.
10.6.17 Sewage escaping the temporary sewerage system has the potential to impact the localised water course and the River Test through the existing drainage regime. Without appropriate mitigation, the magnitude of change on the localised water course and the River Test is likely to be medium and small respectively. When considering receptor sensitivity of these two watercourses, the overall significant effect to water quality is considered to be major adverse and moderate to minor adverse respectively.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 163
Flood risk to construction workers and construction plant
10.6.18 Without appropriate mitigation to protect construction workers from excavations / ground water flooding (especially for any excavations associated with the basement for the Cancer Treatment Centre), surface water flooding and the residual fluvial risks to the site, the magnitude of change on the construction workers and plant is likely to be medium and the significance of effect is considered to be major in significance.
Receptor Sensitivity Description of effect Magnitude of Effect change / significance impact
Localised High Increased sediment loads Medium adverse Major adverse watercourse/spring
(water quality) Accidental release of hydrocarbons Medium adverse Major adverse
Accidental release of hazardous materials Medium adverse Major adverse
Dust and debris Medium adverse Major adverse
Leak or breakage of the temporary Medium adverse Major adverse sewerage system
River Test (upper) High Increased sediment loads Small adverse Moderate – Minor adverse (water quality)
Accidental release of hydrocarbons Small adverse Moderate – Minor adverse
Accidental release of hazardous materials Small adverse Moderate – Minor adverse
Dust and debris Negligible Negligible
Leak or breakage of the temporary Small adverse Moderate – sewerage system Minor adverse
Site users High Flood risks to site workers (groundwater, Medium adverse Major adverse (construction surface water and fluvial) workers and plant)
Table 10.5 Summary of potentially significant effects during construction
Operation
Pollutants contained in surface water
10.6.19 Pollutants, such as silts and hydrocarbons resulting from activities on-site such as vehicle storage, vehicle washing and oil / fuels leaks would be discharged to the public surface sewerage network through surface water run-off. This can increase water turbidity, deplete oxygen levels and be toxic to the aquatic environment.
10.6.20 The magnitude of change will depend on the activities present and their occurrence. The effect is considered permanent, although, certain activities such as accidental spillages would be temporary. It is envisaged that the magnitude of change to localised watercourse/spring will be medium and small for the River Test with the operation of the development without appropriate mitigation. Thus, the overall significant effect is envisaged to be major adverse and moderate to minor adverse respectively.
164 stridetreglown.com Increased flood risk
10.6.21 On-site - The main flood risk to the site, with a medium to high flood risk, is from surface water flooding towards the south of the site. Without appropriate mitigation, the magnitude of impact could be medium and the effect significance major adverse to site users.
10.6.22 Off-site - Without appropriate attenuation, the introduction of hardstanding on a greenfield site would increase flood risk downstream. The magnitude of change with regard to increasing flood risk downstream without mitigation due could be medium and the effect significance major adverse.
Foul water drainage
10.6.23 Thames Water has a duty to connect new development to foul water infrastructure where available. Where new foul connections are poorly timed or made to areas with limited capacity, the effect of new development is more complicated as pollution is often seen in another location along the sewerage catchment. Abstraction locations can be affected and potentially either the local combined sewer network can discharge prematurely or the waste water treatment works that serves the area may not meet the required limits that prevent pollution in that location.
10.6.24 Without appropriate demand management and continued early engagement with Thames Water, the potential magnitude of change on foul water capacity could be medium. Leading to a moderate adverse effect significance, without further mitigation.
10.6.25 A summary of potential effects and their significance prior to further mitigation is provided in Table 10.6.
Receptor Sensitivity Description of effect Magnitude of Effect change / significance impact
Localised High Pollutants contained in surface water Medium Major adverse watercourse/spring (water quality)
Localised High Increased surface water runoff due to Medium Major adverse watercourse/spring / introduction of hardstanding on-site drainage (capacity / vulnerability to increased flood risk)
River Test (upper) High Pollutants contained in surface water Small Moderate – Minor adverse (water quality)
Water services Moderate Increased pressure of sewerage Medium Moderate infrastructure (foul) infrastructure and Sewage Treatment adverse Works
Site users High Flood risk to site users Medium Major adverse
Table 10.6 Summary of potential operational effects
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 165
10.7. Mitigation
Construction
10.7.1 The contractor will develop a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that will include mitigation measures to protect the water environment. This will set out how construction activities will be undertaken in accordance with the Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) published by the EA, particularly ‘PPG1 General guide to the prevention of water pollution’, ‘PPG2 Above ground oil storage tanks’, ‘PPG 5 Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses’, and ‘PPG 6 Working at construction and demolition sites’, and other good construction guidance such as CIRIA ‘Guidance C532 control of water pollution from construction sites’.
10.7.2 Table 10.7 sets out the mitigation measures that should be implemented to address the specific risks identified in 10.5.
166 stridetreglown.com Adverse effect Mitigation measure Means of implementation Timing Essential / desirable
Elevated sediment Development and implementation of a Construction Environment CEMP to be secured Prior to and during Essential loads in surface Management Plan (CEMP) that provides control measures for the following: through planning condition construction. water & Dewatering and implemented by Minimise areas of exposed surface by only removing vegetation and hard- of excavations. contractor. standing when necessary and keep gradients of soil as shallow as possible to Dust and debris prevent large amounts of earth being washed away during periods of heavy rainfall. Areas which are exposed should be reseeded or surfaced as soon as practicable. Enforce tight control of site boundaries including minimal land clearance and restrictions on the use of machinery adjacent to water bodies. Where possible, do not locate stockpiles within 10m of water bodies or drainage lines. Wheel wash facilities should be provided at all entry and exits points. Water from wheel wash facilities must not be discharged into water bodies or the on- site surface water sewerage network. Capture run off from site in perimeter cut off ditches, settlement lagoons and/or settlement tanks where possible. Any dewatering required from site excavations should be pumped into a settlement tank or lagoon and not discharge direct to a water body or the on-site surface water sewerage network. Sediment should be removed from water pumped during any extractions required. Sediment should be removed prior to discharges to the surface water network through the use of a baffle tank system or equivalent. If there is a requirement for discharge to the combined sewer, this should be throttled to a flow rate that is agreed with Thames Water prior to commencement of work. Construction Environmental Management Plan to include dust suppression measures such as dampening, and wheel washing. See Chapter 13 Air Quality for further details.
Accidental release of Development and implementation of a Construction Environment CEMP to be secured Prior to and during Essential hydrocarbons and Management Plan that provides control measures for the following: through planning condition construction. oils into the on-site and implemented by Incorporate interceptors where appropriate into the site drainage system at drainage system or contractor. high risk areas, such as parking, unloading and refuelling areas, to remove directly to water body hydrocarbons and oils from surface water prior to discharge. Other measures including drip trays under equipment such as generators, and wheel washing facilities should also be implemented to minimise the risk of pollutants infiltrating groundwater or the surface water drainage network.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 167
Accidental leaks and Development and implementation of a Construction Environment CEMP to be secured Prior to and during Essential spillages of Management Planthat provides control measures for the following: through planning condition construction. significant amounts and implemented by Provide storage facilities and tanks and conduct refuelling of machinery within of hazardous contractor. bunded areas, which should not be located within 10m of water bodies or materials migrating drainage lines. Storage and bunded areas to be constructed of impervious into the on-site floors and walls with the capacity for the contents of the storage tank and an drainage system or additional ten per cent safety margin. As a remedial measure, spill directly to water body containment equipment such as absorbent materials should be stored on site. Mixing of construction materials, such as cement, will be conducted in designated areas located away from water bodies and drainage lines.
Leak or breakage of Development and implementation of a Construction Environment CEMP to be secured Prior to and during Essential temporary sewerage Management Plan that provides control measures for the following: through planning condition construction. system causing and implemented by Contractor should provide and maintain temporary septic tank, cesspit and/or crude sewage to contractor. sewerage connection for disposal of sewage from the toilet facilities to reduce migrate to water the likelihood of crude sewage infiltrating groundwater or migrating towards water bodies. Any temporary toilet facilities will be positioned at least 10m away from the banks of water bodies / the on-site culvert.
Flood risk to site Contractor to prepare a flood emergency and contingency plan including CEMP to be secured Prior to and during Essential workers and arrangements to make safe any static plant, move any mobile plant, and to through planning condition construction. downstream during evacuate site operatives in a flood risk emergency. and implemented by construction contractor. Construction workers should be made aware of risks associated with excess surface water caused by overland flows, groundwater due to excavations and standing water. For example, risks to deep excavations and damage to plant. To minimise any risk from groundwater flooding during excavation of the site, cut levels should be limited to at least 0.5m above the groundwater level. Where this is not possible, dewatering and other groundwater control measures should be employed. Any such groundwater control measures will also require pollution control measures in accordance with EA guidance.
Table 10.7 Summary of construction mitigation measures
168 Operation
10.7.3 In order to minimise adverse effects, a number of mitigation controls will be incorporated into the detailed design of the drainage infrastructure on site as discussed below. Maintenance of the drainage infrastructure will need to occur in line with good practice requirements. The measures, identified in the FRA, will additionally need to be developed further at the detailed design stage as identified in Table 10.8.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 169
Receptor Adverse effect Mitigation measure Means of Timing Essential/ implementation desirable
Localised water Pollutants Reference should be made to the FRA and Drainage Strategy for full Through detailed design, Through all Essential course and contained in details. A summary of the relevant mitigation measures is provided construction and design stages River Test surface water below. maintenance of and measures recommended maintained With regard to water quality, this will be improved through the use of within the FRA and through the permeable paving at the car park areas that trap and break down any Drainage Strategy lifespan of the pollutants. Surface water from the roof of buildings will pass through a project filter prior to discharge to a drainage blanket. The helipad will be drained separately via a channel drainage system, to intercept any spillages from aircraft and connected to an oil separator prior to discharge to the ground via a soakaway.
170 Localised Increased flood Reference should be made to the FRA and Drainage Strategy for full Through detailed design, Through all Essential watercourse/ risk down details. A summary of the drainage strategy and relevant mitigation construction and design stages, spring / on-site downstream and measures is provided below. maintenance of implemented drainage on site due to measures recommended during
runoff within the Drainage construction (capacity / The pre-development rate of run-off from the 22.1ha site for the 1 in Strategy, and vulnerability to 100 year event including allowance for climate change is estimated to maintained increased flood be 56.7 l/s (2.56 l/s/ha). This has been calculated using the FEH during risk) statistical method. operation
The drainage strategies for the Critical Treatment Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre sites incorporate SuDS features which will utilise infiltration and temporary storage on site to capture surface water run- off for up to 1 in 100 year event including allowance for climate change. These techniques include infiltration blankets, trenches, permeable pavements and swales and aim to infiltrate run-off at source for the largest part of the site. Run-off from a small part of the site will not be captured and will flow off the site at greenfield rates. The above measures have been agreed in concept with the Environment Agency during consultations.
It is anticipated that the post-development run-off rate will therefore be reduced to 2.56 l/s (0.12 l/s/ha). Two flow routes have been identified to pass at the bottom of the site; a flow route due to the surface water run-off from the wider catchment and a potential fluvial flow route from a winterbourne exiting the ground east of the site. A set of culverts have been designed to maintain these flows and have been sized to accommodate off-site surface water run-off for events of up to 1 in 100 year + climate change and fluvial flooding for events of up to 1 in 1000 year. Maintenance of the SuDS features in order to minimise the risk of blockage and failure of the system will be considered.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 171
Site users Increased flood Reference should be made to the FRA and Drainage Strategy for full Through detailed design, Through all Essential risk on site and details. A summary of the relevant mitigation measures is provided construction and design stages risk to site users below. maintenance of and measures recommended implemented
within the FRA and during The following mitigation measures are proposed as part of the Drainage Strategy construction development:
The sequential approach has been followed when locating the buildings on the site. All buildings are located in low risk flood areas from all sources of flooding (Flood Zone 1); The building levels have been raised above the 1 in 1000 fluvial flood levels; and Safe access and egress to the site have been provided by two access points and in the event of flooding on A30 alternative routes have been identified. The drainage strategies for the Critical Treatment Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre sites incorporate SuDS features which will utilise infiltration and temporary storage on site to capture surface water run-off for up to 1 in 100 year event including allowance for climate change. Two flow routes have been identified to pass at the bottom of the site; a flow route due to the surface water run-off from the wider catchment and a potential fluvial flow route from a winterbourne exiting the ground east of the site. A set of culverts have been designed to maintain these flows and have been sized to accommodate off-site surface water run-off for events of up to 1 in 100 year + climate change and fluvial flooding for events of up to 1 in 1000 year. Maintenance of the SuDS features in order to minimise the risk of blockage and failure of the system will be considered.
172 Water services Foul water A new gravity drainage system will collect foul waste from each Through the Through future Essential infrastructure drainage building and convey to an on-site pumping station that will be development of potable development (foul) constructed to a standard (Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition) to enable water and foul water of potable it to be adopted by Thames Water. strategy between now water utilities
and construction of the strategy and
development foul water Thames Water will require the pumping station to be within a secure drainage compound and have an unfettered 24 hour access for emergency and design maintenance use.
The sewerage will be pumped for approximately 1.5km off-site via the services entry road, Oakley Lane, along the A30 eastwards and finally discharging into the Thames Water gravity sewers adjacent to Basingstoke Golf Club. This proposed discharge point will need to be confirmed with Thames Water.
Continued early engagement with TW on the water needs for the development and any current restrictions and the need for any upgrades.
Water efficiency measures that will reduce potable demand and subsequent foul flows should be employed where appropriate for a hospital use.
Table 10.8 Summary of operational mitigation measures
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 173
10.8. Residual Effects
Cumulative effects
10.8.1 Developments that may coincide with the scheme, thus providing for the possibility of in combination effects, include Longwood Copse Lane (13/00155/FUL) and Kennel Farm (BDB/77382).
10.8.2 Whilst it is not clear whether the other schemes would drain to the same wider catchment, if they did there is potential for inter-relationship effects during construction with pollutant loading to surface water bodies downstream. This is, however, not expected to be significant with compliance and implementation of the mitigation outlined within this assessment through a CEMP and likewise for those developments.
10.8.3 The cumulative developments will discharge into the sewer network and will increase the demand when compared to the existing on sewage infrastructure. However, with increased sustainability required with development including greater levels of water efficiency, in addition to early engagement with Thames Water to ensure development comes forward in line with their needs, the effects on foul water capacity are not considered to be significant.
10.8.4 The redevelopment of these sites will see drainage and flood risk prevention measures implemented in line with the requirements of NPPF and the Environment Agency. Therefore, it is likely that any cumulative effect to surface water runoff and flood risk on site and areas downstream will be negligible.
10.8.5 Drainage implemented in line with SuDS methods and EA pollution prevention guidance PPG 3 will in turn support the protection of water quality to ensure improvements to me “Good” Ecological Potential are not compromised by the developments.
Residual Effects
10.8.6 If the mitigation measures are implemented, along with good site practice, the residual construction impacts to the water environment are considered to be negligible and temporary for the duration of the construction period and not significant.
10.8.7 If the mitigation measures outlined during operation and within the FRA and Drainage Strategy are implemented then residual effects are likely to be negligible and not significant.
10.8.8 A summary of residual impacts during construction and operation is provided in Table 10.8 and Table 10.9.
174 stridetreglown.com Receptor Effect Significance before Mitigation Residual effects mitigation significance
Localised Increased Major adverse Implementation of a CEMP Negligible watercourse/spring sediment loads Minimise areas of exposed surface by only removing vegetation and hardstanding (water quality) when necessary Do not locate stockpiles within 10m of water bodies or drainage lines. Wheel wash facilities should be provided at all entry and exits points. Run-off and dewatering will be settled in temporary lagoons before discharge. Apply dust management procedures which are typically implemented for air quality management issues Implement good site practice, perimeter fences and tight control of materials and waste to minimise the risk of debris entering water bodies
Accidental Major adverse Implementation of a CEMP Negligible release of Incorporate interceptors into the site drainage system at high risk areas hydrocarbons Use of drip trays under equipment such as generators and wheel washing facilities
Accidental Major adverse Implementation of a CEMP Negligible release of Provide storage facilities and tanks and conduct refuelling of machinery within hazardous bunded areas away from water bodies and drainage lines materials Mixing of construction materials will be conducted in designated areas located away from water bodies and drainage lines.
