2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd POWER COURT Environmental Statement Volume I Chapter 14 - Cumulative Effects
MARCH 2021 PUBLIC
2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd
POWER COURT Environmental Statement Volume I Chapter 14 - Cumulative Effects
(ISSUE 1) PUBLIC
PROJECT NO. 70075872
DATE: MARCH 2021
WSP Aldermary House 10-15 Queen Street London
WSP.com
CONTENTS
14. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 1
14.1. INTRODUCTION 1 14.2. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 1 14.4. ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 5 14.5. DIFFICULTIES AND UNCERTAINTIES 20 14.6. SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 20 14.7. REFERENCES 23
TABLES
Table 14-1 - Summary of the interaction between common sensitive receptors 5 Table 14-2 - Intra-Project Receptors and Effects 12 Table 14-3 – Short-list of Committed Developments 13 Table 14-4 - Summary of inter-project cumulative effects (with effects of minor significance or above) 19
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd
14. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
14.1. INTRODUCTION 14.1.1. This chapter reports the likely significant cumulative environmental effects (both effect interactions and in-combination effects) associated with the Proposed Development. Cumulative effects comprise the combined effects of reasonably foreseeable human induced changes within a specific geographical area over a certain period of time, which can be both direct and indirect. 14.1.2. For the purposes of this ES, the following types of cumulative effects have been considered in accordance with the EIA Regulations 2017 and best practice guidance: ▪ Intra-project combined effects – the interaction and combination of different environmental effects from within the Proposed Development affecting a receptor; and ▪ Inter-project cumulative effects – the combined effects of the Proposed Development and other projects on a receptor. 14.2. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 14.2.1. This section should be read in conjunction with the cumulative effects section of Chapter 2: EIA Methodology. 14.2.2. At present, there is no widely accepted methodology or best practice for the assessment of cumulative effects although there are a number of guidance documents available, including: ▪ The European Commission (May 1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions (Ref 14.1); and ▪ The Planning Inspectorate (August 2019) Cumulative Effects Assessment (Advice Note 17) (Ref 14.2). 14.2.3. The approach to this assessment is based on previous experience and professional judgement, the types of receptors being assessed, the nature of the Proposed Development and the environmental information available to inform the assessment. 14.2.4. The ‘Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions’ (Ref 14.1) provides the following guidance on cumulative effects: ‘In practical terms, the extent of the assessment in terms of how far into the past and into the future will be dependent upon the availability and quality of information…’; and ‘…it is only reasonable to consider current events and those that will take place in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the assessment can only be based on the data that is readily available’. 14.2.5. Schedule 4, Paragraph 5(e) of the EIA Regulations 2017 (Ref 14.3) states that an ES should include a description of the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the environment resulting from ‘the cumulation of effects on with other existing and / or approved projects, taking into account any existing environmental
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 1 of 23
problems relating to areas of particular environmental importance likely to be affected or the use of natural resources’. 14.2.6. Part 1, Paragraph 4, 2 (e) of the EIA Regulations 2017 refers to the need to assess ‘the interaction between factors referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d)’ which includes: population and human health, biodiversity (with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC, land, soil, water, air and climate, material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape). 14.2.7. There are principally two types of cumulative impact in environmental impact assessment (‘EIA’) Process. These are: ▪ Cumulative impacts and indirect effects of a single project affecting the same receptor within the site or local area (Intra-project Effects); and ▪ Cumulative impacts from the proposed development and different developments affecting the same receptor (in combination with the project being assessed) (Inter- project Effects). 14.2.8. This chapter draws on information presented in chapters 3 - 14 of the ES Volume 1 and should be read in conjunction with these chapters. 14.2.9. The Luton Local Plan (2011–2031) (Ref 14.4) considers cumulative assessment in the following policies: ▪ Policy LLP17 – Houses in Multiple Occupation: i. ‘the proposal, or cumulative impact of the proposal (including operational and management requirements) with other similar proposals,k would not adversely affect the character of the area, particularly in conservation areas,’ ▪ Policy LLP36 – Flood Risk: iiii. ‘ensuring that development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, including cumulative impact on adjoining and surrounding land and in the wider catchment,’; ▪ Policy LLP38 – Pollution and Contamination: ‘Evidence on the impacts of development will need to demonstrate whether the scheme (individually or cumulatively with other proposals) will result in any significantly adverse effects with regard to air, land or water on neighbouring development, adjoining land, or the wider environment’ and ▪ Policy LLP39 – Infastructure and Developer Contributions: iii ‘take account of the cumulative impact of the requirements on the viability of development, especially where the development meets a particular local need or provides particular benefits’. 14.2.10. Consultation was undertaken with LBC to confirm the short-list of committed developments. Where further consultation for inter-project effects has been undertaken, this has been discussed in the relevant technical chapters. 14.2.11. No consultation was undertaken for inter-project effects, apart from consultation with specialists, due to the nature of this assessment. INTRA-PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 14.2.12. The approach to the assessment of interactions of environmental effects considers the changes in baseline conditions at common sensitive receptors (i.e. those receptors that have been identified as experiencing likely significant effects by more than one
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 2 of 23
