TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2017 (As Amended)
SCOPING OPINION
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Business and Enterprise Park
SITE: Gateway 14, Land between the A1120 and A14, Creeting St Peter
MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING REFERENCE DC/20/03246
AUGUST 2020
Prepared by:
Gemma Walker
Area Planning Manager
1 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an iterative process that attempts to ensure that any significant effects on a range of environmental issues that might result from a particular development are fully understood and taken into account prior to any planning decision being taken.
‘Scoping’ forms part of the overall EIA process in which the extent of issues to be considered in the assessment of an application for planning permission for an EIA development are determined and the information to be included in in the accompanying Environmental Statement or EIA Report (ES) is set out.
Scoping is a preliminary, technical exercise and not an application for planning permission. As such, there is no assessment of planning merit at this stage. Material planning considerations will be assessed if a subsequent application for planning permission is made. It is noted that comments have been received from parties other than technical consultees. These comments have been recorded, considered and made available as part of this scoping exercise but they will not be carried forward and considered in the assessment of any subsequent planning application as the details of the proposal may change. The Council will therefore take steps to ensure all interested parties are both advised of the above and notified of any subsequent application that is submitted so they may make a representation at that time should they want to.
The effects of the proposal on a range of environmental topics should be assessed in terms of: characteristic (adverse, beneficial, neutral, direct, indirect, cumulative); scale (International, national, regional, district, local); and significance (long-term, short- term, irreversible, reversible, major, minor) together with their timing (pre-construction, construction, operation/occupation, decommissioning, restoration). Where the potential for significant environmental effects have been identified as part of a scoping exercise, the ES comprising part of the EIA process should propose mitigation and monitoring measures.
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (‘The EIA Regs’) (as amended) sets out the scoping procedure whereby a person mindful to make an EIA application is entitled to ask the relevant planning authority to state in writing their opinion as to the information to be provided in the ES in the form of a ‘scoping opinion’.
2. APPLICATION FOR SCOPING OPINION
This Scoping Opinion is based on information provided to Mid Suffolk District Council (“MSDC”) by Avison Young on behalf of Gateway 14 Ltd. (“the developer”) together
2 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET with the comments and opinions resulting from consultation with the developer and other statutory bodies.
A scoping exercise was initiated following the receipt of documents on 3rd August 2020 as constituting a formal request for a scoping opinion from the developer to MSDC. This Scoping Opinion has been prepared and issued by MSDC in response to this request as part of the EIA process.
In accordance with the EIA Regulations this Scoping Opinion shall not preclude MSDC from requiring the developer to submit further information in connection with any application subsequently submitted to the Council.
The EIA directive requires the ES to provide a description of a range of environmental factors as outlined in this document.
3. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The development to which this Scoping Opinion relates comprises the following elements:
• B8 Storage and Distribution Approx 210,000 • B1/B2 Approx 117,225 • A1 Approx 6503 • A3/A5 Approx 1858-6782 • A4 Approx 636 • C1 Approx 3036 • Sui Generis PFS Approx 643 • Waste storage/treatment/collection • Drainage • Landscaping
4. CONSULTATION
During the scoping process, the Council carried out formal consultation with the statutory ‘consultation bodies’ as well as other relevant authorities and parties considered to have an interest in the proposal and/or having expertise in the environmental issues relevant to the site or proposal. Copies of the responses received are available on the Babergh District Council website: https://www.babergh.gov.uk/planning/development-management/application-search- and-comment/.