Dust and debris Major adverse Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to include dust suppression Negligible measures such as dampening, and wheel washing
Leak or breakage Major adverse Contractor should provide and maintain temporary septic tank, cesspit and/or Negligible of the temporary sewerage connection sewerage system Any temporary toilet facilities should be positioned at least 10m away from the banks of water bodies
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 175
River Test (Upper) Increased Moderate – Minor Implementation of a CEMP. Negligible sediment loads adverse (water quality) Minimise areas of exposed surface by only removing vegetation and hardstanding when necessary Do not locate stockpiles within 10m of water bodies or drainage lines. Wheel wash facilities should be provided at all entry and exits points. Run-off and dewatering will be settled in temporary lagoons before discharge. Apply dust management procedures which are typically implemented for air quality management issues Implement good site practice, perimeter fences and tight control of materials and waste to minimise the risk of debris entering water bodies
Accidental Moderate – Minor Implementation of a CEMP Negligible release of adverse Incorporate interceptors into the site drainage system at high risk areas hydrocarbons Use of drip trays under equipment such as generators and wheel washing facilities
Accidental Moderate – Minor Implementation of a CEMP Negligible release of adverse Provide storage facilities and tanks and conduct refuelling of machinery within hazardous bunded areas away from water bodies and drainage lines materials Mixing of construction materials will be conducted in designated areas located away from water bodies and drainage lines
Dust and debris Negligible Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to include dust suppression Negligible measures such as dampening, and wheel washing
Leak or breakage Moderate – Minor Contractor should provide and maintain temporary septic tank, cesspit and/or Negligible of the temporary adverse sewerage connection sewerage system Any temporary toilet facilities should be positioned at least 10m away from the banks of water bodies
Site users Flood risks to site Major adverse Contractor to prepare a flood emergency and contingency plan. Construction site Negligible (construction workers users made aware of risks. workers and plant) (groundwater, To minimise risk from groundwater flooding during excavation of the site, cut levels surface water should be limited to at least 0.5m above the groundwater level. Where this is not and fluvial) possible, dewatering and other groundwater control measures should be employed.
Table 10.9 Summary of residual effects during construction
176
Receptor Effect Significance before Mitigation Residual effect mitigation significance
Localised Pollutants contained Moderate adverse Use of permeable paving at the car park areas that trap and break down any Negligible watercourse/spring in surface water pollutants. Surface water from the roof of buildings will pass through a filter prior to discharge to a drainage blanket. The Helipad will be drained separately via a (water quality) channel drainage system, to intercept any spillages from aircraft and connected to an oil separator prior to discharge to the ground via a soakaway River Test (Upper) Moderate – Minor Negligible (water quality) adverse
Localised Increased flood risk Major adverse The drainage strategies for the site will utilise infiltration and temporary storage on Negligible watercourse/spring site to accommodate surface water run-off for up to 1 in 100 year event including / on-site drainage allowance for climate change. The measures will minimise the overall surface water run-off from the site to 34 l/s (capacity / vulnerability to Two flow routes have been identified to pass at the bottom of the site; a flow route increased flood due to the surface water run-off from the wider catchment and a potential fluvial risk) flow route from a winterbourne exiting the ground east of the site. A culvert has been designed to maintain the these flows and has been sized to accommodate surface water run-off for events of up to 1 in 100 year + climate change and fluvial flooding for events of up to 1 in 1000 year In order to minimise the risk of blockage and failure of the drainage system, a maintenance regime for the SuDS features should be put in place prior to construction
Water Services Increased foul water Moderate adverse Continued early engagement with TW on the water needs for the development and Negligible Infrastructure (foul) discharge any current restrictions and the need for any upgrades Water efficiency measures that will reduce potable demand and subsequent foul flows should be employed where appropriate for a hospital use
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 177
Site users Increased flood risk Major adverse The following mitigation measures are proposed as part of the development: Negligible The sequential approach has been followed when locating the buildings on the site. All buildings are located in low risk flood areas from all sources of flooding (Flood Zone 1); The building levels have been raised above the 1 in 1000 fluvial flood levels; and Safe access and egress to the site have been provided by two access points and in the event of flooding on A30 alternative routes have been identified. The drainage strategies for the Critical Treatment Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre sites incorporate SuDS features which will utilise infiltration and temporary storage on site to capture surface water run-off for up to 1 in 100 year event including allowance for climate change. Two flow routes have been identified to pass at the bottom of the site; a flow route due to the surface water run-off from the wider catchment and a potential fluvial flow route from a winterbourne exiting the ground east of the site. A set of culverts have been designed to maintain these flows and have been sized to accommodate off-site surface water run-off for events of up to 1 in 100 year + climate change and fluvial flooding for events of up to 1 in 1000 year. Maintenance of the SuDS features in order to minimise the risk of blockage and failure of the system will be considered.
Table 10.10 Summary of residual effects during operation
178 10.9. Conclusion
Construction effects and mitigation
10.9.1 Construction activity could potentially cause temporary but significant effects on water quality. Mitigation measures are recommended including interception methods and soil protection techniques. With the suggested mitigation, the impacts on watercourses downstream are considered to be negligible. Measures are outlined to ensure that impacts to construction works and plant with regard to flood risk will be negligible.
Operational effects and mitigation
10.9.2 With the implementation of the NPPF and compliance with the requirements of the EA, using the methods outlined within the FRAand Drainage Strategy it is envisaged that there will be negligible effects in regard to flood risk during operation of this new development. The use of sustainable drainage systems will additionally reduce the impact of pollutants contained within surface water runoff, helping to mitigate against pollution to water courses during operation.
10.9.3 With regard to on site flood risk, the building levels have been raised above the 1 in 1000 fluvial flood levels and safe access and egress to the site has been provided by two access points. Additionally, in the event of flooding on A30 alternative routes have been identified.
10.9.4 There will be an increase in foul drainage with the development when compared with the existing. The scheme will need to come forward with continued early engagement with TW on the needs for the development and any current restrictions / need for upgrades.
Residual effects and conclusions
10.9.5 Through a number of mitigation measures, including those described above, the scheme should have negligible effects on all receptors during construction and operation.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 179
11. Traffic and Transport
Introduction
11.1.1 This report chapter has been prepared by Connect Consultants Limited and assesses the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of highway access and transportation considerations, and incorporates outputs from the Transport Assessment (TA) which is included as Appendix 11.1.
11.1.2 The chapter describes: the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions at the site and surroundings; the likely significant environmental effects; the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed.
Scope of Assessment
11.1.3 This chapter will analyse the likely significant transport effects having regard to the following considerations:
The location of the site in relation to its environs and the extent to which it is capable of being well served by rail, bus, cycle and pedestrian routes as well as the existing highway infrastructure; The quantum of development, the potential for the scheme to result in changes to traffic flows on the local highway network and the effect that any such changes may have in relation to highway capacity and road safety; The identification of mitigation measures (where necessary); and Assessing the effect of any proposed mitigation measures
11.1.4 In describing the significance of transport related environmental effects in this assessment, the appropriate test of significance is defined based on the authors’ professional judgement. As set out above, receptor sensitivity is determined as High, Medium, Low or Negligible and effect magnitude is determined as Neutral / No Effect, or Low, Moderate and Significant (either Adverse or Beneficial).
Accessibility Receptor Sensitivity and Effect Magnitude
11.1.5 The receptor sensitivity of the accessibility of the Site by non-car travel modes has been determined based on the Proposed Development uses and the characteristics of the Site location. The access by non-car modes to any development that generates/attracts movement is important to the success of the development, and therefore the sensitivity is medium.
The effect magnitude, based on a medium sensitivity receptor, has been determined based on the following table.
180 stridetreglown.com Significance Definition Base Sensitivity
High Medium Low Negligible
Significant Physical routes are inadequate for access to the Adverse Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR existing local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities are removed, WHICH RESULTS IN, a high level of modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes AND/OR a high reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development.
Moderate Some physical barriers to non-car accessibility to the Adverse Proposed Development exist AND/OR a worsening to local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, some modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes AND/OR over reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development
Low Adverse Physical non-car access to the Proposed Development is adequate AND/OR minor worsening in local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, possible modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes
Neutral / No Physical non-car access to the Proposed Development Effect is adequate AND/OR no notable change to local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, no/negligible modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes
Low Beneficial Physical non-car access to the Proposed Development is adequate AND/OR minor enhancement to local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, possible modal shift to non-car travel modes by existing private car users
Moderate Physical routes are good for access to the Proposed Beneficial Development by non-car modes AND/OR enhancement to local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, some modal shift to non-car travel modes by existing car users AND/OR less than typical reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development
Significant No physical barriers to non-car accessibility exist and Beneficial physical routes are comprehensive for access by non- car modes AND/OR substantial enhancement to local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, a modal shift to non-car travel modes by existing car users AND/OR minimal reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development
Table 11.1 - Non Car Accessibility Effect Magnitude
Road Safety Receptor Sensitivity and Effect Magnitude
11.1.6 Receptor sensitivity of Road Safety has been determined by reference to the road collision history of road junctions. The following table sets out the matrix for determining receptor sensitivity in relation to the collision history of the junctions or roads within the study area.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 181
Sensitivity of Receptor Road Collision Statistics
Negligible No, or a negligible number of, collisions occurred within 5 years of the assessment, and there were no fatalities
Low A typical number of collisions occurred within 5 years of the assessment, there were no fatalities, and no pattern of incidents identified
Medium A higher than average number of collisions occurred within 5 years of the assessment, there were no fatalities, and no clearly identifiable pattern of incidents attributable to road layout is established
High A high number of collisions occurred within 5 years of the assessment and a clearly identifiable pattern of incidents attributable to road layout is established, or a fatality occurred within 5 years of the assessment, which is related to a road layout factor
Table 11.2 - Road Safety Sensitivity Matrix
11.1.7 The following table sets out the method for determining effect magnitude, based on a change in peak hour traffic flows.
Effect Magnitude Sensitivity of Receptor
High Medium Low Negligible
Increase High (90% increase Significant Significant Moderate Low to / in traffic) Moderate Decrease in Peak Medium (60% Significant Moderate Low to Low Hour increase in traffic) Moderate Traffic Low (30% increase Moderate Low to Low Neutral / No in traffic) Moderate Effect
Negligible (<30% Low to Low Neutral / No Neutral / No increase in traffic) Moderate Effect Effect
Table 11.3 - Road Safety Effect Magnitude and Significance based on change in Traffic Volume
11.1.8 Percentage increases are stated at paragraph 3.17 of ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Assessment’.
182 stridetreglown.com Peak Hour Junction Capacity Receptor Sensitivity and Effect Magnitude
11.1.9 Receptor sensitivity of road traffic and junction capacity has been determined by reference to the highest importance road forming an arm of a junction (these being local access, district, sub-regional (county level), regional or national) and to its operation relative to the available capacity. The following table sets out the matrix for determining receptor sensitivity in relation to the position of the junction or road within the road hierarchy.
Receptor Sensitivity Road Hierarchy
National Regional Sub-Regional District Local
2014 Peak >1.0 High High High High High Hour Maximum 0.85 – 1.0 High High Medium Medium Low Ratio of Flow to Capacity 0.6 – 0.85 High Medium Medium Low Negligible
0.0 – 0.6 Medium Low Low Negligible Negligible
Table 11.4 - Peak Hour Junction Receptor Sensitivity Matrix
11.1.10 The following table sets out the method for determining effect magnitude, based on a change in peak hour traffic flows.
Effect Magnitude Sensitivity of Receptor
High Medium Low Negligible
Increase / High (90% increase in Significant Significant Moderate Low to Decrease in RFC / delay) Moderate Peak Hour Traffic Medium (60% increase Significant Moderate Low to Low in RFC / delay) Moderate
Low (30% increase in Moderate Low to Low Neutral / No RFC / delay) Moderate Effect t
Negligible (<30% Neutral / No Neutral / No Neutral / No Neutral / No increase in RFC / delay) Effect Effect Effect Effect
Table 11.5 - Peak Hour Junction Capacity Effect Magnitude and Significance
11.1.11 Percentage increases are stated at paragraph 3.17 of ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Assessment’. RFC is the ratio of traffic flow to junction approach capacity.
11.1.12 There are always some inherent uncertainties in the process of predicting future traffic movements and their effects. This assessment seeks to minimise these uncertainties by applying reasonably robust assumptions at the stages outlined in this report chapter.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 183
11.2. Policy/Legislative Context
National Planning Policy Framework
11.2.1 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and establishes a framework for local authorities to produce their own local plans. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF highlights that there are three dimensions to providing sustainable development, which includes economic, social and environmental roles. Socially, the residential requirements of a local community should be met by “accessible local services”.
11.2.2 Paragraph 29 of the NPPF highlights the need for a sustainable transport system highlighting that “the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel”.
11.2.3 These objectives are reiterated in paragraph 32, namely that:
“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”
11.2.4 Paragraph 35 of the NPPF identifies how developments should be located to protect access by sustainable travel modes.
11.2.5 “Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to
accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities; create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and Consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.”
11.2.6 Paragraph 36 of the NPPF identifies that all developments that generate significant amounts of movements should provide a Travel Plan.
11.2.7 “A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.”
11.3. Method
11.3.1 The methodology followed for assessment and reporting of the potential traffic and transport impact is set out below.
184 stridetreglown.com Identification of the receptors
11.3.2 In the case of transport, consideration is given to:
non-car accessibility, specifically the location of the site in relation to its environs and the extent to which it is capable of being well served by rail, bus, cycle and pedestrian routes); traffic / car accessibility; and road safety and the potential for the scheme to result in changes to traffic flows on the local highway network and the effect that any such changes may have in relation to highway capacity and road safety.
Identification of the receptor sensitivity
11.3.3 For each of the three identified receptors, a matrix is determined to identify its sensitivity. For example, in the case of road safety, consideration is given to the number of accidents that have occurred within an identified study area.
Identification of Effect Magnitude
11.3.4 For each of the receptors, an effect magnitude is determined, which is based on a number of factors, for example, percentage traffic increases for the magnitude of effect on traffic conditions.
Identification of significance
11.3.5 For each receptor, a sensitivity versus effect magnitude matrix is determined to establish the Significance of Effects.
The identification of mitigation measures (where necessary)
11.3.6 Where the determined significance has identified detrimental effects that require mitigation, the mitigation measures are identified.
Assessing the effect of any mitigation measures
11.3.7 Based on the mitigation measures identified, the effect magnitude and significance is re- determined.
11.4. Baseline
Accessibility by Foot
11.4.1 Table 3.2 of the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) document ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ sets out acceptable maximum walk distances of, 2km for Commuting and school journeys, 800m for town centres, and 1.2km for elsewhere.
11.4.2 The existing residential areas located on the south-west side of Basingstoke is an approximately 2km walk distance from the site and it is therefore unlikely that significant numbers of pedestrians will walk to the proposal site unless other travel opportunities are limited (or they are walking for personal health reasons).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 185
Accessibility by Cycle
11.4.3 Sustrans indicate in their ‘Travel Behaviour Research Baseline Survey – 2004’ under the subheading ‘measuring the potential for change’ that cycling offers an alternative to car travel, and particularly for trips of less than 6 kilometres. This research is supported by the 2013 National Travel Survey, which specified average journey lengths, by cycle, of 5.3km.
11.4.4 There are already dedicated cycle routes located close to the site within Kempshott and Kempshott Park.
11.4.5 Considering the above, the existing road network and cycle infrastructure within Kempshott and Kempshott Park ensures that the proposed development has the potential to be accessible by cycle from the existing residential areas to the north and east of the site.
Accessibility by Bus
11.4.6 The guidance contained within the Institute of Highways and Transportation’s publication entitled ‘Planning for Public Transport in Developments’ recommends a maximum walking distance of 400 metres between travel generating land-uses and the nearest bus stop. There are no existing bus stops within 400m of the development site.
11.4.7 On the above basis, there is no existing access to bus facilities to/from the proposal site.
Accessibility by Rail
11.4.8 The guidance contained within the Institute of Highways and Transportation’s publication entitled ‘Planning for Public Transport in Developments’ recommends a maximum walking distance of 800 metres between travel generating land-uses and the nearest railway station.
11.4.9 Basingstoke rail station is located on Clifton Terrace c7.5km to the northeast of the proposal site and therefore, falls outside the IHT guidance for travel to rail stations by foot from the proposal site. However, the distance does not exclude trips by, interconnecting bus, or by cycle for a person with limited travel opportunities.
11.4.10 Rail services connect Basingstoke with Andover, Winchester and the wider national rail network. The trains that stop at the station provide good services to nearby centres.
11.4.11 On the above basis, there is no practical existing access to rail facilities to/from the proposal site.
Access to Facilities
11.4.12 The DfT publish annual measures of accessibility in England by public transport, walking, cycling and car to several service types including the following: primary schools, secondary schools, GPs, hospitals, food stores, town centres and employment centres. These are collectively referred to as Core Accessibility Indicators (CAI), the latest set of which were recorded in 2012. The 2012 CAI weighted average distance to the nearest hospital for England is 5.1km.
11.4.13 70% of dwellings located within the Basingstoke and Deane borough are within 8km (i.e. a 30minute cycle) of their nearest hospital. The population within 5km of the proposal site is c40,000 (reference 2011 Census output area data). The existing Basingstoke hospital is located c7-8km northeast of the proposal site (or c9-10km distance by road).
11.4.14 Therefore, the average distance to local hospitals for residents local to the site will decrease, and the proportion of the borough population within 8km of a hospital will increase.
186 stridetreglown.com 11.4.15 Further to this, the existing Basingstoke hospital is located c5.3km drive distance north of the M3 motorway (c6minute drive time) junction 6 and c9.5km drive distance from the M3 motorway junction 7 (c15minute drive time). The proposed hospital is located c9.1km drive distance west of the M3 motorway (c6minute drive time) junction 6 and c1.1km drive distance from the M3 motorway junction 7 (c1minute drive time).
11.4.16 Overall accessibility to hospitals, in particular critical emergency facilities, in Hampshire will improve as a result of the development proposal.