environmental factor) due to the Proposed Development. The assessment is based upon residual effects only (considered to be effects of ‘slight’ or greater significance). The study area for the assessment is informed by the study areas for the individual factor assessments, as set out in technical chapters 4 to 13. 14.2.13. The assessment of the intra-project combined effects has been undertaken using a two-stage approach: Stage 1 - Screening 14.2.14. Screening has been undertaken to determine whether a sensitive receptor is exposed to more than one type of residual effect during the construction and/or operational phases of the Proposed Development. The sensitive receptors identified in technical chapters 4 to 13 and the predicted residual effects on these following the application of additional (secondary) mitigation are presented in Chapter 15: Summary (Table 15-1). Residual effects of ‘negligible’ or ‘neutral’ significance in the technical chapters have not been included within the Stage 1 assessment. Those common sensitive receptors exposed to two or more types of residual effects, with significance of effect greater than ‘negligible’ (i.e. ‘slight’ or greater) have been taken forward to Stage 2 of the assessment. 14.2.15. If there is only one type of effect on a sensitive receptor (i.e. only one technical chapter has identified effects on that sensitive receptor), then it is considered that there are no potential intra-project combined effects and the sensitive receptor has not been taken forward to Stage 2 of the assessment. Stage 2 – Assessment for Intra-Project Combined Effects 14.2.16. A qualitative assessment of the overall significance of the cumulative effects on common sensitive receptors identified at the screening stage has been undertaken based on technical information provided in the technical chapters and supporting appendices as well as professional judgement. Given that the types of effects are very different in some cases, a quantitative assessment was not possible, and it was necessary to apply professional judgement in determining the level of significance. INTER-PROJECT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 14.2.17. The approach to the assessment of inter-project effects considers the deviation from the baseline conditions at common sensitive receptors as a result of changes brought about as a result of the Proposed Development in combination with one or more other approved developments. The assessment of the inter-project effects has been based upon the residual effects that have been identified in technical chapters 4 to 13 as well as available environmental information for the approved developments. 14.2.18. For the purposes of this assessment, approved development is defined as those developments meeting one or more of the following criteria: ▪ Has obtained planning permission and is currently under construction;
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 3 of 23
▪ Has obtained planning permission within the last five years1, but construction has yet to commence; and ▪ Is identified as a local plan commitment. 14.2.19. An initial search of approved developments (as defined by the above criteria) was agreed with the LPA and was performed through a review of the LBC Planning Register and other sources including local plans, transport plans and waste plans. Subsequent to this initial search, the approved developments identified were reviewed against the following criteria: ▪ The approved development has a concurrent construction, operational and/or demolition phase to the Proposed Development; ▪ The approved development and the Proposed Development share common sensitive receptors which are assessed, and a magnitude of effect stated; and ▪ The approved development has sufficient environmental assessment information freely and publicly available to inform the cumulative assessment. Approved development projects that are at EIA screening or scoping stages; or where no environmental information is publicly available, will not be considered in detail as there is insufficient information to inform a cumulative assessment and it would not be appropriate to conduct an environmental assessment of another approved development. However, if there is an approved development that it is known will be progressed but has insufficient environmental assessment information, it still may be prudent to consider that in the cumulative assessment. This might take the form of listing the approved development and why it hasn’t been considered in detail, or, the potential cumulative impact could be discussed at a high level using professional judgement, but an attempt should not be made to assess the potential environmental effects of any other development to inform the cumulative assessment. 14.2.20. Where an approved development met all of the following criteria, it was taken forward to further consideration. 14.2.21. Approved residential developments are subject to the critera (based on the above review) of needing to comprise 200+ dwellings, or to comprise 10 to 199 dwellings and lie within 300m2 of the Proposed Development. 14.2.22. Only if the approved developments met these criteria were then taken forward for inclusion in the inter-project cumulative effects assessment.
1 A five-year period is considered a reasonable time period to capture all approved developments that still have the potential to be built, developments with planning permissions older than five years will likely have been built or will not likely be built at all
2 It is deemed there would be limited potential for cumulative impacts associated with a residential development of this size at a distance over 300m from the Proposed Development.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 4 of 23
14.2.23. An overview of the approved developments used for the assessment of inter-project effects is presented in Table 14-3. The discussion of inter-project effects has been approached on a factor by factor basis, dependent upon the availability of relevant information. 14.3. DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 14.3.1. There is no formal guidance on the criteria for determining significance of cumulative effects. The following principles have been considered when assessing the significance of cumulative effects in relation to both intra-project and inter-project effects: ▪ The nature of the receptors/resources affected; ▪ How the impacts identified combine to affect the condition of the receptor/resource; ▪ The probabilities of the impacts occurring in relation to each other in such as way so as to produce a cumulative effect; and ▪ The ability of the receptor/resource to absorb further effects. 14.3.2. The determination of significance for the purposes of this assessment is therefore made on a receptor basis, taking account of the assessments in technical chapters 4 to 13, available environmental information, industry best practice, professional judgement and experience. Levels of significance will be made in accordance with the following definitions: ▪ Very Large effect: effects at this level are material in the decision-making process; ▪ Large effect: effects at this level are likely to be material in the decision-making process; ▪ Moderate effect: effects at this level can be considered to be material decision- making factors; ▪ Slight effect: effects at this level are not material in the decision-making process; and ▪ Neutral effect: no effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error. 14.4. ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS INTRA-PROJECT EFFECTS 14.4.1. The outcome of the Stage 1 – Screening Assessment is presented in Table 14-1 below which summarises whether a sensitive receptor group is exposed to more than one type of residual effect, considered to be effects of ‘slight’ / ‘minor’ or greater, during the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. Sensitive receptor groups have been identified based on professional judgement.