In accordance with the EIA Regulations and in the interests of transparency, the following bodies were consulted / notified:
3 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
• Anglian Water • Highways England • The Environment Agency • Natural England • Historic England • Suffolk Wildlife Trust • East Suffolk Inland Water Drainage Board • SCC Highways • SCC Travel Plan • SCC Rights of Way • SCC Archaeology • SCC Flood and Water • SCC Fire and Rescue • SCC Infrastructure • Suffolk Police • Mid Suffolk District Council (Environmental Protection Officers) • Mid Suffolk District Council (Communities Team) • Mid Suffolk District Council (Public Realm) • Mid Suffolk District Council (Heritage Team) • Mid Suffolk District Council (Waste Management) • Mid Suffolk District Council (Economic Development) • Place Services Ecology • Place Services Landscape • Creeting St Peter Parish Council • Creeting St Mary Council • Stowmarket Town Council • Combs Parish Council
5. FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (ES)
The information contained within the ES must comply with the requirements of the EIA Regs. It should provide a full factual description of the development and should focus on the “main” or “significant” environmental effects of the development. The ES should be proportionate and not be any longer than is necessary to assess properly those effects.
Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include a description of the reasonable alternatives studied which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics and provide an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, including a comparison of the environmental effects.
4 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
The Environmental Statement may, of necessity, contain complex scientific data and analysis in a form which is not readily understandable by the lay person. The main findings must be set out in accessible, plain English, in a non-technical summary, to ensure that the findings can more readily be disseminated to the general public, and that the conclusions can be easily understood by non-experts as well as decision- makers.
The European Commission document ‘Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects Guidance on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report’ provides further information on the content and quality requirements of the ES.
MSDC would prefer to see the ES set out in the following format:
Non-Technical Summary
Section 1: A description of the proposed development including site, design, size and other relevant features of the development.
Section 2: The baseline scenario
Section 3: A description of the likely significant effects of the proposed development on the environment.
Section 4: A description of any mitigation features or measures of the proposed development.
Section 5: Measures for the monitoring of the significant effects of the development.
Section 6: A description of the reasonable alternatives considered and the main reasons for the option chosen.
Section 7: Any additional information specified in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regs relevant to the specific characteristics of the particular development or type of development and to the environmental features likely to be significantly affected
5.1 ES section 1 - Information Describing the Project
This section should describe the purpose and physical characteristics of the project. It should identify the land use requirements and other physical features of the project: a) during construction; b) throughout the lifetime of the development; c) during any decommissioning (to the extent reasonably foreseeable).
The section should also include a description of the production processes and summarise the operational features of the project including:
5 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET a) type and quantities of raw materials, energy and other resources consumed; b) residues and emissions by type, quantity, composition and strength including: i. discharges to water; ii. emissions to air; iii. noise; iv. vibration; v. light; vi. heat; vii. radiation; viii. deposits/residues to land and soil; ix. other
Where applicable, the information considered under this section should include all relevant statutory designations such as sites of special scientific interest, areas affected by tree preservation orders, water protection zones, conservation areas, listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, and designated areas of archaeological importance. It should also include references to relevant national policies (including the National Planning Framework, National Planning Policy Guidance and National Policy Statements as applicable) and local plans and policies (including adopted or emerging development plans). Reference should also be made to international designations, e.g. those under the EC 'Wild Birds' or `Habitats' Directives, the Biodiversity Convention and the Ramsar Convention.
The main alternative sites and processes considered should be outlined, where appropriate, and summary reasons given for the final site choice. This section should also describe the project and processes but should not seek to appraise environmental issues.
5.2 ES Section 2 – Baseline scenario
This section should provide a description of the current status of the environment in and around the area in which the development in order to provide a description of the status and trends of environmental factors against which significant effects can be compared and evaluated and a basis on which ex-post monitoring can be used to measure change once the development has been commenced.
The baseline scenario should include the following data:
6 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
• Physical: topography, geology, soil types and quality, surface, ground and coastal water quality, pollution levels, meteorological conditions, climate trends, etc. • Biological: ecosystems (both terrestrial and aquatic), specific flora and fauna, habitats, protected areas (Natura 2000 sites), agricultural land quality, etc. • Socio‐economic: demography, infrastructure facilities, economic activities (e.g. fisheries), recreational users of the area, etc. • Cultural: location and state of archaeological, historical, religious sites, etc.