Non-Car Accessibility Summary
11.4.17 The non-car accessibility of the proposal site, as existing, is low. Good accessibility by non-car modes is an important consideration of the Proposed Development, particularly in the context of the NPPF and local planning policy. Therefore, the sensitivity is determined as being medium.
Road Safety
11.4.18 The road safety assessment has analysed accident data for the following study area.
M3 Junction ; A30 Winchester Road / A30 Signal Junction; A30 / A33 / Stockbridge Road Junction; A30 / Beggarwood Lane Signal junction; A30 / Wallop Drive Roundabout; and Interconnecting links and junctions.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 187
11.4.19 Accident data has been obtained for the road safety study area from Hampshire Police for a five year period between 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2014.
11.4.20 The accident plan included at Appendix 11.1, shows that there were a total of 30 accidents within the study area.
11.4.21 There were no locations where 5 or more accidents (i.e. equal to, or more than, one accident per annum) have occurred during the review period, and therefore the data suggests that it is unlikely that an identifiable patterns of accidents have occurred that can be attributable to a road layout deficiency.
11.4.22 The personal injury accident data for the period of 1st April 2009 and 31st March 2014 has been analysed for the locations within the study area, which has not identified any accident history which may be materially worsened by the increase in traffic associated with the proposed development. The sensitivity is determined as being low for the purposes of the Environmental Statement.
Accessibility by Car
11.4.23 The M3 motorway bypasses Basingstoke approximately 1.6km south of the town centre, and has two junctions that provide access to the town.
11.4.24 M3 junction 7 is a grade separated four arm roundabout that provides the western access to Basingstoke from the M3. To the north of the junction, A30 Winchester Road connects the M3 with the principal Basingstoke road network.
11.4.25 A30 Winchester Road intersects with A30 at a three arm signal junction located c400m north of M3 junction 7. To the west of the junction A30 connects Winchester Road with the A33 and Stockbridge Road (A303).
11.4.26 The proposed site frontage is located c725m west of the A30 / A30 Winchester Road signal junction.
11.4.27 Based on the above, the site benefits from good accessibility to the existing highway network.
188 stridetreglown.com Road Network Capacity
11.4.28 The traffic assessment is based on the following study area network.
M3 Junction 7. A30 Winchester Road / A30 Signal Junction. A30 / A33 / Stockbridge Road Junction. A30 / Beggarwood Lane Signal Junction. A30 / Wallop Drive Roundabout. A30 / Access Lane Junction.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 189
11.4.29 The baseline capacity tests results, for the junction identified above, are summarised at Table 11.6 below.
Junction Highest Importance Road (National, Maximum Approach Receptor Regional, Sub-Regional, District, Ratio of Flow to Sensitivity Local) Capacity
M3 Junction 7 National 0.53 Medium
A30 Winchester Road / Sub Regional 0.74 Medium A30 Signal Junction
A30 / A33 / Stockbridge Sub Regional 0.37 Low Road Junction
A30 / Beggarwood Lane District 0.48 Negligible Signal Junction
A30 / Wallop Drive District 0.68 Low Roundabout
A30 / Access Lane Sub Regional 0.08 Low Junction
Table 11.6 – 2014 Baseline Capacity Results
11.4.30 Overall based on the results presented at Table 11.6 above, the sensitivity of roads affected by the development is Medium.
11.5. Potential Effects and Significance
Construction Phase Effects
11.5.1 Traffic during the construction period may have an impact which could manifest itself in the following two ways:-
Construction staff travelling to the development in private cars; and, HGVs delivering and removing materials and equipment.
11.5.2 There will be an increase in traffic flows to and from the Site due to both staff and construction vehicles (HGVs) of approximately 48 two-way movements during the morning and evening peak hours for a period of 130 weeks. This calculated construction traffic increase is based on the Building Research Establishment (BRE), 2003 report ‘Construction Site Transport, The Next Big Thing’.
11.5.3 A Traffic Management Plan will be prepared in advance of the construction works and the Site access arrangements during the construction phase will be designed to appropriate standards and agreed with Hampshire County Council. Averaged over the estimated 130 week construction phase it is anticipated that HGV construction traffic will be less than the expected levels associated with the operational phase, and will operate at or below 48 HGVs a day (24 x 2 vehicle movements).
11.5.4 Therefore, the overall magnitude of the effect of traffic during construction is predicted to be short term and negligible with no adverse effect on safety or capacity, which will have a neutral/no effect significance based on a medium sensitivity receptor.
190 stridetreglown.com Operational Effects
Non-Car Accessibility
11.5.5 The site has been assessed as having a low level of existing accessibility by foot, cycle and public transport.
11.5.6 Without mitigation, the existing non-car infrastructure would encourage staff and visitors to travel by car.
11.5.7 The overall effect of the operation of the site in terms of accessibility by foot, cycle and public transport is judged to be long term and moderate adverse significance based on a medium sensitivity receptor.
Traffic
11.5.8 The traffic assessment is based on the following study area network.
M3 Junction 7. A30 Winchester Road / A30 Signal Junction. A30 / A33 / Stockbridge Road Junction. A30 / Beggarwood Lane Signal Junction. A30 / Wallop Drive Roundabout. A30 Site Access Junction. A30 / Access Lane Junction.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 191
Surveys
11.5.9 Details of the existing traffic flows for junctions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were obtained from surveys undertaken on Friday 11th / Saturday 12th July 2014. The existing traffic flows for junctions 4 and 5 were obtained from surveys undertaken on Friday 12th and Saturday 13th September 2014.
11.5.10 The traffic surveys indicate the peak traffic demand periods as listed below.
Weekday AM Peak - 08:00 to 09:00 Weekday PM Peak - 17:00 to 18:00 Saturday Peak - 13:00 to 14:00 Cited for July 2014 surveys
11.5.11 An automatic traffic count (ATC) survey was undertaken on both the A30 site frontage and on A30 Winchester Road (northeast of the A30 / Winchester Road signal junction) to establish the weekly profile of traffic movements along these corridors. The survey was undertaken between 07:00 on Friday 12th September 2014 and 07:00 on Friday 19th September 2014.
11.5.12 The data shows that the July 2014 survey results are indicative of the average peak hour flow profile results from the ATC September 2014 survey. Therefore, the surveys were undertaken on typical days and provide a reliable basis for the TA.
Base Flows
11.5.13 The assessment is based on future assessment years of 2019 (Application year + 5 years) and 2024 (Application year + 10 years as set out in the DfT Circular 02/2013).
11.5.14 The growth factors have been derived based on the TEMPRO version 6.2 (NTEM 6.2 and NTM 09) database for between 2014 and 2019/2024. This has been adjusted based on the TEMPRO output for car drivers for the graphical area of Basingstoke.
Committed Developments
11.5.15 As part of this assessment, and following discussions with Hampshire County Council, allowances have been made for the trip attraction of other development proposals within the vicinity of the site. The assessment considers the traffic arising from the following development sites:-
Longwood Copse Lane Development (13/00155/FUL). Kennel Farm Development (BDB/77382).
Attraction
11.5.16 Details of the traffic attraction of the hospital have been investigated using the TRICS version 7 database. The attraction assessment has been based on the TRICS survey data for ‘General Hospital – with Casualty’, based on the number of employees on site (i.e. 1,350 proposed).
11.5.17 The TRICS database does not have data for Hospitals with critical care casualty only, or sites without outpatient care. Accident and emergency and outpatient care are likely to be two reasonably significant factors of a Hospital’s vehicular attraction. However, during the highway network peak periods (i.e. 08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00) the principal driver for a hospital’s attraction is likely to be the staff movements to/from the site.
192 stridetreglown.com 11.5.18 The resultant trip rates and trip attraction are set out at Table 11.7 below. The trip rates are stated per employee, and the attraction is based on 1,350 employees.
Trip Rates Trip Attraction
Peak Hour Arrivals Departures Total Arrivals Departures Total
AM Peak 0.248 0.067 0.315 335 90 425
PM Peak 0.066 0.177 0.243 89 239 328
Sat Peak 0.038 0.034 0.072 51 46 97
Table 11.7 – Proposed Vehicular Attraction
Distribution
11.5.19 No account of trip transfer has been taken into account (i.e. trips using the study area network to travel to the existing Basingstoke or Winchester hospitals).
11.5.20 The distribution of vehicular trips is based on the geographical distribution of the main populations within a 10-15km drive distance of the proposal site. The assessment uses 2011 census population data.
11.5.21 Traffic has been assigned using the simplifying assumption that 90% of vehicles will use the main roundabout access and 10% will use the site’s secondary access.
11.5.22 Based on the assessment methodologies above, the net increase in vehicles, during the network peak hours, is summarised at Table 11.8 below.
AM Peak Hour
Junction 2014 2024 Base Net 2024 Base + %age Surveyed Development Development Impact Effect
Stockbridge Road / A33 / A30 776 910 66 976 7%
A30 Site Access 808 947 389 1336 41%
A30 / Access Road 880 1029 366 1395 36%
A30 / Winchester Road 2193 2591 359 2950 14%
Winchester Road / M3 Motorway 1781 2100 244 2344 12%
PM Peak Hour
Junction 2014 2024 Base Net 2024 Base + %age Surveyed Development Development Impact Effect
Stockbridge Road / A33 / A30 991 1175 51 1225 4%
A30 Site Access 1037 1228 300 1528 24%
A30 / Access Road 1107 1309 282 1591 22%
A30 / Winchester Road 2291 2727 277 3004 10%
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 193
Winchester Road / M3 Motorway 1716 2033 188 2221 9%
Sat Peak Hour
Junction 2014 2024 Base Net 2024 Base + %age Surveyed Development Development Impact Effect
Stockbridge Road / A33 / A30 697 835 15 850 2%
A30 Site Access 800 954 89 1043 9%
A30 / Access Road 858 1021 84 1105 8%
A30 / Winchester Road 1647 1983 82 2065 4%
Winchester Road / M3 Motorway 1273 1522 56 1578 4%
Table 11.8 – Net Vehicle Increases
11.5.23 Based on the net vehicle increases, summarised at Table 11.8, the effect of the proposed development on the operational efficiency of study area junction is summarised at Table 11.9 below.
Junction Future Year Increase in Maximum Increase in (with Maximum Approach Maximum Development) Approach Ratio Delay Approach Delay Maximum of Flow to (seconds per compared to Base Approach Ratio Capacity passenger Year (seconds per of Flow to compared to car unit) passenger car Capacity Base Year unit)
M3 Junction 7 0.65 0.02 5.06 0.16
A30 Winchester Road / A30 Signal 0.90 0.08 86.20 17.20 Junction
A30 / A33 / Stockbridge Road 0.44 0.02 9.66 0.31 Junction
A30 / Beggarwood Lane Signal 0.57 0.15 40.70 0.00 Junction
A30 / Wallop Drive Roundabout 0.81 0.01 11.55 0.89
A30 / Access Lane Junction 0.12 0.02 8.21 0.86
A30 / Site Access Roundabout 0.39 - 3.50 -
Table 11.9 – Capacity Assessment Summary
11.5.24 Based on the above, the traffic effects of the proposed development are negligible.
11.5.25 Therefore the magnitude of the effect of development traffic is negligible, long term, which will have a neutral/no effect significance based on a medium sensitivity receptor.
Road Safety
11.5.26 Table 11.8 above identifies a worst case increase in traffic less than 60% and greater than 30% at the study area junctions.
194 stridetreglown.com 11.5.27 Considering the modest increase in traffic associated with the proposed development as identified at Table 11.8 above, it is unlikely that the proposals will have any material impact on the roads and junctions local to the site that will exacerbate any existing road safety problems.
11.5.28 Therefore the effect of development traffic on road safety is low, long term, which will have a low significance based on a low sensitivity receptor.
11.5.29 A summary of the impacts identified in the paragraphs above is set out at Table 11.10 below.
Receptor Sensitivity Effect Magnitude Impact Nature of Impact
Non-Car Medium Moderate Adverse Long Term Accessibility
Road Safety Low Low Adverse Long Term
Traffic Medium Neutral / No Effect Adverse Long Term
Table 11.10 – Summary of Impacts
11.6. Mitigation
Non-Car Accessibility
11.6.1 Pedestrian and cycle access to the proposal site will be provided from a new footway provided on the northern side of the A30.
11.6.2 The proposals include a new pedestrian footway / cycleway extending between the proposed A30 site access roundabout and the A30 / Beggarwood Lane signal junction. The proposed improvements represent 2.2km of new pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. There will be direct footway connections between the proposed footway on the northern side of the A30 and the entrances to the proposed buildings. There are secondary benefits to existing and future development as a result of this provision.
11.6.3 Cycle access to the site will be provided from both the vehicular and pedestrian accesses. Secure cycle storage will be provided on site.
11.6.4 Stagecoach Bus has indicated that the diversion of existing bus route 8 (15 minute service between Basingstoke and Hatch Warren) represents an attractive option to serve the proposed hospital.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 195
11.6.5 This bus route connects the site with Basingstoke residences, and with Basingstoke bus and railway stations. The service provides a high frequency of local service.
11.6.6 The NHS Trust currently operates an hourly hopper bus service for staff between all existing Hampshire hospital sites i.e. Basingstoke, Winchester and Andover. As part of the development proposal, and staff Travel Plan, this hourly service would be extended to include the proposal site.
11.6.7 The hopper service will be available to all staff, and provides a convenient connection for the existing staff of Basingstoke and Winchester hospitals that will be transferred to the proposed hospital as part of the proposed development (e.g. the relocated staff that currently walk/cycle or use public transport to travel to work will continue to be able to travel to Basingstoke or Winchester hospitals and will be provided with a bus connection to the proposed development site).
11.6.8 There will be new bus stops provided adjacent to the main CTH and CTC building entrances, which will include bus shelters, seating, a bus lay-by and a bus turning facility. There will be bus stops on site (located adjacent to the staff entrance) which will also cater for the hourly staff shuttle bus operating between Basingstoke, Winchester, and Andover.
11.6.9 The proposed development will include a Travel Plan (TP) that will set out the measures that will be implemented, to encourage sustainable travel habits by future employees of the development.
Vehicular Access
11.6.10 The NHS site will be served by a new roundabout to the A30. The junction will be located approximately725m west of the existing A30 / A30 Winchester Road signal junction, and will have a diameter of approximately 48m. The roundabout will have a two lane approach on the A30 westbound and a flared two lane approach on the A30 eastbound and site access arms of the junction.
196 stridetreglown.com 11.6.11 The proposed site access junction will accommodate staff, visitor and some emergency / service access to the site.
11.6.12 A secondary access will be provided via the A30 from the lane located immediately east of Keepers Cottage and north/east of Ganderdown Copse (referred to as Access Lane). The secondary access to Access Lane will be in the form of a simple priority T-junction arrangement located on the eastern site boundary broadly adjacent to Ganderdown Copse.
11.6.13 As part of access works for this junction, Access Lane will be widened to 6.0m between the site access junction and the A30, corner radii will be eased, and forward visibility provided around the two existing carriageway bends. Likewise, improvements to the existing A30 / Access Lane junction will be provided to better accommodate the increased use of this junction.
11.6.14 The secondary access will, in the majority of cases, only be used for facilities management service vehicles. The access also has the potential for use by some emergency traffic in order to ensure resilience.
Road Safety
11.6.15 The baseline conditions and subsequent assessment indicated a low effect on road safety as a consequence of the development proposals. Therefore, there is no requirement to identify mitigation from a road safety perspective.
Cumulative Impacts
11.6.16 This section assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development against the baseline, in relation to non-car accessibility, road safety, and peak hour traffic attraction.
11.6.17 Non-car accessibility has been assessed by comparing the Proposed Development to the Baseline. The assessment concludes that the Proposed Development will have a low beneficial and long term effect which will have a low beneficial significance based on a medium sensitivity receptor.
11.6.18 Road safety has been assessed by reviewing the Proposed Development traffic attraction compared to a low sensitivity receptor. The assessment concludes that the Proposed Development will have a low magnitude and long term effect which will have a low significance.
11.6.19 Peak hour junction capacity / traffic attraction has been assessed by reviewing the Proposed Development attracted traffic compared to a medium sensitivity receptor. The assessment concludes that, the Proposed Development will have a negligible magnitude and long term effect which will have a neutral/no effect significance.
11.7. Conclusion
11.7.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the transportation effects of the Proposed Development during the construction phase and the operation of the full Proposed Development.
Construction Phase
11.7.2 The residual significance and nature effect of the construction phase in relation to non-car accessibility has been assessed as neutral/no effect and short term.
11.7.3 The residual significance and nature effect of the construction phase in relation to road safety has been assessed as neutral/no effect and short term.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 197
11.7.4 The residual significance and nature effect of the construction phase in relation to junction capacity has been assessed as neutral/no effect and short term.
Operational
11.7.5 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the Proposed Development in relation to non-car accessibility has been assessed as low beneficial and long term.
11.7.6 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the development in relation to road safety has been assessed and the significance and nature of effect of the development on road safety is low adverse and long term.
11.7.7 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the development in relation to junction capacity has been assessed as neutral/no effect and long term.