Table 14-1 - Summary of the interaction between common sensitive receptors Table Notes: S - significant (moderate and above), ns - not significant (minor effects)
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 5 of 23
Receptor
Table Notes:
S – significant (moderate and above)
ns – not significant (minor effects)
Economics
-
Transportand Traffic Heritageand Archaeology WaterResources Noise Quality Air Socio GroundConditions Lighting WindMicroclimate Townscapeand Visual Impact
Construction
Buried archaeological remains of Fulk de ns Breaute’s castle complex
Foundation remains of medieval mill or ns 19th and 20th century buildings
R01 1-6 Crescent Road S
R02 13 Moulton Court S
R03 15 Hart Hill Lane S
R04 43/44 Crescent Road S
R05 32 Crawley Green Road S
R06 2-14 Crawley Green Road S
R07 Jubilee Hall, Wenlock Court S
R08 University Hall S
R09 Challney Hall S
R10 St Mary’s Church S
R11 Waynes Court S
R12 5 Guildford Street S
East England economy S
East England labour market S
East England labour force S
Human health (construction workers) S
Controlled waters (groundwater – S Principal Aquifer in Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ))
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 6 of 23
Receptor
Table Notes:
S – significant (moderate and above)
ns – not significant (minor effects)
Economics
-
Transportand Traffic Heritageand Archaeology WaterResources Noise Quality Air Socio GroundConditions Lighting WindMicroclimate Townscapeand Visual Impact
St Mary’s Church Town Character Area S (TCA)
Plaiter’s Lea Conservation Area TCA S
University TCA ns
The Arndale Mall TCA ns
Railway TCA ns
A505 Commercial Corridor ns
Hart Hill TCA ns
Cemetary TCA ns
Viewpoint (VP) 1 Church Street adjacent S to St Mary’s Church
VP2 2 Guildford Street (Plaiters Lea S
Conservation Area)
VP3 Crawley Green Road adjacent to the S railway overbridge
VP4 Crescent Road at the junection with S
Cresent Rise
VP5 Hart Hill Cemetary S
VP6 Tennyson Road adjacent to ns
Tennyson primary school
VP7 Dallow Downs ns
Operation
Pedestrian delay S
Severance, amenity and pedestrian delay S – St Mary’s Road
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 7 of 23
Receptor
Table Notes:
S – significant (moderate and above)
ns – not significant (minor effects)
Economics
-
Transportand Traffic Heritageand Archaeology WaterResources Noise Quality Air Socio GroundConditions Lighting WindMicroclimate Townscapeand Visual Impact
Waterbodies and surface water n s
Foul water n s
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality S
Human health (future residents, users of n S leisure facilities, employees, visitors, s maintenance workers)
R01 1-6 Crescent Road ns
R02 13 Moulton Court ns
R03 15 Hart Hill Lane ns
R04 43/44 Crescent Road ns
R05 32 Crawley Green Road ns
R06 2-14 Crawley Green Road ns
R07 Jubilee Hall, Wenlock Court ns
R08 University Hall ns
R09 Challney Hall ns
R10 St Mary’s Church ns ns
R11 Waynes Court ns
R12 5 Guildford Street ns
TR01 Flat 11, Lawrence Hall, John Street ns
TR02 3 Screscent Road ns
TR03 47 Moulton Court, Moulton Rise ns
TR04 4 The Martindales, Crescent Road ns
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 8 of 23
Receptor
Table Notes:
S – significant (moderate and above)
ns – not significant (minor effects)
Economics
-
Transportand Traffic Heritageand Archaeology WaterResources Noise Quality Air Socio GroundConditions Lighting WindMicroclimate Townscapeand Visual Impact
TR05 44 Crescent Road ns
TR06 84 Crawley Green Road ns
TR07 54 Box G, Rutland Hall, Crawley ns Green Road
TR08 40 Crawley Green Road ns
TR09 26 Crawley Green Road ns
TR10 8 Crawley Green Road ns
TR11 9 Windmill Road ns
TR12 47 Windmill Road ns
TR13 Flat 32, Gloucester House, Manor ns Road
TR14 Oakley Hall, Wenlock Court ns
TR15 100 The Central, Park Street ns
TR16 University Hall of Residence, 71a ns Park Street
TR17 Victoria Street ns
East England labour market S
East of England economy S
Luton economy S
GP capacity ns
Controlled waters groundwater (Principal S Aquifer in SPZ)
65 John Street ns
3 St Mary’s Road ns
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 9 of 23
Receptor
Table Notes:
S – significant (moderate and above)
ns – not significant (minor effects)
Economics
-
Transportand Traffic Heritageand Archaeology WaterResources Noise Quality Air Socio GroundConditions Lighting WindMicroclimate Townscapeand Visual Impact
Challney Hall (Student Accomodation) ns
6 Crawley Green Road ns
10 Crawley Green Road ns
3 Crescent Road ns
7 Crescent Road ns
99 Moulton Court ns
77 Moulton Court ns
9 Moulton Court ns
41 Crescent Road ns
R15 Proposed Residential ns
R16 Proposed Residential ns
R17 Proposed Residential ns
R12 Proposed Residential ns
R13 65 John Street ns
St Mary’s TCA S
Plaiter’s Lea Conservation Area S
Univeristy TCA m
The Arndale Mall TCA ns
Railway TCA ns
A505 Commercial Corridor ns
Hart Hill TCA ns
Cemetary TCA ns
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 10 of 23
Receptor
Table Notes:
S – significant (moderate and above)
ns – not significant (minor effects)
Economics
-