5.3 ES Section 3 - Assessment of Effects
This section should provide an assessment of the significant effects of the proposed development on the following:
• 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; • Climate change – both mitigation and adaptation; • risks of major accidents and disasters; • use of natural resources. • material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape; • the interaction between the above.
The assessment should detail the direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive, negative or neutral effects of the proposal. In many cases the topics and their effects can usefully be summarised in a matrix layout for ease of reference.
Establishing the significance of any impact can be contentious as it may involve value judgements and expert interpretation. It is therefore prudent that significance is established using transparent methodologies based on defined standards, legislation, policy and expert opinion.
The ES should therefore include reference to:
• The methodology utilised (for example by reference to established standards such as ISO, BS) • Assumptions and underlying rationale. • Fact, interpretation of facts, opinions, judgements based on facts. • Confidence limits associated with the prediction.
7 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
5.3.1 Cumulative impacts
The assessment of effects should also include consideration of the cumulative impacts of the development together with other operational, permitted, or allocated developments within a spatial and temporal scope to be agreed with Mid Suffolk District Council. This includes developments within Ipswich Borough Council, including the allocated Ipswich Garden Suburb, and applications 14/00638/0UTFL Land west of Westerfield Road, Ipswich and 16/00608/0UT Land north of Railway and East of Henley Road.
5.4 ES section 4 - Mitigating measures
This section should describe the measures envisaged to avoid, prevent, reduce or, if possible, offset any identified significant adverse effects on the environment. It should also describe the effectiveness of such measures, their reliability and certainty, as well as the commitment to ensuring their practical implementation and monitoring of the results.
In accordance with the precautionary and preventive action principle, a long-term approach should be adopted, and priority should be given to avoiding impacts, while remediation and compensatory measures should only be considered as a last resort.
Mitigation measures proposed within the ES should be detailed within a schedule that could assist (without prejudice) in drafting conditions and/or S106 agreements
It is important that residual effects (whether positive or negative) remaining after mitigation measures are identified and accounted for within the ES in order to assess their significance and acceptability. To accommodate this objective each environmental topic assessed within the mitigation measures chapter should contain a table of ‘Residual Effects’.
5.5 ES section 5 – Monitoring
Monitoring Measures for developments with significant adverse effects should be included in the ES. Monitoring measures may be linked to other legal requirements and care must be taken to avoid duplication in monitoring in this regard.
The developer should first check which monitoring measures are required by other legislation. If these are not sufficient or appropriate for monitoring the expected environmental impacts or proposed mitigation measures, then additional measures may be proposed within the EIA Report.
Monitoring measures should always strive to be proportionate to the nature of the environmental impacts in terms of the time, costs, and other resources involved.
8 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
Monitoring measures should be specific and detailed enough to ensure their implementation, including defining roles, responsibilities, and resources. In some cases, economies of scale can be achieved through the joint monitoring of related development. Measures should also be capable of identifying important unforeseen effects.
5.6 ES section 6 - Alternatives
The ES should include a description of the reasonable alternatives for the proposed development that have been studied and an indication of the main reasons for discounting these and selecting the chosen option with regards to the environmental impacts of the alternatives.
The process of identifying and assessing alternatives is iterative and requires some flexibility and good communication between all parties. Consultation with the public is usually very important both for identifying and assessing alternatives. A clear presentation of alternatives, and how they have been assessed, also lends transparency to the process and can improve public acceptance and support for the development.
The environmental assessment of alternatives should be targeted and focused on the comparison of impacts between several options and presented as such in the EIA Report.
Reasonable alternatives must be relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics. An alternative should not be ruled out simply because it would cause inconvenience or cost to the developer but if an alternative is very expensive or technically or legally difficult, it would be unreasonable to consider it to be a feasible alternative.
Examples of the types of alternatives to be considered include:
• project design • technology • location • size • scale
The ES should also include a non-technical summary of all the information in the ES at the beginning of the ES and a list of references detailing the sources used.