198 stridetreglown.com 12. Noise Effects
12.1. Introduction
12.1.1 This chapter considers the impacts of noise on existing and proposed sensitive receptors. The effect of the noise environment on the occupants of the hospital will be assessed in terms of site suitability for the hospital development and the impacts on residences from the construction of the hospital, traffic generated, building services plant and emergency vehicles. Technical content supporting this chapter is presented in Appendix 12.
12.1.2 In order to assess the impact of noise, the following steps have been taken:
Identification of noise sensitive receptors; Quantifying the baseline noise environment by measurement at locations representing the proposed facades of the hospital building and existing noise sensitive receptors; Computer noise modelling to represent the existing noise environment and assess the site suitability for the proposed hospital; Calculating noise levels from noise sources associated with the proposed hospital operation; Assessment of noise levels with significance criteria; and Recommendations for mitigation where necessary to reduce noise levels. Some forms of mitigation are integral to the design of the build and as such are considered imbedded within the assessment of the development (see plant noise limits and site suitability requirements). These mitigation measures are therefore not considered at the residual impact stage of the assessment.
12.1.3 Construction induced vibration has not been assessed as the likely construction impacts from vibration generating plant (piling rigs, high impact rollers) would be minimal. In addition, the separation distance between the site and existing receptors is such that vibration levels from general construction activities are unlikely to be discernible or at a magnitude likely of causing damage.
12.2. Policy/Legislative Context
The following policy, legislation and guidance documents are considered relevant to the assessment of noise. These documents have been used to inform the assessment methodology and criteria used for assessing magnitude and significance of impact.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 199
Name Description
National Planning Policy Framework: 2012 The basis by which noise is considered within the planning regime, providing a series of policies and giving local authorities the flexibility to form criteria.
Noise Policy Statement for England: 2010 Sets out the approach to noise within the Government’s sustainable development strategy.
Basingstoke Local Plan (due to be replaced Provides high level policy statements including reducing noise impacts by in 2015) locating sensitive development away from existing sources of significant noise or away from planned new sources of noise, traffic management and encouraging high levels of sound-proofing and screening as part of sustainable housing design and construction.
BS 7445: Description and measurement of Provides the framework within which environmental noise should be environmental noise quantified and refers standards for survey equipment.
Health Technical Memorandum 08-01: Provides guidance on the design, installation and operation of specialised Acoustics building and engineering technology covering acoustic requirements.
Basingstoke and Deane Council Guidance Provides a series of noise criteria for proposed non-residential buildings, Note for Developers and Consultants including hospitals, clinics and welfare buildings.
BS 5228-1 2009+ A1:2014 ‘Code of Provides method and example criteria for the assessment of noise in Practice for noise and vibration control on addition to empirical noise data for a range of different mobile and static construction and open sites plant and activities.
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, 1988 Describes the procedures for calculating noise from road traffic, using traffic flows, HGV percentage and road speed to calculate the noise level between 06:00 and 24:00 hours.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Vol Accepted criteria within the United Kingdom to determine the noise impact 11-Sec 3, Part 7: Noise and Vibration, 2008 from changes in road traffic. Criteria within the DMRB includes the effects (amended 2014) of a 25% change in traffic flow equating to a noise change of 1 dB(A), assuming other factors remain unchanged, which is considered to be imperceptible over the long-term. A change of 3 dB(A) is equivalent to a 100% increase in traffic flow and is considered just perceptible.
BS 4142: 2014 Method for rating industrial Provides methodology for assessing industrial noise against ambient noise affecting mixed residential and background noise levels (LA90, Ta). A comparison of the difference industrial areas between the background and rating levels (noise from the identified industrial source with additional correction) as predicted at the nearest residential receptor indicates the likelihood of an adverse impact; the greater the difference the greater the magnitude of the impact.
DEFRA Report NANR235 Research into the The aim of this study was to determine the extent of helicopter noise Improvements of the Management of disturbance across the UK and develop additional practical guidance to Helicopter Noise (DEFRA, 2008) reduce impacts. Whilst, the report advises that the use of the LAeqb descriptor could potentially overlook the subjective response of short term noise events caused by helicopters and other aircraft, in the absence of any other general assessment criteria, the LAeq descriptor is considered acceptable as a means of determining impacts.
Table 12.1 Noise Assessment Policy and Guidance Documents
a Sometimes it is useful to calculate the level which is exceeded for a certain percent of a total period. Background noise is often defined as the A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90% of the specified period T, expressed L90,T. Road traffic noise is often characterised in terms of LA10,18.
b Sound levels tend to fluctuate, and as such an ‘instantaneous’ measurement like sound pressure level cannot fully describe many real-world situations. A summation can be made of the measured sound energy over a certain period, and a notional steady level can be calculated which would contain the same total energy as the fluctuating sound. This notional level is termed the equivalent continuous sound level Leq. Leq can be determined over any time period, which is indicated as Leq,T where T is the time period (e.g. Leq,24h).
200 stridetreglown.com 12.3. Method
Receptor locations
12.3.1 The closest populated areas to the site are Dummer Village, which is approximately 1.2 km to the south, Beggarwood, which is approximately 1.5 km to the east and North Waltham which is 1.7 km to the south-west. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed development site are residences that are situated to the south-east of the site boundary within close proximity of the A30 road. A further receptor is situated to the south-west of the development, close to Dummer Garden Centre. Assessed receptor locations are presented in Fig. 12.1.
Fig. 12.1 Receptor and Long-term Measurement locations
Noise survey
12.3.2 A baseline noise level survey was undertaken between the 24th and 25th July 2014. Four short- term attended measurements were taken during the daytime and night time to identify noise levels that would be experienced at the façade of the proposed development. Four additional attended measurements were taken during daytime and night time to identify background noise levels at the four nearest noise sensitive receptors to the proposed development. Long term monitoring over a 24 hour period was undertaken at a single location between 11th and 12th September 2014, as presented in Figure 12.1.
Computer noise modelling
12.3.3 The measurement data has been used to validate a noise model of the existing noise environment using SoundPLAN v7.3 computer software. SoundPlan predicts noise at multiple locations in a 3D simulated environment taking into account terrain, ground coverage, structures and adverse meteorological conditions. The model provides predicted noise levels at the façade of the proposed buildings in order to assess the suitability of the site in accordance with internal noise criteria.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 201
Calculation of noise sources
12.3.4 The following descriptions provide a summary of the method of assessing each aspect of the noise assessment.
Site suitability
12.3.5 The guidance document provided by Basingstoke and Deane Council (BDC) states a target internal noise level of no higher than 35 dB(A) Leq,t for operating theatres and reception areas, and 30 dB(A) Leq,t for wards at night. Modelled external noise levels for the site have been assessed against these guidance levels, taking into account a 10 dB attenuation of noise from a partially open window. Predicted levels at the facades of the Critical Treatment Hospital and Cancer Treatment Centre are considered to be representative for the site as a whole. The assessment has taken into account worst case noise levels at the closest facades to the dominant noise sources for different room types.
Construction
12.3.6 Assessment thresholds of adverse significance have been based on the existing noise levels as measured during the noise survey. Predicted noise from construction works are then compared against these construction thresholds.
12.3.7 At this stage, specific construction methods and programs are not known. In the absence of detailed construction methods, previous experience of similar projects has been used to determine the likely methodologies and plant that will be used for the proposed development. For the purpose of assessment, it has been assumed that construction work will only occur during standard construction hours (daytime period between 08:00 and 18:00).
12.3.8 Calculations have been undertaken to a worst case scenario, assuming that all items of mobile and static plant are at the closest possible point on the site boundary. In reality this is unlikely to be the case.
Traffic
12.3.9 Information regarding 18-hour traffic flows, percentage heavy goods vehicles and road speeds has been provided in order to determine the change in road traffic noise levels along the surrounding road network. Development flows have included any committed developments in the area. Traffic data for the development has been provided by Connect Consultants. The following development scenarios have been compared:
Scenario 1) Opening year 2019 baseline flows; Scenario 2) Opening year 2019 baseline flows + proposed development (‘Do Something’ for the baseline year); this has been compared with scenario 1 in order to assess short- term impacts from the development; and Scenario 3) Future year 2034 baseline flows + proposed development (‘Do Something’ for the future year); this has been compared with scenario 1 in order to assess long-term impacts from the development.
Fixed Plant
12.3.10 The proposed development is to house a number of buildings including the Critical Treatment Building, Cancer Care Facility and Pathology Laboratory amongst others, all of which are likely to have fixed plant (e.g. air conditioning units) associated with their operation, likely to be situated on the rooftop for each building.
202 stridetreglown.com 12.3.11 A fixed plant noise assessment has been undertaken to inform the design of those buildings. This has been achieved by determining a maximum noise level 1 m from each rooftop plant in order to meet an appropriate target noise level at the nearest residential locations based on the measured background noise. The target level is for the cumulative noise from all fixed plant at the hospital to be no higher than the background noise level at residential locations, including correction for characteristics within the source noise that would be deemed annoying.
12.3.12 The assessment is based on background noise levels for the night-time period, assuming the fixed plant is in operation 24 hours a day. By utilising this approach the assessment provides the maximum allowable fixed plant noise levels under a worst case situation.
Emergency Vehicles: Helicopter
12.3.13 Noise associated with helicopter movements has been assessed in order to determine the predicted levels at the closest receptor locations. Noise emission data has been obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. Information provided by the client suggests there would be one flight in/out of the hospital per month.
12.3.14 In order to provide an indication of how short passing events are likely to affect those closest receptors, consideration of the daily noise levels has been undertaken to allow comparison against the existing averaged daytime and night-time noise levels. The predicted noise levels take into account departure, arrival and idling sound from the helicopter.
Emergency Vehicles: Ambulance
12.3.15 The South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS), under their Corporate Policy and Procedure (CPP No.19) has produced a set of guidelines for the driving and care of trust vehicles. Under CPP No.19, operators are advised not to use the audible warning alarms during the hours of 23:30 – 07:00 and only permitted during this time in built up areas if essential to the safety of the vehicles and other road users. Furthermore, the use of audible warning systems is not permitted when vehicles are returning to base, a stand by point or engaged in an urgent/non- urgent journey unless the patient’s condition deteriorates. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken of noise from the sirens associated with ambulances.
Assessment of significance and mitigation
12.3.16 To assess the effects of noise the following criteria has been used to identify sensitivity of receptors and magnitudes of impact, which are then cross referenced in a matrix to provide the level of significance.
Sensitivity Definition
High Healthcare facilities, educational facilities
Medium Residences
Low Leisure areas, ecological resources
Negligible Commercial premises
Table 12.2 Sensitivity of receptors
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 203
Sensitivity Definition
Site Suitability Construction Fixed Plant Traffic Emergency Vehicles
Major Difficult to mitigate Exceeds British 10 dB or more above 5+ dB increase Continuous noise such that Standards Levels to the existing in short-term, disturbance exceedances of an extent and background noise 10+ dB from high target internal duration that will levels increase in levels of noise noise level are require temporary long-term likely to be high in rehousing final design
Moderate Difficult to mitigate Exceeds British 5-10 dB or more 3.0-4.9 dB Frequent noise such that Standard levels to an above the existing increase in disturbance marginal extent and duration background noise short-term, 5.0- from exceedances of (more than 1 month) levels 9.9 dB increase moderate target internal leading to in long-term levels of noise noise levels are disturbance and likely in the final annoyance design
Minor Sub-optimal design Noise levels 0-5 dB higher than 1.0-2.9 dB Occasional required to mitigate exceeding British the existing increase in disturbance noise levels to Standard example background noise short-term, 3.0- from noise meet internal noise criteria for less than levels 4.9 dB increase targets 1 month in long-term
Negligible Internal noise level Noise levels do not Below existing 0.1 -0.9 dB Audible but targets can be met exceed British background noise increase in not disturbing with minimal Standard example levels short-term, 0.1- levels of noise design mitigation criteria 2.9 dB increase in long-term
Table 12.3 Magnitude of impact
Sensitivity of Receptor
High Medium Low Negligible
Major Major Major Moderate Slight
Moderate Major Moderate Slight Negligible
Minor Moderate Slight Negligible None
Negligible Slight Negligible None None
Magnitude of impact Magnitude of
Table 12.4 Significance of impact
12.3.17 Mitigation will be recommended where the significance of impact is moderate or high.
204 stridetreglown.com 12.4. Baseline
12.4.1 The main source of noise affecting the site is from road traffic from the M3 motorway, approximately 380 m to the south-east and from the A30 road, approximately 20 m to the south. Another source of noise affecting the site is from local traffic using the access road to the east. This road is used as a connection between the A30 and residential properties and agricultural land to the north of the site. Air traffic noise was noted, but is not considered to be a significant noise source affecting the site.
12.4.2 The baseline ambient noise level (LAeq,T) measured at the long-term monitoring position representing the site, and used within the computer noise modelling, was 54 dB during the day and 47 dB during the night. The following noise levels were measured at the residential receptors during the day and night and are used within the assessment of construction and plant noise.
Receptor Daytime Noise Night-time Noise Night-time Level (LAeq, T) Level (LAeq, T) Background Noise Level (LA90, T)
Ganderdown Cottages 73 dB 60 dB 40 dB
Keepers Cottage 59 dB 43 dB 38 dB
Two New Cottages 49 dB 44 dB 39 dB
Dummer Garden Centre 54 db 51 dB 46 dB
Table 12.5 Measured Noise Levels at Receptor Locations
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 205
Identification of the likely effects
Construction
12.4.3 The predicted façade noise level at existing residential receptors and assessment for each construction phase are summarised in Table 12.6.
Location Phase Threshold Level Predicted Level Difference dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Ganderdown Earth work 75 61 - 14 Cottages Foundations 75 55 - 20
Construction 75 60 - 15
Access Road 75 57 - 18
Keepers Cottage Earth work 65 57 - 8
Foundations 65 52 - 13
Construction 65 57 - 8
Access Road 65 54 - 11
Two New Earth work 65 57 - 8 Cottages Foundations 65 52 - 13
Construction 65 57 - 8
Access Road 65 54 - 11
Residence at Earth work 65 46 - 19 Dummer Garden Centre Foundations 65 41 - 24
Construction 65 46 - 19
Access Road 65 43 - 22
Table 12.6 Construction noise assessment, LAeq,t
12.4.4 Calculations indicate that the threshold for construction activity at closest receptor locations would not be exceeded during any stage of the works.
Operation
Site Suitability Assessment
12.4.5 The predicted ambient noise predictions across the development site in comparison with internal noise level criteria are as follows.
206 stridetreglown.com Building Proposed Room Period Predicted BDC Minimum Ambient Target attenuation Noise Level (dB) Required by (dB) Building Envelope (RW+Ctr dB)
Critical Wards (including day Night-time 51 < 30 21 Treatment recovery rooms) (2300 - 0700) Hospital
Operating theatres, Daytime 59 < 35 24 reception areas (0700 - 2300)
Cancer Wards (including day Night-time 47 < 30 17 Treatment recovery rooms) (2300 - 0700) Ward
Operating theatres, Daytime 54 < 35 19 reception areas (0700 - 2300)
Table 12.7 Healthcare Assessment – Critical Treatment Hospital
12.4.6 With windows partially open it is likely that the internal noise levels would exceed the requirements of BDC and therefore consideration of double glazing specification and alternative ventilation will be required. However, it is considered that the required sound reductions to meet with internal noise targets are not excessive and would be readily achievable with standard glazing and ventilation types.
Traffic Assessment
12.4.7 Table 12.8 presents the predicted traffic noise level changes as a result of the development in the short and long-term.
Road Short-term Changes (opening Long-term Changes (15th year) year after opening)
% Change Noise % Change Noise Difference Difference dB(A) dB(A)
Stockbridge Road 11.8 0.2 33.4 1.0
A30 (Stockbridge Rd to Site 6.0 0.2 27.6 1.0 Access R/about)
A30 (Site Access R/about to 28.9 1.0 50.6 1.7 Ganderdown Copse Access)
A30 (Ganderdown Copse Access 30.1 1.1 51.9 1.8 to M3 Access)
A30 (M3 Access) 12.0 0.4 33.5 1.2
A30 Winchester Road 4.8 0.2 26.1 1.0
Table 12.8 Road traffic noise changes
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 207
12.4.8 The introduction of road traffic associated with the development would result in a worst case increase in noise level of 1.1 dB in the short-term and 1.8 dB in the long term along the A30 (Ganderdown Copse Access to M3 Access).
Fixed Plant Assessment
12.4.9 Table 12.9 presents the results of the predictions of building services plant at residential locations assuming the identified design noise levels for rooftop plant are met. The target noise levels are considered to be achievable levels for building services.
Building CTH CTC Pathology Ambulance Energy Building Building Centre Station Centre building Design Target Levels 1 m from 78 78 77 80 82 Rooftop plant dB(A)
Receptor Calculated noise Existing Night-time Difference, dB(A) level, dB(A) Background Level, LA90 dB(A)
Ganderdown Cottages 37 40 -3
Keepers Cottage 37 38 -1
Two New Cottages 39 39 0
Dummer Garden Centre 31 46 -15
Table 12.9 Noise from Building Services Plant Based On Design Target Levels
12.4.10 The predicted noise levels at façade level of the nearest residential properties would achieve a rated noise level which is in line, or below the measured background noise level.