Transportand Traffic Heritageand Archaeology WaterResources Noise Quality Air Socio GroundConditions Lighting WindMicroclimate Townscapeand Visual Impact
VP1 Church Street adjacent to St Mary’s S
Church
VP2 2 Guildford Street (Plaiters Lea S
Conservation Area)
VP3 Crawley Green Road adjacent to the S
railway overbridge
VP4 Crescent Road at the junction with S
Crescent Rise
VP5 Hart Hill Cemetary S
VP6 Tennyson Road adjacent to ns
Tennyson primary school
VP7 Dallow Downs ns
Table Notes: S – significant (moderate and above), ns – not significant (minor effects) 14.4.2. If there is considered to be no potential for intra-project combined effects to occur, then the receptor has not been assessed further. 14.4.3. From the Screening exercise in Table 14-1 intra-project combined effects during the operational phase considers the following sensitive receptors: ▪ Luton economy (regading socio-economic); ▪ Human heatlh (regarding ground conditions and water resouces); and ▪ R10 St Mary’s Church (regarding noise and lighting). 14.4.4. From the assessment, it was concluded that during construction, no significant intra- project cumulative effects were identified and therefore these have been scoped out of Table 14-2. 14.4.5. Sensitive receptors in proximity to the Proposed Development identified to have intra- project combined effects during operational phase have been listed in Table 14-2.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 11 of 23
Table 14-2 - Intra-Project Receptors and Effects
Receptor Intra-project combined residual effect on a common sensitive Combined residual effect receptor
Operational Phase
Luton Economy A moderate beneficial (significant) effect on the receptor is Both effects will have permanent effects on the Luton economy and are anticipated as a result of increased council tax. both considered to be significant effects. When considered in combination, There is anticipated to be a moderate beneficial (significant) both are of a similar order of magnitude as they both provide direct and effect on the receptor from additional household expenditure. indirect beneficial effects to the Luton economy. However, As both effects are already assessed as having the same magnitude of significant effect, it is not anticipated that the significance of the impact on the Luton economy will be significantly increased when considered cumulatively. As such, a moderate beneficial (significant) intra-project is anticipated on the Luton economy.
Human Health There is anticipated to be a minor beneficial (not significant) The receptors are considered to experience a slight beneficial effect for effect on the receptor as a result of flood risk (water resources). flood risk. However, this does not reduce the risk of the ground conditions A moderate to minor adverse (significant) effect to human (organc, inorganic contaminats, asbestos, ground gases and geological health (future residentis, users of leisure facilities, employees, hazard) to human health which has a higher order of magnitude than the visitors, maintenance worksers) as a result of the Proposed flood risk effect. As such, the Proposed Development is anticipated to Development. have a moderate to minor adverse (significant) effect on the receptor.
R10 St Mary’s There is anticipated to be a minor advserse (not significant) As the lighting impact is minor, it is not considered to significantly affect Church effect on the receptor as a result of obtrusive light from the the receptor, thus not significantly contributing to the overall operational Proposed Development. effects. As a result, the combination of the effects from lighting and noise A moderate adverse (significant) effect is anticipated for this are anticipated to generate a moderate adverse (significant) effect on receptor as a result of noise from installed building services plant the receptor. This cumulative effect would be permanent during the and noise from operational road traffic associated with the operational phase of the Proposed Development. Proposed Development.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 12 of 23
14.4.6. The following operational intra-project cumulative effects have been identified as part of this assessment: ▪ A moderate beneficial (significant) effect on the Luton economy as a result of increased council tax and additional household expenditure. ▪ A moderate adverse (significant) effect on St Mary’s Church as a result of the combination of lighting and noise; and ▪ A moderate to minor adverse (significant) effect on human health as a result of ground conditions. Proposed Mitigation 14.4.7. All cumulative effects identified have associated mitigation measures in place where necessary, as covered in the technical chapters and in Chapter 15: Summary. When looking at the effects cumulatively, the significance of effects on the receptors has not increased; as such, the mitigation proposed for the receptors is deemed to be sufficient.
INTER-PROJECT EFFECTS 14.4.8. Based on the defined approach in Section 14.2, two approved developments need to be considered within this assessment of inter-project cumulative effects; these are listed in Table 14-3 below.