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
On the basis of advice from consultation responses the Council, as set out below, would expect to see the following topics and details addressed in the ES except insofar
9 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET as the topics are not identified / identifiable at the submission stage, in which case the ES will include details of why the topic is not identified / identifiable and at which stage in the multi-stage process the topic is expected to be assessed. The developer should also have regard to the comments received from local residents and Parish Councils. Copies of all consultation responses and all other comments received are available on the Mid Suffolk District Council website here: https://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/planning/development-management/application- search-and-comment/
Flood risk, drainage and water resources The submitted EIA Scoping Report confirms that flood risk, drainage and water resources are to be scoped into the ES, with assessment of:
• Change in flood risk on-site and to downstream third-party land during the works and during the completed and operational Development. • Change in surface water run-off and potential risk to third party land during the works and during the completed and operational Development. • Potential release of contaminants to controlled water receptors during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. SCC Floods and Water note that there is no acknowledgement that the site lies within non-statutory designation for water resources. The ES shall therefore also reference and show pictorially that the site is within the following: a. Source Protection Zone III b. Drinking Water Protected Area (Surface Water) c. Drinking Water Safeguarding Area (Surface Water) 2. The site lies with an Internal Board Drainage District Catchment, which is administered by the East Suffolk Internal Drainage Board 3. The needs to be reference to consideration of holistic water management, due to over abstraction of the River Gipping. Section 7.59 of the EIA states that the site is mainly in flood zone 1. However there is an area of the site to the south-east side besides the River Gipping that is functional floodplain. As per table 3 Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone ‘compatibility’ of the PPG only ‘water-compatible’ development is allowed in flood zone 3b so this should be considered within the FRA. Any ‘more vulnerable’ development should be sequentially sited in flood zone 1.
It should also be considered that any new structures proposed in/near the River Gipping may need a Flood Risk Activity permit.
If the site contains a range of Flood Zones, the sequential approach should be applied within the site to direct development to the areas of lowest flood risk. If it isn’t possible
10 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET to locate all of the development in Flood Zone 1, then the most vulnerable elements of the development should be located in the lowest risk parts of the site. If the whole site is covered by Flood Zone 3, your FRA should assess the flood characteristics across the site and direct development towards those areas where the risk is lowest.
Refer to: NPPF, Manual for Streets, policy T10 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focussed review 2012, policy 7.12 of the MSDC Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation responses from: Environment Agency & SCC CO2 & Renewables Climate change and greenhouse gases is proposed to be scoped into the ES, with the proposal expecting to reduce its own effects by 10% from baseline levels. Proposed for scoping are:
• The vulnerability of the Development to climate change; • The influence of the Development on climate change; and In addition the ES should reflect the principles of The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra and identify how the development's effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment 'by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures' (NPPF Para 174), which should be demonstrated through the ES. The ES should address all elements of in terms of carbon footprint, renewable energy and resource efficiency measures during the construction phase including transportation and disposal of waste. However, with regards to the indicative nature of the proposal and uncertainty over end-users, and that resource efficiency and sustainability measures for each individual building could be dealt with by means of condition these are scoped out of the ES. Refer to: NPPF, Policy CS3 of the MSDC LDF Core Strategy DPD 2008, policies FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focussed review 2012, policy 7.1 of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation Response Natural England Traffic and access Transport and access are proposed to be scoped into the ES with the following likely significant effects to be considered:
11 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
• Severance effects due to development traffic during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. • Pedestrian amenity effects due to development traffic during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. • Pedestrian fear and intimidation effects due to development traffic during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. • Highway safety effects due to development traffic during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. • Pedestrian delay effects due to development traffic during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. • Driver delay effects due to development traffic during the Works and during the completed and operational Development. The extent of the study for accident data is acceptable but is to consider 5 years of accident data (not 3 as indicated). As per the SCC consultation response the proposal shows trip rates considered to be low for this part of Suffolk. The trip rates will need to be revised. Suffolk County Transport Model (SCTM) is to be used to provide traffic distribution figures for cars and HGVs to and from the proposed development. Traffic modelling will be required using the SCTM. Further advice with regards to trip rates is provided in the Highways England advice. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, current traffic conditions are not ‘normal’ and surveys undertaken during this time will provide unrealistic traffic data therefore, surveys post 13th March 2020 will not be accepted as part of the Transport Assessment. Historical data less than 3 years old (but not older than 3 years) can be used as part of the submission provided it was obtained at a time of typical flows (within term times). This data will be expected to be modified to the current year (2020) using TEMPRO.