Helicopter Noise Assessment
12.4.11 Taking into account all four separate operating modes and using closest distances of approach the following noise levels are calculated at each receptor. One helicopter flight has been assumed for each time period.
Receptor Daytime (LAeq, 16h dB) Night-time (LAeq, 8h dB)
Calculated Existing Difference Calculated Existing Difference Helicopter Noise Helicopter Noise Noise Level Noise Level
Ganderdown 36 73 -37 39 60 -21 Cottages Keepers Cottages 31 59 -28 34 43 -9
Two New 30 49 -19 33 44 -11 Cottages Dummer Garden 26 54 -28 29 51 -22 Centre
Table 12.9 Helicopter assessment
208 stridetreglown.com 12.4.12 Table 12.9 indicates that calculated noise levels would be below existing ambient noise levels at all sensitive receptors. Predicted noise levels would be closest to the ambient noise at Keepers Cottage during the night-time period, however this would contribute 0.5 dB(A) to the existing noise climate. Such a low noise increase would be imperceptible.
12.4.13 Due to the nature of the noise source it is likely that individual helicopter flights would be audible at receptor location, however this would occur very infrequently and is likely to be over a short duration (typically 3-4 minutes).
Ambulance Noise
12.4.14 SCAS has produced a clear set of guidelines for the mitigation of disruption due to ambulance warning alarms. It is envisaged that their use would be minimal on the approach to the hospital as a result of the above and the sparseness of receptor locations in the immediate vicinity would result in minimal disruption.
12.4.15 Should the emergency situation require the warning sirens to be operational during daytime hours it is likely that individual movements would be audible at receptor locations, but over an extremely short duration and the likelihood to significantly increase the daily ambient noise levels would be minimal.
12.5. Development Proposals of Relevance
12.6. Potential Effects and Significance
12.6.1 The following table provides a summary of how the various impacts described above are considered in terms of impact magnitude. As the most sensitive receptors within the area are nearby residences, impact assessments of significance are based on a medium sensitivity of receptor with the exception of the site suitability assessment (high for healthcare facility).
Aspect Sensitivity of Magnitude Description Significance Mitigation Required Receptor of Impact Construction Medium Negligible Temporary Negligible None noise direct impact Existing Noise High Negligible Long term Slight Double glazing and Environment (with direct impact ventilation (site suitability) imbedded arrangement to be mitigation) incorporated into design Traffic Noise Medium Negligible to Long term Negligible to None Minor direct impact slight
Fixed Plant Medium Negligible Long term Negligible Target noise levels to Noise (with direct impact be incorporated into imbedded design mitigation) Helicopter Medium Negligible Temporary Negligible None Noise direct impact
Ambulance Medium Negligible Temporary Negligible None Noise direct impact
Table 12.10 Summary of Impacts
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 209
Cumulative Assessment
12.6.2 No other developments have been identified that would have a significant cumulative impact with the proposed development on noise sensitive receptors.
12.7. Mitigation
Construction Mitigation
12.7.1 Although impacts resulting from construction activities are negligible, consideration should be given to general good practice mitigation methods. Those measures set out below should be sufficient to ensure the noise impacts from the construction are kept to a minimum:
Operating hours should be adhered to, with local residents being notified of any changes to the operating hours of the site. Construction equipment shall be well maintained with construction methods and programmes designed to minimise noise and vibration at sensitive receptors; Mobile equipment shall be placed, where possible, in the most optimum direction resulting in noise emissions having a reduced impact on the environment; Silencers or soundproof enclosures on construction equipment where provided shall be utilised and properly maintained during the construction works; Where practicable, design and use of site hoardings and screens to provide acoustic screening of noise emitting equipment;
12.7.2 Making positive contact with local residents and providing information on the construction can be the most effective method of reducing the impact of construction noise on sensitive receptors. If appropriate, the above measures can be incorporated into a construction environmental management plan (CEMP).
12.7.3 The matters discussed as part of the Best Practicable Means (BPM) approach to construction works shall be incorporated into the specific CEMP for the development site. The CEMP is standard good practice and shall provide the management framework required for the planning and implementation of construction activities.
Operation
Site suitability
12.7.4 During detailed design a review of calculated internal noise levels will be undertaken and appropriate double glazing and ventilation will be specified in order to meet internal noise criteria.
Fixed Plant
12.7.5 During detailed design a review of building services plant noise will be undertaken to ensure that the background noise level at the nearest residential receptors is not exceeded. This review will take into account the cumulative impact of plant noise, including additional emission points such as vents and louvres on the facades of the buildings.
12.8. Residual Effects
12.8.1 No additional mitigation beyond that which is embedded in the design and considered within the main part of the assessment is required. Therefore the impact significance remains a negligible to slight impact.
210 stridetreglown.com 13. Air Quality Assessment
13.1. Introduction
13.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of a detailed air quality assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development on local air quality during the construction and operational phases of the development. The type, source and significance of potential impacts are identified and the measures that should be employed to minimise these impacts are described.
13.1.2 A glossary of common air quality terminology is provided in Appendix 13.1
13.2. Policy/Legislative Context
Air quality strategy for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland
13.2.1 The Government's policy on air quality within the UK is set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (AQS) published in July 2007 (DEFRA 2007), pursuant to the requirements of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. The AQS sets out a framework for reducing hazards to health from air pollution and ensuring that international commitments are met in the UK. The AQS is designed to be an evolving process that is monitored and regularly reviewed. The AQS sets standards and objectives to protect health, vegetation and ecosystems.
Pollutant Standard Measured as Objective
Annual Target Date exceedances allowed
Nitrogen Dioxide 40µg/m3 Annual mean - 31.12.2005 (NO2) 200µg/m3 1 hour mean 18 31.12.2005
Particulate Matter 40µg/m3 Annual mean - 31.12.2004 (PM10) 50µg/m3 24 hour mean 35 31.12.2004
Table 13.1: Air Quality Standards (NO2, and PM10)
13.2.2 The AQS sets standards and objectives for ten main air pollutants to protect health, vegetation and ecosystems. These are benzene (C6H6), 1,3-butadiene (C4H6), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
13.2.3 The air quality standards are long-term benchmarks for ambient pollutant concentrations which represent negligible or zero risk to health, based on medical and scientific evidence reviewed by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). These are general concentration limits, above which sensitive members of the public (e.g. children, the elderly and the unwell) might experience adverse health effects.
13.2.4 The air quality objectives are medium-term policy based targets set by the Government which take into account economic efficiency, practicability, technical feasibility and timescale. Some objectives are equal to the EPAQS recommended standards or WHO guideline limits, whereas others involve a margin of tolerance, i.e. a limited number of permitted exceedances of the standard over a given period.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 211
13.2.5 For some pollutants there is both a long-term (annual mean) standard and a short-term standard. In the case of NO2, the short-term standard is for a 1-hour averaging period, whereas for PM10 it is for a 24-hour averaging period. These periods reflect the varying impacts on health of differing exposures to pollutants (e.g. temporary exposure on the pavement adjacent to a busy road, compared with the exposure of residential properties adjacent to a road).
13.2.6 Of the pollutants included in the AQS, NO2 and PM10 are of particular relevance to this project, as they are the primary pollutants associated with road traffic.
13.2.7 The current statutory standard and objective for NO2 and PM10 are set out in Table 13.1 above.
Local Air Quality Management
13.2.8 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 also requires local authorities to periodically review and assess the quality of air within their administrative area. The Reviews have to consider the present and future air quality and whether any air quality objectives prescribed in Regulations are being achieved or are likely to be achieved in the future.
13.2.9 Where any of the prescribed air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved the authority concerned must designate that part an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).
13.2.10 For each AQMA, the local authority has a duty to draw up an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) setting out the measures the authority intends to introduce to deliver improvements in local air quality in pursuit of the air quality objectives. Local authorities are not statutorily obliged to meet the objectives, but they must show that they are working towards them.
13.2.11 The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has published technical guidance for use by local authorities in their Review and Assessment work (DEFRA 2009b). This guidance, referred to in this chapter as LAQM.TG (09), has been used where appropriate in the assessment.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
13.2.12 The NPPF (CLG 2012) identifies 12 core planning principles that should underpin both plan- making and decision-taking, including a requirement for planning to ‘contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution'.
13.2.13 Under Policy 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment the Framework requires the planning system to ‘prevent both new and existing developments from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air pollution’.
13.2.14 In dealing specifically with air quality the Framework NPPF states that 'planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative effects 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'.
212 stridetreglown.com Control of Dust and Particulates Associated with Construction
13.2.15 Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) states that where a statutory nuisance is shown to exist, the local authority must serve an abatement notice. Statutory nuisance is defined as:
'Any dust or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance; and 'any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance'.
13.2.16 Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence and if necessary, the local authority may abate the nuisance and recover expenses.
13.2.17 In the context of the proposed development, the main potential for nuisance of this nature will arise during the construction phase - potential sources being the clearance, earthworks, construction and landscaping processes.
13.2.18 There are no statutory limit values for dust deposition above which 'nuisance' is deemed to exist - 'nuisance' is a subjective concept and its perception is highly dependent upon the existing conditions and the change which has occurred. However, research has been undertaken by a number of parties to determine community responses to such effects and correlate these to dust deposition rates. However, effects remain subjective and statutory limits have yet to be derived.
13.3. Method
Scope of Assessment
13.3.1 The proposed development may introduce the following air quality impacts:
During the construction phase, suspended and re suspended fugitive dust emissions from demolition / construction activities and vehicular emissions from construction traffic, including re-suspended dust from HGV movements.
During the operational phase, vehicular emissions (primarily nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10) from increased traffic movements associated with the development.
13.3.2 The scope of the assessment has been determined in the following way:
Consultation with BDBC environmental health officer, Mark Jones; Review of air quality data for the area surrounding the site and background pollutant maps; and Review of the traffic flow data, which has been used as an input to the air quality modelling assessment.
13.3.3 It is proposed to have an energy centre on Site which will incorporate 2 x 775 kWe combined heat and power (CHP) boilers, a biomass boiler and backup combined fuel boilers. One of the CHP will operate on a continuous basis to provide day to day heat and hot water for the site. The second CHP will operate at times when the main CHP cannot provide sufficient heat for the Site, which is expected to be during colder spells during the winter months. It is unlikely that the second CHP would operate for more than 2-3 months of the year. The potential impact of the CHP has been assessed using the EPUK CHP screening tool available on the IAQM website (www.iaqm.co.uk).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 213
13.3.4 Assuming that both CHP operating at 100% for 356 days of the year emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are predicted to result in an increase in NO2 at the point of maximum impact of 0.6 µg/m3. This is a considerable over estimate of potential impacts as the second CHP would only operate intermittently during the winter months and the screening tool has been designed to be overly pessimistic in its predictions. The impact of the CHPs is therefore considered to be negligible and has been scoped out of this assessment.
13.3.5 The biomass boiler will be installed at the site as a backup energy supply when the sites energy demand cannot be met by the two CHP’s. The additional duel fuel boilers will operate as backup boilers in the event that the above three systems cannot provide the sites energy requirements or should any of them fail. The biomass boilers and dual fuel boilers will therefore only operate intermittently, if at all, therefore impacts on local air quality from these sources would be negligible and have not been considered any further within this assessment.
13.3.6 During construction of the proposed development there is the potential for effects to occur as a result of dust and PM10 emissions. These have also been considered as part of this assessment.
13.4. Baseline
13.4.1 Baseline air quality in the vicinity of the site has been established through a review of the BDBC air quality review and assessment documents, namely the 2013 Progress Report (BDBC 2013). Further data has also been obtained from the UK-Air website operated by DEFRA (http://uk- air.defra.gov.uk/).
13.4.2 BDBC do not operate any monitoring sites in the vicinity of the site therefore to contribute to the baseline assessment a three month diffusion tube monitoring survey was undertaken.
13.4.3 A site visit was carried out on 4th September 2014 during which three monitoring locations where identified along the southern boundary of the Site adjacent to the A30 and a fourth location selected within the site but set back from the road by approximately 50 m.
13.4.4 The monitoring survey was carried out for a three month period using diffusion tubes, which were changed at each location on a four week rotation.
214 stridetreglown.com 13.4.5 The diffusion tubes were supplied and analysed by Gradko International. The tube preparation technique was 20% TEA in water. The location of the monitoring sites is shown in Figure 13.1.
Figure 13.1 Location of monitoring sites.
Construction Phase
Introduction
13.4.6 To assess the potential impacts associated with dust and PM10 releases during the construction phase and to determine any necessary mitigation measures, an assessment based on the latest guidance from the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM2014) has been undertaken.
13.4.7 This approach divides construction activities into the following dust emission sources:
demolition; earthworks; construction; and trackout.
13.4.8 The risk of dust effects (low, medium or high) is determined by the scale (magnitude) and nature of the works and the proximity of sensitive human and ecological receptors.
13.4.9 The IAQM guidance recommends that an assessment be undertaken where there are sensitive human receptors:
within 350 m of the Site boundary; or Within 50 m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500 m from the Site entrance(s).
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 215
13.4.10 An assessment should also be carried out where there are dust-sensitive ecological receptors:
within 50 m of the Site boundary; or within 50 m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500 m from the site entrance(s).
13.4.11 The significance of the dust effects is based on professional judgement, taking into account the sensitivity of receptors and existing air quality.
Dust Emission Magnitude
13.4.12 The magnitude of the dust impacts for each source is classified as Small, Medium or Large depending on the scale of the proposed works. Table 13.2 summarises the IAQM criteria that may be used to determine the magnitude of the dust emission. These criteria are used in combination with site specific information and professional judgement.
Source Large Medium Small
Demolition Total building volume Total building volume 20,000 - Total building volume >50,000m3 50,000m3 <20,000m3
Potentially dusty material Potentially dusty material Construction material with low (e.g. concrete) potential for dust release Demolition activities 10 - 20m Onsite crushing and above ground level Demolition activities <10m screening above ground level Demolition activities >20m Demolition during wetter months above ground level.
Earthworks Total site area >10,000m2 Total site area 2,500 - Total site area <2,500m2 10,000m2 Potentially dusty soil type Soil type with large grain size (e.g. clay) Moderately dusty soil type (e.g. sand) (e.g. silt) >10 heavy earth moving <5 heavy earth moving vehicles vehicles active at any one 5 - 10 heavy earth moving active at any one time time vehicles active at any one time Formation of bunds <4m in Formation of bunds >8m in Formation of bunds 4 - 8m in height height height Total material moved <20,000 Total material moved Total material moved 20,000 - tonnes >100,000 tonnes 100,000 tonnes Earthworks during wetter months
Construction Total building volume Total building volume 25,000 - Total building volume >100,000m3 100,000m3 <25,000m3 On site concrete batching Potentially dusty construction Material with low potential for material (e.g. concrete) dust release (e.g. metal cladding Sandblasting or timber) On site concrete batching
Trackout >50 HGV movements in 10 - 50 HGV movements in <10 HGV movements in any one any one day (a) any one day (a) day (a) Potentially dusty surface Moderately dusty surface Surface material with low material (e.g. high clay material (e.g. silt) potential for dust release content) Unpaved road length 50 - Unpaved road length <50m Unpaved road length 100m >100m
HGV movements refer to outward trips (leaving the site) by vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes.
Table 13.2: Dust Emission Magnitude Criteria
216 stridetreglown.com Receptor Sensitivity
13.4.13 Factors defining the sensitivity of a receptor are presented in Table 13.3
Sensitivity Human (health) Human (dust soiling) Ecological
High Locations where members of Regular exposure Nationally or Internationally the public are exposed over a designated site with dust High level of amenity expected. time period relevant to the air sensitive features (b) quality objectives for PM (a) Appearance, aesthetics or 10 locations with vascular species value of the property would be Examples include residential (c) affected by dust soiling dwellings, hospitals, schools and residential care homes. Examples include residential dwellings, museums, medium and long-term car parks and car showrooms
Medium Locations where workers are Short-term exposure Nationally designated site with exposed over a time period dust sensitive features (b) Moderate level of amenity relevant to the air quality expected Nationally designated site with a objectives for PM (a) 10 particularly important plant Possible diminished Examples include office and species where dust sensitivity is appearance or aesthetics of shop workers (d) unknown property due to dust soiling Examples include parks and places of work
Low Transient human exposure Transient exposure Locally designated site with dust sensitive features (b) Examples include public Enjoyment of amenity not footpaths, playing fields, parks expected. and shopping streets Appearance and aesthetics of property unaffected Examples include playing fields, farmland (e), footpaths, short- term car parks and roads
Table 13.3: Factors Defining the Sensitivity of a Receptor
13.4.14 The sensitivity of a receptor will also depend on a number of additional factors including any history of dust generating activities in the area, likely cumulative dust impacts from nearby construction sites, any pre-existing screening such as trees or buildings and the likely duration of the impacts. In addition, the influence of the prevailing wind direction and local topography may be of relevance when determining the sensitivity of a receptor.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 217
Area Sensitivity
13.4.15 The sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and health impacts is dependent on the number of receptors within each sensitivity class and their distance from the source. In addition, human health impacts are dependent on the existing PM10 concentrations in the area. Table’s 13.4 and 13.5 summarise the criteria for determining the overall sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and health impacts respectively. The sensitivity of ecological receptors is set out in Table 13.6.