Table 14-3 – Short-list of Committed Developments
Reference Name of Committed Status Distance Description of the Committed Development from Site Development
1 Outline application, with all matters reserved, comprising the Awaiting demolition of existing buildings decision and construction of up to 1,000 Haywards Tyler 630m south- residential units including (planning reference - (received a east affordable (Class C3) and flexible 20/00147/OUT) resolution to grant commercial and community use consent) floorspace with associated landscaping, infrastructure, and other associated works.
2 Napier Park (planning Outline application for a mixed reference – use development - Residential, 13/00280/OUT) Retail, Office, storage and distribution, hotel and casino 1km south- Approved uses, new landscaping, park and east public realm, car parking, means of access, new access to Kimpton Road and other associated works. (With EIA).
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 13 of 23
Luton Town’s New Stadium 14.4.9. Planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of the wider Power Court site in 2019 (Ref. 16/01400/OUTEIA). The paramaters to which consent was sought were as follows: ▪ A community stadium with a capacity up to 17,500, with the potential to increase to 23,000; with ancillary stadium-related facilities; ▪ Up to 550 residential units, distributed across eight blocks; ▪ An entertainment, music and conference venue of up to 2,700sqm; ▪ Up to 2,800sqm of educational / community / commercial floorspace; ▪ Up to 2,600sqm of other entertainment floorspace; ▪ Up to 12,000sqm of hotel accommodation; ▪ Up to 10,800sqm of retail and food and beverage floorspace; ▪ A foodstore of up to 3,000sqm; ▪ Up to 1,200 car parking spaces; and ▪ Associated access, highways, utilities, public realm, landscaping, river works and other associated works and structures. 14.4.10. The current proposals exclude the central plot of the Power Court site where the new stadium will be located, together with the entertainment, music and conference venue, a hotel and other town centre and associated uses. The Applicant will bring forward a detailed application for the new stadium and related uses on the central plot in the next few months. Where relevant, the cumulative impacts of the development of both the West and East Ends, as well as the Central Plot, are assessed in the appropriate ES chapters. 14.4.11. For the purposes of this assessment, only the residual effects on sensitive receptors that have been identified as moderate or greater in technical chapters 4 to 13 have been considered, as no inter- project effects are anticipated where there are not likely to be significant residual effects as a result of the Proposed Development. A summary is provided below by technical chapter. Transport and Traffic 14.4.12. Transport and traffic is discussed in detail in Chapter 4: Transport and Traffic of this ES. As agreed with LBC Highways, no further committed developments have been included compared to that confirmed for the extant consent, as the effect of cumulative developments is already included in the Future Base scenario, as the growth applied from TEMPro to the traffic flows on the network accounts for the background employment and housing trajectory forecasts. Furthermore, as outlined above TEMPro growth (Ref 4.9) applied for the extant consent included much higher growth rates than that realised when extracting Department for Transport (DfT) flow data for the area surrounding the Site. 14.4.13. It is also noted that the Hayward Tyler development, off Kimpton Road, was recently granted planning permission and this development included for the extant consent at Power Court within its Transport Assessment (TA) modelling and therefore the cumulative impact on both sites. The Hayward Tyler development flows have therefore not been included directly but as per conservations with LBC Highways the previous analysis is considered to already be robust with the use of TEMPro. This is also the case for the committed Aldi Store off Gipsy Lane and Napier Park is already included for within the robust TEMPro growth used.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 14 of 23
14.4.14. As agreed with LBC for the extant consent, the study area for the Site would not be materially impacted by development at Newlands Park and as such, Newlands Park has not been considered as a cumulative scheme for Transport and Traffic in EIA terms. 14.4.15. The Stadium Extant Consent, and ancillary uses, have already been included for as part of the Assessment of Effects. 14.4.16. During the construction phase, all receptors are anticipated to have negligible (not significant) cumulative residual effects. 14.4.17. During the operational (non-stadium uses) phase, all receptors are anticipated to have negligible (not significant) cumulative residual effects apart from the following which are anticipated to have moderate beneficial (significant) effects: ▪ Pedestrian delay; and ▪ Severance, amenity and pedestrian delay – St Mary’s Road. 14.4.18. None of the above effects are anticipated to contribute to effect interactions or in-combination effects. Therefore, no transport or traffic cumulative effects are anticipated for Proposed Development. Heritage and Archaeology 14.4.19. The likely effects on Heritage and Archaeology are set out in Chapter 5: Heritage and Archaeology of this ES. The cumulative assessment has considered the effects from several developments, which individually might be insignificant, but when considered collectively, could create a significant cumulative effect. 14.4.20. The Land at Napier Park development has been identified, in consultation with LBC, as requiring assessment as part of the cumulative effects assessment. The Napier Park development is located approximately 360m to the south-east of the Site. The Grade I Listed St. Mary’s Church is considered to be potentially sensitive to the cumulative effects upon its significance through the combined effects of these developments. However, the Proposed Development will not result in any harm to its significant; and the Napier Park development was assessed as resulting in no impact upon the Grade I Listed St. Mary’s Church (Waterman Energy, Environment and Design 2015, Section 11.45). As such, no cumulative effects have been identified in relation to this, or any other, heritage assets (including the High Town and Town Centre Conservation Areas). 14.4.21. The Haywards Tyler development has been identified, in consultation with LBC, as requiring assessment as part of the cumulative effects assessment. The Haywards Tyler development is located to the south of Crawley Green Road. The Grade I Listed St. Mary’s Church is considered to be potentially sensitive to the cumulative effects upon its significance through the combined effects of these developments. However, the proposed Development will not result in any harm to its significance; and the Haywards Tyler development was assessed as resulting in no impact upon the Grade I Listed St. Mary’s Church (Inceni 2020, 28). As such, no cumulative effects have been identified in relation to this, or any other, heritage assets (including the High Town and Town Centre Conservation Areas). 14.4.22. During construction and operation, all receptors are assessed as not having significant residual degrees of harm.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 15 of 23