Committed development The scoping note included sites close to the site. However, sites within Stowmarket and Stowupland have not been included; • DC/20/01435 - Land To The South Of Gipping Road Stowupland - 80 dwellings. • 5024/16 & 0195/16 – Land to the west of Thorney Green Road – 143 dwellings
The Port One application should also considered (this may already be considered within the Suffolk Model).
The proposed method of assessing capacity is acceptable. However, an A1120/B1113 junction will need to be included.
A phasing and access strategy is to be included in the Transport Assessment showing build and occupation programme (including mitigation measures).
To promote, encourage and support the principles of sustainable transport as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework, safe and suitable access is required for bus services, pedestrians and cyclists to and from the site.
12 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
The scoping note highlights the existing bus stops and services in the area. However, we would like to see the applicant approach service providers to see if there is any merit in diverting routes into the site for new staff and customers. This could obviously be in a phase approach once there is a ‘round route’ for ease of routing.
Suffolk County Council’s Green Access Strategy (2020-2030) sets out the council’s commitment to ensuring and promoting sustainable travel options for all. The strategy focuses on walking and cycling for commuting, accessing services and facilities, and for leisure reasons. Specifically, the Green Access Strategy. The PROW team suggest the following for improvements to the network – Upgrade and surface Creeting St Peter FP1 and FP25 to Bridleway to allow cycling between Stowmarket and Creeting St Peter Divert FP1 as shown on the proposal Improve Creeting St Peter FP23 (Gipping Valley Path) southwards Improve Stowmarket FP57 (Gipping Valley Path) into Stowmarket Provide a surfaced FP (or non-PROW) to link the Gipping Valley Path into the development through the meadow, connecting to a highway.
The ES should address any impacts (visual or otherwise) on the users of public rights of way in the vicinity resulting from the construction period and throughout the lifetime of the development. The assessment should include pre-application consultation with relevant access groups and shall provide details of any physical effects on the rights of way (obstruction, closure, extinguishment, diversion, alterations to the surface of the right of way, etc. Whilst entry lane simulation was not considered to make a material difference for the Phase 2 application, the introduction of new development trips and other traffic flow assumptions for this new assessment could give rise to more unequal lane usage. Once traffic flows are estimated, Highways England would like consideration given to whether it would be appropriate to use entry lane simulation in this instance. A framework travel plan is welcomed for the site, this should include a range of measures to encourage more sustainable travel. It is likely that these measures will be more effective on trips using the local road network. It will however be helpful if consideration were to be given to the potential for trips originating on the north-western side of Stowmarket to use the A14 to junction hop between A14 Junctions 49 and 50 as opposed to travelling through the centre of Stowmarket, and what measures might encourage trips by sustainable modes across town to the proposed development. Refer to: NPPF, Manual for Streets, policy T10 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focussed review 2012, policy 7.12 of the MSDC Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation responses from: SCC, PROW and Highways England Noise, vibration, odour, air quality and lighting
13 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
Noise and vibration are proposed to be scoped into the ES and the likely significant effects are set out as:
• The Development has the potential to affect existing noise sensitive properties due to operational activities associated with the commercial and industrial elements of the Development. In addition, during construction, there is potential for noise impacts at existing and proposed noise sensitive elements. A noise impact assessment is therefore required to assess the significance of effects resulting from the construction and operation of the Development. The suitability of the Site for commercial and industrial-led development will be assessed based on comparison with national and local planning policy and guidance.