Receptor Number of Distance from the source (a) Sensitivity Receptors <20m <50m <100m <350m
High >100 High High Medium Low
10-100 High Medium Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low
Medium >1 Medium Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low
(a) For trackout, the distance is measured from the side of roads used by construction traffic. Beyond 50m, the impact is negligible.
Table 13.4: Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property
218 stridetreglown.com Receptor Annual Mean Number of Distance from the source (a) 3 Sensitivity PM10 (µg/m ) Receptors <20m <50m <100m <200m <350m
High > 32 > 100 High High High Medium Low
10 - 100 High High Medium Low Low
1 - 10 High Medium Low Low Low
28 - 32 > 100 High High Medium Low Low
10 - 100 High Medium Low Low Low
1 - 10 High Medium Low Low Low
24 - 28 > 100 High Medium Low Low Low
10 - 100 High Medium Low Low Low
1 - 10 Medium Low Low Low Low
< 24 > 100 Medium Low Low Low Low
10 - 100 Low Low Low Low Low
1 - 10 Low Low Low Low Low
Medium - > 10 High Medium Low Low Low
- 1 - 10 Medium Low Low Low Low
Low - >1 Low Low Low Low Low
(a) For trackout, the distance is measured from the side of roads used by construction traffic. Beyond 50m, the impact is negligible.
Table 13.5: Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 219
Receptor Sensitivity Distance from the Source
<20m <50m
High High Medium
Medium Medium Low
Low Low Low
Table 13.6: Sensitivity of Area to Ecological Impacts
13.4.16 For each dust emission source (demolition, construction, earthworks and trackout), the worst- case area sensitivity is used in combination with the dust emission magnitude to determine the risk of dust impacts.
Risk of Dust Effects
13.4.17 The risk of dust impacts prior to mitigation for each emission source is presented in Tables 13.7 and 13.8.
Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude
Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk
Medium High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 13.7: Risk of Dust Impacts – Demolition, Earthworks and Construction
Sensitivity of Area Dust Emission Magnitude
Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Table 13.8: Risk of Dust Impacts - Trackout
Mitigation and Significance
13.4.18 The IAQM guidance provides a range of mitigation measures which are dependent on the level of dust risk attributed to the site. Site specific mitigation measures are also included where appropriate.
220 stridetreglown.com 13.4.19 The significance of the impacts following appropriate mitigation is determined by professional judgement.
Construction Traffic
13.4.20 During construction of the development, lorries will require access to the Site to deliver and remove materials; earthmoving plant and other mobile machinery may also work on site including generators and cranes. These machines produce exhaust emissions; of particular concern are emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm or less (PM10).
13.4.21 Based on the size of the proposals it is expected that the number of additional heavy goods movements (HGV) on the adjacent road network would be less than 50 per day during the construction phase.
13.4.22 Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) has produced guidance (EPUK 2010) which sets out criteria for identifying when significant impacts on air quality are likely to occur. The guidance indicates that where a development results in less than 200 HGV movements per day during a construction period of less than a year impacts on local air quality are unlikely to be significant.
13.4.23 Although the construction of the development is anticipated to occur over more than a year, as the average number of construction vehicles generated during this period would be considerably below the 200 HGV threshold the effect on local NO2 and PM10 concentrations is considered to be negligible and has not been considered any further in this assessment.
Operational Impacts
13.4.24 The ADMS Roads dispersion model (version 3.4.2, released in January 2015) has been used to predict potential impacts on air quality due to local traffic emissions. The model has been developed by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultancy (CERC) and has been widely validated for this type of assessment and used extensively in the Air Quality Review and Assessment process.
13.4.25 The model uses detailed information regarding traffic flows on the local road network and local meteorological conditions to predict pollution concentrations at specific locations selected by the user. Meteorological data from Odiham has been used for the assessment.
13.4.26 The model has been used to predict road specific concentrations of NOx and PM10. The predicted concentrations of NOx have been converted to NO2 using the LAQM calculator available on the DEFRA air quality website (http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk).
13.4.27 Traffic data for use in the assessment has been provided by the Transport Consultants. Base traffic data has been provided for 2014, which has been used for the 2011 base scenario to allow verification of the model results with local monitoring data. The base traffic data has been factored forward to 2019, the anticipated completion year of the development. Traffic generated by other committed developments in the locale has subsequently been added to the base flows to provide the 2019 base + committed scenario.
13.4.28 Traffic generated by the proposed development has then been added to the base flows to provide the future 'base + committed + development' scenario.
13.4.29 Based on the traffic data provided the following scenarios have been assessed:
2011 Base - for verification of the model only; 2019 Base + committed; 2019 Base + committed + development.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 221
13.4.30 A summary of the traffic data used in the assessment can be found in Appendix 13.2. The data includes details of annual average daily traffic flows (AADT), vehicle speeds and percentage HGV for the assessment years considered.
13.4.31 The emission factors released by DEFRA in July 2014, provided in the emissions factor toolkit EFT2014_6.0.1 and built into the ADMS model (Version 3.4, released January 2015) have been used to predict existing and future traffic related emissions. These are the latest emission factors available. To ensure a worst-case prediction of impacts the 2011 emission factors have been used to predict concentrations in 2019.
13.4.32 To predict local air quality, traffic emissions predicted by the model must be added to local background concentrations. Background concentrations of NO2 and PM10 have been taken from the 2011 DEFRA background maps. The maps provide an estimate of background concentrations between 2011 and 2030. The data used for the modelling assessment for 2011 are set out in Table x.15. To ensure a worst-case prediction of future concentrations background concentrations for 2011 have been used to predict future concentrations in 2019.
13.4.33 It is recommended, following guidance set out in LAQM.TG(09), that the model results are compared with measured data to determine whether the model results need adjusting to more accurately reflect local air quality. This process is known as verification.
13.4.34 LAQM.TG(09) recommends that model predictions should be within 25% (preferably 10%) of monitored concentrations for the model to be predicting with any degree of accuracy. There are no monitoring sites operated by BDBC in the vicinity of the site. The monitoring data collected from the diffusion tube monitoring survey carried out at the Site has therefore been used to verify the model results. Three of the monitoring sites (HH1, HH2 and HH3) are located at roadside locations adjacent to the A30. The model has been used to predict NO2 concentrations at these three monitoring locations and the monitoring data used to verify the model results.
13.4.35 The results of the comparison are presented below in Table 13.9.
Monitoring Locations Measured Concentrations Modelled Concentrations % Difference
HH1 19.6 14.3 -27.1
HH2 17.7 13.9 -21.5
HH3 18.2 14.0 -23.3
Table 13.9: Comparison of Modelled and Monitored NO2 and PM10 Concentrations
13.4.36 The comparison of monitored and modelled concentrations indicates that the model is under- predicting annual mean NO2 concentrations by an average of 24%. This is only just within the recommended 25% of monitored concentrations. It is therefore considered necessary to adjust the model results to better represent local concentrations. The results of the modelling assessment have been adjusted using the methodology given in LAQM.TG(09). Full details of the verification and calculation of adjustment factors are provided in Appendix 13.3.
13.4.37 There is no suitable monitoring of PM10 data to allow verification of the PM10 model results. However, LAQM.TG(09) suggests applying the NOx adjustment factor to modelled road-PM10 where no appropriate verification against PM10 data can be carried out. Therefore, the adjustment applied to predicted NOx concentrations has also been applied to the modelled PM10 concentrations.
222 stridetreglown.com 13.4.38 LAQM.TG(09) does not provide a method for the conversion of annual mean NO2 concentrations to 1-hour mean NO2 concentrations. However, research (Laxen and Marner 2003) has concluded that exceedances of the 1-hour mean objective are generally unlikely to occur where annual mean concentrations do not exceed 60 µg/m3. Care has been taken to ensure that locations where the 1-hour mean objective is relevant are included in the assessment.
13.4.39 Quantitative assessment of the impacts on local air quality from road traffic emissions associated with the operation of the development have been completed against the current statutory standards and objectives set out in Table 13.1 for NO2 and PM10.
Significance Criteria
13.4.40 The guidance issued by EPUK (EPUK 2010) relates to Air Quality considerations within the planning process and sets criterion which identify the need for an Air Quality Assessment, the type of Air Quality assessment required, and the significance of any predicted impact.
13.4.41 The guidance also sets out criteria for assessing air quality impact magnitude and places significant emphasis on judging overall impacts by means of professional judgement, whilst taking into account the impact magnitude descriptors.
13.4.42 The determination of impact significance within this assessment has considered both the impact descriptors and the professional judgement of the author. Tables 13.10 and 13.11 identify the assessment criteria from this guidance.
13.4.43 These criteria have been deemed suitable for use in this appraisal, as there are currently no standards or statutory significance criteria available for this purpose.
Magnitude of Change Annual Mean
Large Increase/decrease > 40 µg/m3
Medium Increase/decrease 2-4 µg/m3
Small Increase/decrease 0.4 – 2 µg/m3
Imperceptible Increase/decrease < 0.4 µg/m3
Table 13.10: Definition of Impact magnitude for Changes in Ambient Annual Mean NO2 and PM10
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 223
Concentrations at a Receptor
Absolute Concentration in Change in Concentration Relation to Objective/Limit Value Small Medium Large
Increase with development
Above Objective/ Limit Value With Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Substantial Scheme (>40 μg/m3) Adverse
Just Below Objective/ Limit Value Slight Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate With Scheme (36-40 μg/m3) Adverse
Below Objective/ Limit Value With Negligible Slight Adverse Slight Adverse Scheme (30-36 μg/m3)
Well Below Objective/ Limit Value Negligible Negligible Slight Adverse With Scheme (<30 μg/m3)
Decrease with Development
Above Objective/ Limit Value Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Substantial Without Scheme (>40 μg/m3) Beneficial
Just Below Objective/ Limit Value Slight Beneficial Moderate Beneficial Moderate Without Scheme (36-40 μg/m3) Beneficial
Below Objective/ Limit Value Negligible Slight Beneficial Slight Beneficial Without Scheme (30-36 μg/m3)
Well Below Objective/ Limit Value Negligible Negligible Slight Beneficial Without Scheme (<30 μg/m3)
Table 13.11: Air Quality Impact Descriptors for Changes to Annual Mean NO2 and PM10
224 stridetreglown.com 13.4.44 Once the magnitude of the impact is known, the next step is to describe the impact. The EPUK guidance therefore presents a set of descriptors as a means of describing impacts. These are identified in Table 13.11 below. Other factors taken into account in determining the significance of the impacts predicted are also summarised.
Factors
The number of properties affected by slight, moderate or major air quality impacts. The number of people exposed to levels above the objective or limit value. The magnitude of the changes and the description of the impacts at relevant receptors. Whether or not an exceedence of an objective or limit value is predicted to arise in the study area where none existed before, or 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. Uncertainty, including the extent to which worst-case assumptions have been made. The extent to which an objective or limit value is exceeded, e.g. an annual mean NO2 of 41 μg/m3 should attract less significance than an annual mean of 51 μg/m3.
Table 13.12: Factors Taken into Account in Determining Air Quality Significance
Sensitive Receptors
13.4.45 LAQM.TG(09) describes in detail typical locations where consideration should be given to pollutants defined in the Regulations. Generally, the guidance suggests that all locations 'where members of the public are regularly present' should be considered. At such locations, members of the public will be exposed to pollution over the time that they are present, and the most suitable averaging period of the pollutant needs to be used for assessment purposes.
13.4.46 For instance, on a footpath, where exposure will be transient (for the duration of passage along that path) comparison with short-term standards (i.e. 15 minute mean or 1 hour mean) may be relevant. In a school, or adjacent to a private dwelling, however; where exposure may be for longer periods, comparison with long-term standards (such as 24 hour mean or annual mean) may be most appropriate. In general terms, concentrations associated with long-term standards are lower than short-term standards owing to the chronic health effects associated with exposure to low level pollution for longer periods of time.
13.4.47 For the completion of this assessment, consideration of the potential impacts of the proposed development on local air quality has been undertaken by predicting pollutant concentrations at 7 existing sensitive receptors.
13.4.48 In addition, concentrations of NO2 and PM10 have been predicted at the four diffusion tube sites to assess the suitability of the Site for the development of a hospital.
13.4.49 All the receptor locations have been selected to represent worst-case exposure to local traffic emissions.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 225
13.4.50 Details of the receptors locations are provided in Table 13.13 and their locations shown in Figure 13.2.
Receptor Number Receptor Location OS Grid Reference
1 The Sun Inn 457854, 146511
2 Ganderdown Cottages 458535, 147361
3 Kynance 458759, 147414
4 The Bungalow 458646, 147483
5 New Cottages 458616, 147577
6 Oak Down Farm 458778, 147181
7 Candover Ct 459966, 148099
Table 13.13: Details of Receptors Used in the Modelling Assessment
Figure 13.2 Location of existing receptors
226 stridetreglown.com Baseline Assessment
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Review and Assessment of Air Quality
13.4.51 BDBC regularly review and assess air quality in the Borough in accordance with the requirements of DEFRA. Routine monitoring undertaken by the Council indicates that pollutant concentrations are within the air quality objectives at sensitive receptor locations and therefore, to date, there has been no requirement to declare an AQMA.
Local Air Quality Monitoring
13.4.52 BDBC do not routinely undertake automatic monitoring of NO2 or PM10.
13.4.53 Ambient NO2 concentrations are measured at 23 locations within the Borough using passive diffusion tubes. The majority of the monitoring sites are at roadside locations within Basingstoke town centre and are not considered relevant to the assessment. Unfortunately there are no sites in the vicinity of the development site. The nearest urban background diffusion tube is at Stocker Close in Basingstoke, over 6km from the Site. Annual mean concentrations measured between 2009 and 2012 are presented in Table x.14 (BDBC2013). The measured concentrations are well within the air quality objective of 40 µg/m3.
3 Site OS Grid Reference Annual Mean NO2 Concentration (µg/m )
2009 2010 2011 2012
Site 4. Stocker 463500,150700 19.8 20.1 14.1 18.0 Close Basingstoke
Table 13.14: Urban Background Diffusion Tube Monitoring Data
DEFRA Background Maps
13.4.54 Annual mean background concentrations of NO2 and PM10 have been obtained from the Defra UK-AIR background pollutant maps. These 1 km grid resolution maps are derived from a complex modelling exercise that takes into account emissions inventories and measurements of ambient air pollution from both automated and non-automated sites. The latest background maps for NO2 and PM10 were issued in June 2014 and are based on 2011 monitoring data.
13.4.55 DEFRA guidance issued in conjunction with the new background maps suggests that unusually high particulate concentrations were measured in 2011. A scaling factor of 0.91 is provided to adjust the mapped concentrations to more typical levels.
13.4.56 A summary of the annual mean mapped background NO2 and PM10 concentrations for 2011 and 2014 are presented in Table 13.15.
Pollutant 2011 2014
NO2 11.0 13.0
PM10 17.2 16.9 (a)
Adjusted to remove influence of 2011 high particulate year
Table 13.15: DEFRA Mapped Annual Mean Background Pollutant Concentrations
13.4.57 The mapped data indicate that background concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed development are well within the relevant air quality standards.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 227
Diffusion Tube Survey Results
13.4.58 Diffusion tubes are a passive form of monitoring, which, due to their relative in-expense, allows for a much greater spatial coverage than with automatic monitoring sites. Diffusion tubes are acknowledged as a less accurate method of monitoring ambient air pollutants than automatic monitors, with diffusion tubes over or under estimating concentrations by as much as 30 %. To allow the results to be reliably compared with the AQ Objectives, the results should be bias corrected using data from tubes co-located with continuous monitoring sites.
13.4.59 The diffusion tubes used for the survey were prepared and analysed by Gradko Environmental Ltd. All the diffusion tube results have been bias adjusted using factors derived for Gradko 20% TEA/water available in the National Diffusion Tube Bias Spreadsheet (v09_14) available on the DEFRA LAQM website (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/bias-adjustment-factors/national-bias.html). No bias correction factors are currently available for 2014 as factors are only derived for each complete annual period, therefore the 2013 correction factor of 0.95 has been used for this analysis.
13.4.60 As previously discussed, the monitoring survey was carried out for a three month period. To allow comparison against the annual mean objective for NO2 the monitored concentrations must be adjusted to estimate the equivalent annual mean concentration at the Site. An adjustment factor has been derived following the methodology given in LAQM.TG(09) using monitoring data obtained from three long-term background continuous monitoring sites located within 50 miles of the Site; Southampton, Reading Town Centre and Teddington. All three monitoring sites had a data capture of 90% or more during the annual monitoring period, therefore use of this data is considered appropriate.
13.4.61 Details of how the adjustment factor was derived are set out in Table x.16 below and the result of the monitoring survey, including bias correction and estimated annual mean concentrations are presented in Table 13.17.
Long Term Annual Mean 22/12/13 – Period Mean 04/09/14 to Ratio (Am/Pm) Monitoring Site 22/12/14 (Am) 22/12/14 (Pm)
Southampton 31.8 35.9 0.88
Reading 26.3 30.3 0.86
Teddington 27.1 36.4 0.74
Average Ratio (Ra) 0.83
Figure 13.16: Calculation of Adjustment Factor for Estimation of Annual Mean from Monitored Concentrations.