14.4.23. Overall, no heritage and archaeology cumulative effects (effect interactions or in-combination) are anticipated for heritage and archaeology as a result of the Proposed Development. Water Resources 14.4.24. The likely effects on water resources are set out at Chapter 6: Water Resources of the ES. The report considers the possible cumulative effects upon surface water bodies, groundwater water quality, surface water quality, flood risk and surface water drainage during the construction and operational phases. 14.4.25. The Napier Park and Haywards Tyler developments are located a distance from the Site and therefore are unlikely to have direct cumulative effects with the Proposed Development or to local water bodies. As through planning and other regulatory controls, it would be expected that construction and operational site runoff would be appropriately managed to meet environmental quality standards. Similarly, through planning and other regulatory controls it would be expected that no cumulative adverse effects would occur from the committed schemes within the scoping schedule, in relation to water resources and flood risk. This approach is in accordance with National Planning Policy. 14.4.26. The cumulative water effects of the other developments in the immediate and surrounding area are therefore not considered to produce no significant effects, adverse or beneficial, on the Site. Noise 14.4.27. Noise is assessed at Chapter 7: Noise of the ES. The assessment considers possible noise effects during the construction phase and during the operational phase by way of plant equipment, general noise intrusion, and road traffic noise. The chapter concludes that minor noise effects are likely to occur in the demolition, construction and operation phases. 14.4.28. The noise assessment concludes that there is not anticipated to be any effects from the Proposed Development during the construction phase that could combine with effects from other committed developments to lead to cumulative effect. 14.4.29. The significance of the noise effects from the Proposed Development is Minor Adverse (not significant) during the operational phase. There will be no effects from the Proposed Development that could combine with effects from other committed developments to lead to cumulative effects during the operational phase. 14.4.30. Therefore, there are no significant anticipated cumulative noise effects (effect interaction or in- combination) as a result of the Proposed Development. Air Quality 14.4.31. Air quality is discussed at Chapter 8: Air Quality of this ES and establishes that cumulative effects manifest themselves through dust associated with the construction phase of the developments, and through the increased traffic flows during the operational phase of the development. 14.4.32. Following the implementation of the standard mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 8: Air Quality, there will be no effects from the Proposed Development that could combine with effects from other sites to lead to cumulative effects during the construction phase. 14.4.33. As the significance of the air quality effects from the Proposed Development is ‘negligible’ (not significant) during the operational phase, there will be no significant effects from the Proposed
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 16 of 23
Development that could combine with effects from other sites to lead to cumulative effects during the operationl phase. Socio-economics 14.4.34. The socio-economic effects that can be associated with the development are set out at Chapter 9: Socio-Economics of the ES. 14.4.35. During the construction phase the Proposed Development and committed developments would generate temporary construction employment which is likely to generate a cumulative effect of direct, temporary, medium-term, major beneficial (significant) on the East of England labour market. 14.4.36. During the operational phase, the Proposed Development and committed developments would generate the potential for a considerable uplift in employment locally, which in turn would generate a gross value added (GVA) injection in the regional economy. The likely cumulative effect from employment generation and associated gross value added (GVA) has been assessed as generating a direct, permanent, long-term, major beneficial (significant) effect on the East England economy. 14.4.37. During the operational phase, the Proposed Development and committed developments provide new residential accommodation which would generate significant additional household expenditure in the local area. The likely cumulative effect is therefore considered to be a direct, permanent, long- term, major beneficial (significant) effect on the Luton economy from the additional household expenditure. 14.4.38. Regarding primary and secondary school capacity, the Proposed Development and committed developments all have the potential to increase pressures on local education facilities to varying degrees. These issues would be considered by the local planning authority in the determination of the planning application in the case of each cumulative scheme, with any necessary contributions secured via s106 agreement. It is assumed that, given the above mechanism for securing any necessary financial contributions, any adverse effects on education facilities would have been mitigated for each committed development. Taking the above measures into consideration, it is considered that the likely cumulative effect on education facilities would be negligible (not significant). 14.4.39. The Proposed Development and committed developments would have potential to increase pressure on local GP services to varying degrees during the operational phase. These issues would be considered by the local planning authority in the determination of the planning application in the case of each cumulative scheme, with any necessary contributions secured via s106 agreement. It is assumed that, given the above mechanism for securing any necessary financial contributions, any adverse effects on health provision would have been mitigated for each committed development. Taking the above measures into consideration, it is considered that the likely cumulative effect on GP capacities would be negligible (not significant). Ground Conditions 14.4.40. Effects upon the prevailing ground conditions are discussed at Chapter 10: Ground Conditions of the ES. Cumulative effects of other developments in the immediate and surrounding area are considered to produce no significant effects, adverse or beneficial, on the Ground Conditions beneath the Proposed Development Site.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 17 of 23
Lighting 14.4.41. The potential lighting effects of the two developments is considered at Chapter 11: Lighting. 14.4.42. The lighting assessment concluded that there will be no significant effects from the Proposed Development that could combine with effects from other committed developments to lead to cumulative effects during the construction phase for all three scenarios considered in the assessment. 14.4.43. The significance of the lighting effects from the Proposed Development is minor adverse (not significant) during the operational phase. There will be no significant effects from the Proposed Development that could combine with effects from other committed developments to lead to cumulative effects during the operational phase for all three scenarios. Wind 14.4.44. Following engagement with planning officers, it has been agreed that a full technical wind microclimate assessment is not required at the outline application stage and has therefore been coped out of the assessment. Justification for this is in Chapter 12: Wind Microclimate. Townscape and Visual Impact 14.4.45. The possible effects upon Townscape and visual effects are considered at Chapter 13: Townscape and Visual Impact. The cumulative effects of the Hayward Tyler and Napier Park developments are considered. 14.4.46. The key elements of the Haywards Tyler development from a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (TVIA) consideration are its proximity immediately south of the Site and that it includes multiple buildings of up to 16 storeys (approximately a maximum 52.5m above ground level). The majority of the buildings fall in the range of 12 to 16 storeys. 14.4.47. The key elements of the Napier Park development are that it lies immediately to the south of the Hayward Taylor site and predominantly comprises buildings between 4 and 8 stores in height. In contrast to the Power Court and Hayward Taylor developments it extends perpendicularly from the rail corridor, bounding the southern edge of Hart Hill Cemetery. 14.4.48. In addition, the TVIA assessment has assessed potential cumulative effects with the Newlands Park development. Newlands Park is sufficiently distant and visually separate that views and cumulative effects would not occur with it. However, there would be localised distant locations such as Viewpoint 7 which the amended development at Power Court would be visible in the right-hand side of the view. Both of the Hayward Taylor and Napier Park developments would be visible in the same panorama from this location. Napier Park, in particular, would extend the built urban edge of Luton southwards within the view. There would be a sense of increased urbanisation both in extent and scale as a result of both other cumulative developments (excluding Newlands Park) within the view but occurring in the context of existing tall buildings and the urban centre of Luton.
14.4.49. The SWECO TVIA considered cumulative effects with the Napier Park development and concluded that: “14.96. The cumulative effect of Napier Park in combination with the Proposal would result in a limited perception of additional development massing in both character and visual terms. The prominence of town centre influence accentuated by a landmark stadium in combination with an intensification of development at Napier Park would result in an increase in the influence of urban
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 18 of 23
development on the southern edge of Luton. However, as the Proposal would associate directly with the existing town centre context the greater substance of this effect would be attributed to the influence of Napier Park as an apparent urban infill/extension rather than being attributed to the influence of the Proposal. 14.97. The cumulative effect of the Proposal in combination with the Napier Park development would result in a minor adverse and not significant effect on views and townscape/landscape character. “ 14.4.50. Cumulative effects on landscape character and visual amenity arising from the outline applications scheme would also be minor adverse (not significant).
14.4.51. The Hayward Taylor development comprises buildings of a similar type and scale to the outline applications scheme at Power Court. The maximum height above ground level is similar at over 50m in height and both are on linear sites adjacent to the railway. The proximity of the scheme and similarity of form would result in a degree of cohesion such that the Hayward Taylor development and the outline applications scheme would reinforce the creation of a high-rise gateway into Luton and, to some extent, would appear as a conjoined development. Although there would be an increased degree of urbanisation this would occur in the context of previous large-scale industrial use on both sites and would represent a minor adverse cumulative effect with the outline applications scheme at Power Court and cumulatively with the Napier Park development.
14.4.52. The conclusions in relation to Napier Park remain valid when considered in conjunction with development at Power Court and Hayward Taylor – there would be increased high rise urbanisation with Napier Park being differentiated both in scale and layout and appearing to be infill to a greater extent than the other two schemes. 14.4.53. Overall, cumulative effects on townscape and visual amenity from all four schemes together, or in combination, would be of minor adverse (not significant). Inter-Project Effects Summary 14.4.54. A summary of the potential inter-project cumulative effects (with minor effects or above) is shown below in Table 14-4.