228 stridetreglown.com Monitoring % Data Capture Monitored Period Bias Corrected Period Estimated Annual Mean 3 3 1 3 2 Location Mean (Pm) (µg/m ) Mean (Pmb) (µg/m ) (µg/m )
1 100 24.7 23.5 19.6
2 100 22.4 21.3 17.7
3 100 23.0 21.9 18.2
4 100 20.8 19.8 16.5
1 Pm adjusted by a factor of 0.95 (bias correction)
2 Pmb adjusted by a factor of 0.83 (annualisation)
Figure 13.17: Results of NO2 Monitoring Survey
13.4.62 The monitoring results show annual mean NO2 concentrations at the Site to be ‘well below’ (<30 µg/m3, Table 13.11) the objective limit of 40 µg/m3.
13.5. Development Proposals of Relevance
13.6. Potential Effects and Significance
Construction Phase
13.6.1 The site is situated to the southwest of Basingstoke, adjacent to the A30 and approximately 500m from the junction 7 of the M3 motorway. The area around the site is predominantly agricultural, however the south-eastern boundary abuts Ganderdown Copse, a semi-natural ancient woodland that has been designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) by BDBC.
13.6.2 The precise behaviour of the dust, its residence time in the atmosphere, and the distance it may travel before being deposited will depend upon a number of factors. These include wind direction and strength, local topography and the presence of intervening structures (buildings, etc.) that may intercept dust before it reaches sensitive locations. Furthermore, dust would be naturally suppressed by rainfall.
13.6.3 The assessment of dust impacts is dependent on the proximity of the most sensitive receptors to the site boundary. The nearest dust sensitive residential receptors (Ganderdown Cottages) are adjacent to the A30, approximately 150m from the site boundary. These properties are likely to be afforded significant protection from on-site dust raising activities by Ganderdown Copse. Ganderdown Copse itself has the potential to be affected by dust deposition, but is as a locally designated site, it is considered a low sensitivity receptor, according to the IAQM guidance. Overall the sensitivity of the area surrounding the Proposed Development to dust soiling and health impacts is considered to be low.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 229
13.6.4 A wind rose from Odiham is provided below in Figure 13.3, which shows that the prevailing wind is from the south-west, therefore receptors to the northeast of the site are the most likely to experience dust impacts from the site.
0° 337.5° 1500 22.5°
315° 1200 45°
900
292.5° 600 67.5°
300
270° 90°
247.5° 112.5°
225° 135°
202.5° 157.5° 180° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)
Figure 13.3 RAF Odiham Wind Rose
Potential Dust Emission Magnitude
13.6.5 There are no existing structures on site which will require demolition, prior to the construction phase.
13.6.6 Earthworks will primarily involve excavating material, haulage, tipping and stockpiling. This may also involve levelling of the site and landscaping. The site exceeds 2 ha in size; therefore it is possible that there will be more than 10 earth moving vehicles on site at any one time. In addition, long-term stockpiling of dusty materials may occur. The magnitude of the dust emission for the earthworks phase is therefore considered to be large.
230 stridetreglown.com 13.6.7 Dust emissions during construction will depend on the scale of the works, method of construction, construction materials and duration of build. Detailed information is currently unavailable regarding the method and duration of construction; however the buildings are likely to be of standard brick and block construction. Materials on-site are likely to include concrete, a potentially dusty material, therefore the dust emission magnitude is considered to be large.
13.6.8 Factors influencing the degree of trackout and associated magnitude of effect include vehicle size, vehicle speed, vehicle numbers, geology and duration. Access to the site for construction traffic will be via the A30 where Ganderdown Cottages are within 10m of the carriageway. The dust emission magnitude due to trackout is therefore considered to be medium.
Dust Risk Effects
13.6.9 A summary of the potential risk of dust impacts, based on the low overall sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and human health impacts, is presented in Table 13.18.
13.6.10 The risk of dust impacts has been assessed as low to medium prior to mitigation.
Source Impact Magnitude Human Health Risk Dust Soiling Risk
Demolition n/a n/a n/a
Earthworks Large Medium Medium
Construction Large Medium Medium
Trackout Medium Low Low
Table 13.18: Risk of Dust Impacts Prior to Mitigation
Operational Impacts
NO2 Concentrations
13.6.11 Annual mean NO2 concentrations predicted at the existing receptor locations are set out below in Table 13.19 and concentrations predicted at the Site are set out in Table 13.20.
Receptor 2019 Base + 2019 base + Increase due to Significance of committed committed + Development Effect Development
1 17.4 17.6 0.2 Negligible
2 17.7 19.1 1.4 Negligible
3 18.8 20.3 1.5 Negligible
4 15.0 15.7 0.7 Negligible
5 13.4 13.7 0.3 Negligible
6 15.9 16.4 0.5 Negligible
7 19.6 19.7 0.1 Negligible
3 Table 13.19: Predicted Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations at Existing Receptor Locations (µg/m )
13.6.12 The modelling assessment shows that predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations are ’well below’ the annual mean objective at all the selected existing receptors.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 231
Traffic generated by the proposed development is predicted to result in a maximum increase in 3 annual mean NO2 of 1.5 µg/m . This is classed as a ‘small’ change in concentrations based on the EPUK significance criteria set out in Table x.10. As NO2 concentrations remain ‘well below’ the annual mean objective under the ‘with development’ scenario a ‘small’ change in concentrations is considered to be of negligible significance (Table 13.11).
Receptor 2019 Base + Committed 2019 base + Committed + Significance of Effect Development
HH1 19.9 21.9 Negligible
HH2 19.0 19.9 Negligible
HH3 19.1 19.5 Negligible
HH4 13.3 13.7 Negligible
3 Table 13.20: Predicted Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations at Proposed Receptor Locations (µg/m )
13.6.13 Annual mean NO2 concentrations are predicted to be ‘well below’ the objective within the Site based on the concentrations predicted at receptors HH1 to HH4 (Table x.20). This is consistent with concentrations recorded by the NO2 monitoring survey as detailed in the baseline section and Table 13.17.
13.6.14 Exceedance of the 1-hour objective for NO2 is also unlikely based on the predicted annual mean concentrations. Guidance referred to earlier in the report indicates that exceedance of the 1- hour objective is unlikely where the annual mean concentration is below 60 µg/m3.
13.6.15 Future occupants of the site would not be exposed to elevated NO2 concentrations therefore the impact of the development with regards new exposure to air quality is considered to be negligible.
PM10 Concentrations
13.6.16 Predicted annual mean PM10 concentrations predicted at the selected receptors are set out in Table 13.21 and concentrations predicted at the site are provided in Table 13.21.
Receptor 2019 Base + 2019 base + Increase due to Significance of committed committed + Development Effect Development
1 18.5 18.6 0.1 Negligible
2 18.6 18.9 0.3 Negligible
3 18.8 19.1 0.3 Negligible
4 18.1 18.2 0.1 Negligible
5 17.8 17.8 0.0 Negligible
6 18.2 18.3 0.1 Negligible
7 18.9 18.9 0.0 Negligible
3 Table 13.21: Predicted Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations at Existing Receptor Locations (µg/m )
232 stridetreglown.com 3 13.6.17 The predicted annual mean PM10 concentrations are 'well below' the 40 µg/m objective at all the selected existing receptor locations (Table 13.21). Annual mean concentrations are also predicted to be ‘well below’ the objective across the development site based on concentrations predicted at receptors HH1 to HH4 (Table 13.22).
13.6.18 The proposed development is predicted to result in a maximum increase in annual mean PM10 concentrations of 0.3 µg/m3. This is classed as an imperceptible change in air quality (Table 13.10) therefore the impact of the development is considered to be negligible.
3 13.6.19 The number of exceedances of 50 µg/m , as a 24-hour mean PM10 concentration, has been calculated from the annual mean following the approach set out by DEFRA in LAQM.TG(09):
A = -18.5 + 0.00145 x annual mean3 + (206/annual mean)
3 13.6.20 Where A is the number of exceedances of 50 µg/m as a 24-hour mean PM10 concentration.
3 13.6.21 Based on the approach set out above, the maximum number of days >50 µg/m PM10 is predicted to be between 1-3 at all locations with an increase of less than 1 as a result of the proposed developments. The impact of the development on 24-hour PM10 concentrations is therefore considered to be negligible. Furthermore, the objective for this pollutant permits up to 35-days per annum and therefore exceedance of this objective is highly unlikely at any location across the development site.
Receptor 2019 Base + Committed 2019 base + Committed + Significance of Effect Development
HH1 19.1 19.5 Negligible
HH2 18.9 19.1 Negligible
HH3 18.9 19.0 Negligible
HH4 17.8 17.8 Negligible
3 Table 13.22: Predicted Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations at Proposed Receptor Locations (µg/m )
13.6.22 Future occupants of the Site would not be exposed to elevated PM10 concentrations therefore the impact of the development with regards new exposure to air quality is considered to be negligible.
13.7. Mitigation
Construction Phase
13.7.1 The control of dust emissions from construction site activities relies upon management provision and mitigation techniques to reduce emissions of dust and limit dispersion. Where dust emission controls have been used effectively, large-scale operations have been successfully undertaken without impacts to nearby properties.
13.7.2 A medium risk of impacts is predicted at adjacent sensitive receptors during construction of the proposed development. Appropriate mitigation measures for the Site have been identified following the IAQM guidance and based on the risk effects presented in Table 13.18. It is recommended that the ‘highly recommended’ measures identified and set out in Appendix 13.4 are incorporated into a DMP and approved by BDBC prior to commencement of any work on site.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 233
13.7.3 In addition to the ‘recommended’ measures, the IAQM guidance also sets out a number of ‘desirable’ measures which should also be considered for inclusion within the DMP. These are also set out in Appendix 13.4.
13.7.4 Following implementation of the measures recommended for inclusion within the DMP the impact of emissions during construction of the proposed development would be negligible.
Operational Phase
13.7.5 The proposed development is predicted to have a negligible impact on local air quality therefore no mitigation measures are considered necessary.
13.8. Residual Effects
Construction Phase
13.8.1 The greatest potential for dust nuisance problems to occur will generally be within 200m of the construction site perimeter. There may be limited incidences of increased dust deposited on property beyond this distance.
13.8.2 By following the mitigation measures outlined within this appraisal the impact would be substantially minimised. Residual impacts are therefore considered to be negligible.
Operational Phase
13.8.3 The proposed development is predicted to have a negligible impact on NO2 and PM10 concentrations. Residual impacts are therefore considered to be negligible.
13.9. Conclusion
13.9.1 An air quality impact assessment has been carried out to assess both construction and operational impacts of the proposed development.
13.9.2 An assessment of the potential impacts during the construction phase has been carried out. This has shown that during this phase of the proposed development releases of dust and PM10 are likely to occur during site activities. Through good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, the impact of dust and PM10 releases may be effectively mitigated and the resultant impacts are considered to be negligible.
13.9.3 ADMS Roads dispersion modelling has been carried out to assess the operational impacts associated with the proposed development. The assessment has shown a negligible impact on local NO2 and PM10 concentrations as a result of traffic generated by the development.
13.9.4 The modelling assessment has predicted both NO2 and PM10 concentrations at the development site ‘well below’ the relevant air quality objectives and therefore the proposals would not result in exposure of future occupants to poor air quality.
13.9.5 Based on the above information, it is considered that air quality does not pose a constraint to redevelopment of the site as proposed.
234 stridetreglown.com 14. Socio-Economic Effects
14.1. Introduction
14.1.1 The provision of a new Critical Treatment Hospital, Cancer Treatment Centre and supporting facilities in the preferred location would bring an important regional development to the borough and provide significant new employment for Basingstoke and the area in general. It is a significant development that would have substantial and far-reaching social and economic benefits to the region.
14.1.2 RHCH Winchester and BNHH Basingstoke are retained as local important hospitals treating the majority of patients in their respective communities; with centralised services relocated to the new site. Andover War Memorial Hospital continues to provide services.
14.1.3 This Chapter of the Environmental Statement will assess the role of the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust sites affected by the development. It would also provide a commentary in relation to staff retention and expansion and investigate the impact of new and/or alternative uses of the buildings likely to be vacated within the Trust’s current building stock as a result of the development of the subject site.
14.2. Policy/Legislative Context
National Planning Policy Framework
14.2.1 The NPPFsets Government planning policy for both the management of development, including the determination of planning applications, and plan making.
14.2.2 The NPPF includes at its core the principle of sustainable development, defined as having three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The economic role is responsible for ensuring that there is sufficient and appropriate land available to support growth whilst the social element seeks to ensure that the role of planning supports healthy communities. Sustainable Development, and specifically the presumption in favour of sustainable development is embedded within the NPPF as a ‘golden thread’ which is to be considered throughout decision taking and plan making.
14.2.3 In addition, paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 ‘core planning principles’. Within the context of this proposal, and the consideration of socio-economic impacts, the most important principles are:
That planning should be a creative exercise in enhancing and improving the places in which people live their lives; A need to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; To consider the differing roles and character of different places and to recognise character and beauty; To manage patterns of growth and to focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and To take account of and promote strategies to improve health wellbeing for all and to deliver sufficient facilities to meet local needs.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 235
14.2.4 Section 7 of the NPPF considers the need for good design with paragraph 56 identifying how good design is indivisible from good planning and that it “should contribute positively to making places better for people”. Paragraph 57 continues, noting the importance of inclusive design of buildings and public spaces.
14.2.5 Section 8 of the NPPF sets out policy to promote healthy communities. Whilst intended to guide and shape all forms of development, and in particular residential development, the principles are equally relevant to the proposed hospital development.
14.2.6 Paragraph 69 establishes the importance of ensuring development is safe and accessible with legible pedestrian routes and high quality public space. Whilst this could be seen to relate primarily to town centre development, the proposed CTH/CTC development has the potential for significant visitor rates with a need, given the potentially stressful nature of visits, to have a clear understanding of the public space.
14.3. Method
Assessment Methodology
14.3.1 There is a recognition that the methodology for the assessment of socio-economic impacts are, to a large extent, dependent on the form of the development proposed along with the host socio-economic environment in which it is located. For example, there is potential for the spatial extent of impacts to range from local to regional to national and potentially international levels.
14.3.2 For this project, it is considered that the main issues to be assessed are as follows:
1) The local population, including the age profile; 2) The catchment area of the proposed development; 3) Current socio-economic conditions; 4) The current and future employment related to the proposed development; 5) Temporary construction employment; 6) Indirect impacts on local firms and employment; and 7) Impacts on health care provision.
Significance Criteria
14.3.3 It is accepted that socio-economic impacts do not have recognised standards for which the impacts of development can be assessed (Morris, P; Therivel, R. Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment, 2009). Further, in many instances, the view on the relative significance of socio-economic impacts can often be political and arbitrary.
14.3.4 It is however possible to consider significance from multiple perspectives, drawing on sources such as local opinion (including that of elected officials), the output of local press and views expressed at public meetings and consultation events.
14.3.5 Therefore, in light of the above, the degree of impact will be considered relative to the scale of change against the baseline, taking into account the nature and context of the specific impact.
14.4. Baseline
14.4.1 This section identifies the baseline socio-economic position on which the impacts of the development are assessed. The baseline includes the likely spatial area of impact together with a summary of a range of socio-economic conditions and trends.
236 stridetreglown.com Spatial Area of Impact
14.4.2 The site is located wholly within the administrative area of BDBC and HCC. It is situated south west of Basingstoke (and south west within the Borough itself), adjacent to the A30 and in very close proximity to Junction 7 of the M3.
14.4.3 A plan of the catchment area covered by the Foundation Trust is presented below; this identifies that the site is centrally located between the main centres of population.
Figure 14.1 Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Catchment Area
14.4.4 Due to the central location within the catchment area in relation to the main centres of population, together with the location in a strategic location on the major road network, it is considered that there is potential for significant impacts in terms of health care provision across the Hampshire and West Berkshire area.
Population
14.4.5 The baseline population for the Trust’s catchment area is based on current referral patterns. This indicates that the majority of patients live within the following areas:
North Hampshire;
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 237
Parts of North East Hampshire and West Berkshire; The northern half of Havant, Waterlooville and East Hampshire; and A large extent of West Hampshire.
14.4.6 It is estimated that an approximate population for this area is in the order of 587,000. This estimate is based on a 2010 prediction of population within electoral wards.
Age Profile
14.4.7 An estimate of the population age profile for the North Hampshire and West Hampshire CCGs is set out in the table below:
Age Group 2014 population 2019 2024 2029
0-19 178,000 182,000 190,800 193,300
19-44 221,500 219,500 220,800 223,100
45-64 212,000 219,700 219,00 214,00
65-71 86,000 93,500 92,400 103,200
75+ 73,800 86,000 107,800 122,700
Table 14.1 Age Profile Estimates
14.4.8 As with the UK as a whole, the figures above indicate that there is a predicted steady increase in the numbers of people within the 75+ age group.
Skills
14.4.9 Hampshire County Council have undertaken a series of analysis of the 2011 census data. Whilst the data is presented for the County as a whole, given the large coverage of the Trust’s catchment area, together with the difficulties in attributing data to the specific Clinical Commissioning Group boundaries, the statistics are considered to be broadly representative of the baseline.
14.4.10 It is indicated that approximately 28% of the population are educated to the highest level, 4, equating to first degree of higher levels of educational attainment. This is compared to 27% across England and Wales. In contrast, some 19% have no formal qualifications against a figure of 22.7% for England and Wales.
14.4.11 It is noted that each of these figures have moved since the 2001 census, indicating a general increase in the level of qualification. Specifically, the level 4 grouping has increased by some 8% with the no qualification grouping reducing by 4.8%. Furthermore, the figures demonstrate that the standard of qualification is generally higher within the Hampshire Economic Area when compared to the average for England and Wales as a whole.
Labour Market
14.4.12 The 2011 census analysis for the Hampshire Economic Area provides an indication of the level of economic activity within the area. This is defined as follows:
Economically active – employed, self-employed or unemployed; or Economically inactive – retired, carer (e.g. for family), long-term sick or disabled.
238 stridetreglown.com 14.4.13 Figures for those economically active are some 72% (against a national average of 69.7%) and inactive 28% (against a national average of 30.3%). The rate of economic activity within the Hampshire area is marginally above the national average.
14.4.14 General analysis of the figures by local authority area indicated that the north of Hampshire, including Basingstoke and Deane, has a marginally higher level of economic activity compared to southern authorities.
Employment
14.4.15 Statistics from the 2011 census provide an indication of the types of employment within the Hampshire Economic Area. When compared to national averages, the area has a greater number of jobs within the following industries:
Construction; Information and communication; and Public administration and defence.
Health
14.4.16 Work has been undertaken by the Trust to understand the health of the local population. This has highlighted that it is a generally affluent and healthy population with a high proportion of people being economically active (as noted above). Further, levels of socio0economic deprivation are noted to be low albeit with poor geographical access to health services, in large part due to the relative rural nature of the county.
14.4.17 Other key issues include:
Low infant mortality rates compared to England average; Obesity rates comparably to national average; Alcohol consumption lower than national average; and Higher rates of dementia, potentially as a result of aging population.
14.5. Assessment of Potential Effects and Significance
14.5.1 This section sets out the potential socio-economic impacts arising from the proposal together with an assessment of the impact. In recognition of the potential for impacts to differ at different times during the project, a distinction has been made between the construction period and post completion and the operational stage of the hospital.
Construction Period
Employment
14.5.2 It is anticipated that the main socio-economic impact to arise during the construction period will relate to employment, specifically construction related employment opportunities. This conclusion is drawn on the basis of the likely scale of the construction cost associated with the development of the CTH and CTC, estimated to be in the order of £150million.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 239
14.5.3 At the time of undertaking this assessment a construction contract has not been awarded and therefore there are inevitable challenges in identifying firm details on the likely level of construction jobs arising from the development. Despite this, it is estimated that the build programme will extend over some 20 months. Based on comparable developments, there is the potential for the construction phase to generate in the order of 750 jobs at the peak of construction.
14.5.4 However, given the scale of the proposed development and the likely procurement method to be followed ProCure21+ (an NHS framework agreement for the procurement of capital investment construction schemes), it is highly likely that a national construction firm will be appointed and therefore there is the potential for local employment is limited. Despite this, there are opportunities to put in place measures to encourage local recruitment of relevant members of the workforce.
14.5.5 In addition to direct employment on site, there is potential for wider positive opportunities in the local economy. Such opportunities may relate to construction trade related linkages i.e. where businesses may have the potential to act as suppliers to the construction programme. This may result in the potential for indirect jobs to be supported by the development.
14.5.6 Further, there is potential for wider business within the service, retail and hospitality (e.g. food and accommodation providers) sectors to benefit indirectly from the construction period through spending wages with local businesses.
14.5.7 As noted earlier in this Chapter, it is acknowledged that there are challenges in assessing the potential socio-economic impacts associated with development proposals. Nevertheless, given the potential for local employment, together with indirect benefits to local business, it is considered that there is a potential for a temporary (over the period of construction) minor beneficial impact on the local economy.
Additional impacts
14.5.8 The potential for construction phase social impacts to arise from the project is considered to be negligible. It is acknowledged in chapters elsewhere within this Environmental Statement that there may be potential for short term impacts to arise, which may give risk to negative effects on the local population (likely to be limited to those in the immediate environs of the site). However, these are considered to be limited to those specific technical disciplines and not to have a significant wider impact.
Post Completion
14.5.9 Following completion of the construction phase and moving into the operational phase of the hospital, it is likely that the main socio-economic impact will relate to employment. In addition, there is the potential for broader, more generalised social impacts.
Direct employment
14.5.10 The Trust anticipate that the centralisation of services within the CTH site will result in approximately 800 staff working on site.
Indirect employment
14.5.11 Details of indirect employment are difficult to estimate at this point in time. However, once the CTH/CTC enters the operational phase there is the potential for indirect employment in local businesses through the provision of services necessary to support operation of the hospital.
240 stridetreglown.com Additional impacts
14.5.12 Whilst the potential impacts arising from employment are clearer, together with their potential impact on the local economy, there is potential for wider social impacts.
14.5.13 Specifically, it should be noted that the primary driver for the development of a Critical Treatment Hospital in this location is to ensure that the Trust is able to best meet the needs of the local and sub-regional population within the catchment area served by the Trust. The principle of local where possible, central where necessary is considered to be critical in this regard.
14.5.14 Therefore, with this in mind, it is considered that the provision of dedicated, centralised specialist care on a site which has the capability to meet the potential critical care needs of a significant population base will result in a positive long term social benefit.
14.6. Mitigation
14.6.1 This section sets out any measures considered necessary to mitigate for any negative socio- economic impacts which are anticipated to arise from the proposed development. This follows the format of the assessment of potential effects and significant section above and is set out for the Construction Period and Post Completion periods.
Construction Period
14.6.2 During the construction period, the proposed development is anticipated to have a minor beneficial impact on the local economy. Furthermore, within the specific field of social impacts, it is considered that there is negligible likelihood of negative impacts; where these were to occur they would relate to other specific disciplines.
14.6.3 On this basis, it considered that there is no requirement for mitigation. However, as noted elsewhere within this Environmental Statement and the wider planning application submission, it is acknowledged that a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared and submitted for approval. This document will guide the work of the contractor and ensure that the potential for disruption and impact on local communities is kept to an absolute minimum.
Post Completion
14.6.4 Once the construction phase has completed and the hospital is operational, the proposed development is anticipated to have a minor but positive impact on the local economy and resident population. It is therefore considered that there is no requirement for mitigation.
14.7. Residual Effects
14.7.1 As a result of the assessment of potential effects and the conclusion that there is no requirement for the long term mitigation of impacts it is concluded that there will be no negative residual effects arising from the development.
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 241
15. Summary of Effects
Geographical Nature of effect without mitigation Nature of level of effect with importance of mitigation Issue* Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect
Landscape Impact Landscape x Permanent Permanent Highly Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Significant Character Vegetation x Permanent Permanent Not Significant Partial replacement of lost hedgerow and extensive additional woodland Not planting on the perimeter of the site Significant
Topography x Permanent Permanent Not Significant None proposed Not Significant Land Use x Permanent Permanent Not Significant None proposed Not Significant Visual Impact Viewpoint 1 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Not Significant Viewpoint 2 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Highly Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Highly Significant Viewpoint 3 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Not Significant Viewpoint 4 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Highly Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Highly Significant Viewpoint 5 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Highly Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Significant Viewpoint 6 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Significant Viewpoint 7 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Significant Viewpoint 8 x None N/A N/A No change N/A No change Viewpoint 9 x None N/A N/A No change N/A No change Viewpoint 10 x None N/A N/A No change N/A No change Viewpoint 11 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Significant Viewpoint 12 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Not Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Not Significant Viewpoint 13 x Visual amenity Permanent Permanent Not Significant Proposed woodland planting on perimeter of site Not Significant
stridetreglown.co242 m Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect Lighting Impact Viewpoint 1 X Low Long Term Permanent Minor Adverse Minor Adverse
Viewpoint 2 X Low Long Term Permanent Minor Adverse Minor
Adverse
Viewpoint 3 X Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible
Viewpoint 4 X Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible
Viewpoint 5 X Low Long Term Permanent Minor Adverse Minor
Adverse
Viewpoint 6 X Low Long Term Permanent Minor Adverse Minor Adverse Refer to Proposed Lighting Strategy described within Lighting Chapter of Viewpoint 7 X Low Long Term Permanent Minor Adverse ES for incorporated mitigation measures Minor Adverse Viewpoint 8 X Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible Viewpoint 9 X Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible Viewpoint 10 X Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible Viewpoint 11 X Low Long Term Permanent Minor Adverse Minor Adverse Viewpoint 12 X Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible Viewpoint 13 x Negligible Long Term Permanent Negligible Negligible
Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect Ecology Designated sites European Sites X Not significant SSSI X Not significant SNCI X Indirect Short term Permanent Minor Protection measures will be implemented on the site to protect adjacent Not significant Adverse designations. Additional planting will reinforce these areas (probable)
Habitats Arable Direct adverse Long-term Permanent Major Sensitive clearance of habitats Not significant (certain)
Hard-standing Not significant Hedgerows X Direct adverse Long-term Permanent Major Sensitive clearance, protection of retained hedgerows and additional Significant (certain) hedgerow planting beneficial (minor) Fauna
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 243
Badgers X Indirect Short term Temporary Moderate Protection measures, Retention of woodland habitats, and habitats on the Significant Adverse boundaries of the site, and appropriate management. beneficial (probable) Large areas of new planting, to include fruit and nut bearing species, to (minor) significantly enhance foraging opportunities on site for badgers
Bats Indirect Medium term Permanent Moderate Enhanced foraging from appropriate managing of buffer habitats and Significant Adverse extensive enhancements to existing hedgerows and new planting beneficial (probable) Sensitive lighting alongside habitats (minor) Maintain mixed age class of trees to ensure future potential roost sites
Dormice and other Indirect Medium term Temporary Moderate Enhanced foraging from appropriate managing of buffer habitats and Significant small mammals Adverse extensive habitat creation, including 8.6ha. beneficial (probable) Sensitive lighting alongside habitats (minor) Mixed structure within habitats, including encouraging fruit and nut bearing species
Birds Indirect Medium term Temporary Moderate Sensitive and appropriate management of habitats to retain and enhance Significant Adverse nesting opportunities on site. beneficial (probable) Management of buffers, including creating longer edge zones on woodland (minor) edges and boundaries, will enhance foraging opportunities for foraging birds and create areas with lower disturbance areas.
Reptiles Indirect Medium term Temporary Moderate Appropriate management of boundary habitats to enhance structural Significant Adverse diversity and opportunities for reptiles on site. beneficial (probable) Log piles will be created within woodland habitats on site to provide (minor) additional opportunities for reptiles.
Amphibians Indirect Medium term Temporary Minor Appropriate management of boundary habitats to enhance structural Significant Adverse diversity and opportunities for common amphibians on site. beneficial (probable) Log piles will be created within woodland habitats on site to provide (minor) additional opportunities for common amphibians.
Invertebrates Indirect Medium term Temporary Minor Appropriate management of boundary habitats to enhance structural Significant Adverse diversity and opportunities for common amphibians on site. beneficial (probable) Log piles will be created within woodland habitats on site to provide (minor) additional opportunities for common amphibians.
stridetreglown.co244 m Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect Cultural Heritage Archaeology NMP Cropmark x Footings for Permanent Permanent Minor Preservation by record (archaeological excavation) None site, probable development quarry NMP Cropmark x Planting Permanent Permanent Negligible Preservation by record (archaeological excavation) None site, probable quarry Outlying x Footings for Permanent Permanent Minor Preservation by record (archaeological excavation) None agricultural development building noted on 1839 tithe map A Mesolithic or x Planting Permanent Permanent Minor Preservation by record (archaeological excavation) None Neolithic flint working site Archaeological ? Planting Permanent Permanent Minor Preservation by record (archaeological excavation) None potential of ridge indicated through geophysical survey Listed Buildings Southwood x View change Permanent Non- Minor None Minor Farmhouse along permanent driveway on leaving property Conservation Areas Dummer x View change Permanent Non- Minor None Minor Conservation Area from elevated permanent rear of properties on Up Street
Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect Air Quality Operation - Air x Negligible n/a n/a None quality caused by vehicles Construction - x Low - Medium Short-term Temporary Moderate Best practice management techniques Negligible Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Particulate Matter (PM10) and dust
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 245
Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect Noise Construction Noise x Negligible Intermittent Short-term None Negligible on existing residents Existing Noise on x Negligible Continuous Long-term Double glazing and ventilation arrangement to be incorporated into design Negligible Proposed Residents Traffic Noise on x Minor Continuous Long-term Minor None Minor existing residents
Fixed plant noise x Negligible Continuous Long-term Target noise levels to be incorporated into design Negligible on existing residents helicopter noise on x Negligible Intermittent Long-term None Negligible existing residents
Ambulance noise x Negligible Intermittent Long-term None Negligible on existing residents
Topic Area Description of I N R D L Impact Duration Permanence Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Effect Hydrology and Drainage Construction Localised Water x For length of Temporary, Major Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Course - Increased construction for length of sediment loads phase construction phase
Localised Water x As above Temporary, Major Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Course - for length of Accidental release construction of hydrocarbons phase
Localised Water x As above Temporary, Major Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Course - for length of Accidental release construction of hazardous phase materials Localised Water x As above Temporary, Major Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible course - Dust and for length of debris construction phase
Localised Water X As above Temporary, Major Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Course - Leak or for length of breakage of the construction temporary phase sewerage system
stridetreglown.co246 m River Test - X As above Temporary, Moderate - minor Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Increased for length of sediment loads construction phase
River Test - X As above Temporary, Moderate - minor Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Accidental release for length of of hydrocarbons construction phase
River Test - X As above Temporary, Moderate - minor Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible Accidental release for length of of hazardous construction materials phase
River Test - Dust X As above Temporary, Negligible Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible and debris for length of construction phase
River Test - Leak X As above Temporary, Moderate - minor Pollution prevention measures included in CEMP Negligible or breakage of the for length of temporary construction sewerage system phase
Flood risks to site X As above Temporary, Major Contractor to prepare flood emergency plan, make workers aware of risks Negligible workers for length of associated with temporary works and implementation of groundwater (groundwater, construction control measures surface water and phase fluvial) Operation Localised Water X Permanent Permanent Moderate Use of sustainable urban drainage systems and permeable paving a car Negligible Course - Pollutants park that trap and break down pollutants contained in surface water River Test - X Permanent Permanent Moderate - minor Use of sustainable urban drainage systems and permeable paving a car Negligible Pollutants park that trap and break down pollutants contained in surface water Localised Water X Permanent Permanent Major Drainage strategy that utilitises infiltration based sustainable urban Negligible Course and On drainage systems. Accommodation of surface water runoff on site up to site Drainage - the 1 in 100 year event including an allowance for climate change. Two flow Increased Flood routes have been identified to pass at the bottom of the site; a flow route Risk due to the surface water run-off from the wider catchment and a potential fluvial flow route from a winterbourne exiting the ground east of the site. A set of culverts have been designed to maintain these flows and have been sized to accommodate off-site surface water run-off for events of up to 1 in 100 year + climate change and fluvial flooding for events of up to 1 in 1000 year
Water Services X Permanent Permanent Moderate Continued early engagement with Thames Water on current restrictions Negligible Infrastructure - and the need for any upgrades Increased foul water discharge
Hampshire Hospital Environmental Statement 247
Site Users - X Permanent Permanent Major A variety of measures, including locating buildings in low flood risk areas, Negligible Increased flood building levels being raised above the 1 in 1000 fluvial flood levels, risk provision of safe access and egress and the drainage strategy for the site
I International, N National, R Regional, D District, L Local
stridetreglown.co248 m
Bristol Manchester Abu Dhabi Promenade House Commercial Wharf AS Business Centre The Promenade 6 Commercial Street Al Ain Road Clifton Down Manchester M15 4PZ Umm Al Nar Bristol BS8 3NE T: +44 (0)161 832 9460 PO Box 129865 T: +44 (0)117 974 3271 F: +44 (0)161 839 0424 Abu Dhabi UAE F: +44 (0)117 974 5207 T: 00 971 (0) 2 510 2416 Plymouth Bath Norbury Court St George’s Lodge The Millfields 33 Oldfield Road Plymouth PL1 3LL Bath, BA2 3NE T: +44 (0)1752 202088 T: +44 (0)1225 466 173 F: +44 (0)1752 202089 F: +44 (0)1225 428 492 Southampton Cardiff 58 Portswood Road Treglown Court, Southampton SO17 2FW Dowlais Road, T: +44 (0)2380 671991 Cardiff CF24 5LQ T: +44 (0)29 2043 5660 Truro F: +44 (0)29 2047 0422 55 Lemon Street Truro TR1 2PE London T: +44 (0)1872 241300 3 Cosser Street F: +44 (0)1872 275560 London SE1 7BU T: +44 (0)20 7401 0700 F: +44 (0)20 7401 0701
stridetreglown.com