Table 14-4 - Summary of inter-project cumulative effects (with effects of minor significance or above)
Receptor Napier Park Haywards Tyler
Pedestrian delay (operational) Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial (significant) (significant)
Severance, amenity and pedestrian Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial delay – St Mary’s Road (operational) (significant) (significant)
East England labour market Major beneficial (significant) Major beneficial (significant) (construction)
East England economy (operational) Major beneficial (significant) Major beneficial (significant)
Luton economy (operational) Major beneficial (significant) Major beneficial (significant)
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 19 of 23
Townscape effects (operational) Minor beneficial (not Minor beneficial (not significant) significant)
Visual effects (operational) Minor beneficial (not Minor beneficial (not significant) significant)
14.4.55. Table 14-4 identifies moderate beneficial (significant) effects to the East England labour market during the construction phase. No other significant inter-project effects are identified during the construction phase. 14.4.56. Table 14-4 demonstrates moderate beneficial (significant) inter-project cumulative effects during the operational phase are anticipated on the following common receptors: ▪ Pedetrian delay; ▪ Severance, amenity and pedestrian delay – St Mary’s Road; ▪ East England economy; and ▪ Luton economy. 14.4.57. For townscape and visual receptors, it is ancitipated that there will be a minor beneficial (not significant) inter-project cumulative effect. Proposed Mitigation 14.4.58. No additional mitigation beyond that proposed in this ES and in the environmental documents of all approved developments assessed within this chapter has been recommended. 14.5. DIFFICULTIES AND UNCERTAINTIES 14.5.1. The assessment of effect interactions and in-combination effects resulting from the Proposed Development have focused on the residual effects from the construction and operational phase following the implementation of mitigation measures. There is an assumption that mitigation measures identified in the respective technical chapters 4 - 13 have been incorporated or adopted to mitigate any adverse effects resulting from the Proposed Development. 14.5.2. The assessment of in-combination effects has been limited to publicly available information obtained from the relevant planning applications on the LBC planning portal. For some of the identified committed developments, relevant information for this assessment has not been available. As a result, some assessment considerations have been based upon assumptions and professional judgement and some statements made would rely on the review of mitigation measures proposed at the committed developments. 14.6. SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Intra-Project Effects 14.6.1. Intra-project effects were identified for three receptors during the operational phase and were assessed as the following: ▪ Luton economy: moderate beneficial (significant); ▪ Human health: moderate to minor adverse (significant); and ▪ St Mary’s Church: moderate adverse (significant).
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 20 of 23
14.6.2. No futher mitigation measures than those proposed in the associated technical chapters are proposed as, when looking at the effects cumulatively, the significance of effects on the receptors has not increased and therefore the proposed mitigation is deemed sufficient. Inter-Project Effects 14.6.3. The assessment of cumulative effects has found that cumulative effects are only anticipated for Socio-Economics and Townscape and Visual Impacts. All other technical topics have concluded that there will be no cumulative effects from the Proposed Development and committed developments. 14.6.4. Table summarises the inter-project cumulative assessment findings.
Table 14-5 - Summary of Inter-Project Cumulative Effects
Topic Cumulative Effects
Transport and Traffic Construction: No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or phase of the Proposed Development. Operation: ▪ There will be a moderate beneficial (significant) effect on pedestrian delay; and ▪ There will be a moderate beneficial (significant) effect on severance, amenity and pedestrian delay along St Mary’s Road.
Heritage and Arcaheology No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Water Resources No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Noise No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Air Quality No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Socio-Economics Construction: ▪ There will be a major beneficial (significant) cumulative effect on the East England labour market (from employment generation). Operation: ▪ There will be a major beneifical (significant) cumulative effect on the East England economy (from employment generation and GVA); ▪ There will be a major beneficial (significant) effect on the Luton economy (from additonal household expenditure); and ▪ There will be a negligible (not significant) effect on primary and secondary schools (from increased pressure on education facilities); ▪ There will be a negligible (not significant) effect on GP services (from increased pressure on GP services).
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 21 of 23
Ground Conditions No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Lighting No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Wind No cumulative effects are anticipated during the construction or operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Townscape and Visual The Proposed Development and committed developments are anticipated to have a minor adverse (not significant) cumulative effect.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 22 of 23
14.7. REFERENCES ▪ Reference 14.1 – European Commission (May 1999) Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/eia/eia-studies-and-reports/pdf/guidel.pdf [Accessed 09/03/2021]. ▪ Reference 14.2 - Planning Inspectorate (August 2019) Cumulative Effects Assessment (Advice Note 17). Available at: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Advice-note-17V4.pdf [Accessed 09/03/2021]. Accessed: 10/03/2021. ▪ Reference 14.3 - Reference 2.1: Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Statutory Instrument 2017 No. 571. ▪ Reference 14.4 - Luton Borough Council (2017). ‘Luton Local Plan (2011 – 31) November 2017’. Available at: https://m.luton.gov.uk/Page/Show/Environment/Planning/Regional%2520and%2520local%2520pl anning/Pages/Local%2520Plan%25202011%2520-%25202031.aspx Accessed: 10/03/2021. Reference 3.3 – Luton Borough Council (2020). ‘Luton town centre masterplan’. Available at: https://m.luton.gov.uk/Page/Show/Council_government_and_democracy/2040/Pages/Luton- town-centre-masterplan.aspx Accessed: 10/03/2021.
POWER COURT WSP Project No.: 70075872 March 2021 2020 Developments (Luton) Ltd Page 23 of 23
Aldermary House 10-15 Queen Street London wsp.com