• The vibration sensitive aspect of the Site (i.e. the proposed hotel use) is not subject to any existing sources of vibration that could have amenity implications. The exiting railway line is a significant distance away and there are no other identified vibration sources. Construction is unlikely to take place sufficiently close to residential properties or for a sufficient length of time, as to give rise to vibration that could have amenity or structural implications. The operational development is unlikely to give rise to any vibration that would be measurable beyond the Site boundary. It is not proposed, therefore, to undertake any further assessment of vibration. The ES should include details of all expected noise, odour and other emissions arising from the development during construction and lifetime phases. It should also include an assessment of how such impacts arising from existing uses / operations within the locality may affect the proposed development together with any mitigation measures. Air Quality Air quality is proposed to be scoped out of the ES because there are no AQMA in or around Stowmarket and air quality standards are not being breached or close to being breached. Air quality impacts were identified in the previous ES and were not considered significant subject to standard CEMP. However Environmental Health note that whilst air quality in the UK has improved over recent decades air pollution remains a significant issue, with particular regards to sensitive habitat area. With over 97% predicted to exceed critical loads for ecosystem protection from atmospheric nitrogen deposition. A priority action in the England Biodiversity Strategy is to reduce air pollution impacts on biodiversity. Having regards to the previous findings and that the impacts of air pollution primarily relate to biodiversity it is considered that air quality can be dealt with by means of CEMP within the planning application and with regards to the ecology and biodiversity element of the ES. Lighting Lighting is proposed to be scoped out of the ES.
14 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
It is recognised that the site is enclosed by urban development and major infrastructure, however the site is currently unlit and likely to result in impacts with regards to additional lighting on the site, albeit against a backdrop of urban illumination as existing. There are potential sensitive receptors at Clamp Farm, whilst there would be some protection with regards to the bund and landscaping to mitigate this effect. Lighting during construction would be subject to control by CEMP. Whilst it is noted that lighting due to likely working hours would only be used during the winter months this does not necessarily offer protection in this regard, however control could still be sought via CEMP in terms of both construction working hours and lighting for construction. With regards to the operational phase lighting could also be subject to condition to ensure that the lighting, as the extant permission, is subject to appropriate mitigation and control. Lighting could have an effect on landscape and biodiversity, this should be considered as part of those aspects within the ES. Refer to: NPPF, policy H7 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, policy CS4 of the MSDC Core Strategy 2008, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focussed review 2012, policies 7.11 and 7.13 of the MSDC Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation response from MSDC Environmental Protection Officer Waste and Water Quality Waste is proposed to be scoped out of the ES, with a waste management plan (WMP) to be prepared to ensure that construction waste will be effectively controlled and site management implemented. In the light of this it is not considered necessary to scope this into the ES, as impacts are not likely to be significant and could be reasonably dealt with during the course of the planning application. Water quality The ES should include an assessment of the impacts of the development on water quality in accordance with the Water Framework Directive. Refer to: Water Framework Directive, NPPF, policies CS3 and CS4 of the MSDC LDF Core Strategy 2008, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focussed review 2012, policies 7.1 and 7.13 of the MSDC Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Ground conditions (contamination) Ground conditions are proposed to be scoped out of the ES, with a limited risk of contamination being present on the site. In the light of this, and the control offered
15 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET with regards to the requirements for land contamination details and CEMP as part of the planning application it is considered that the likely effects are not significant and could reasonably be dealt with as part of the planning application. Refer to: NPPF, policy H17 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, policies CS3 and CS4 of the MSDC Core Strategy 2008, policies FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focused review 2012, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation response from Environment Agency Ecology and nature conservation Ecology is scoped into the ES, with likely significant effects identified as: • Potential for indirect effects on adjacent CWS; • The loss of valued habitat and plant species; • Reduction in foraging and breeding opportunities for animal species; • Displacement and risk of injury/killing/disturbance of nesting birds; • Reduction in ecological connectivity with the loss of field margins and linear features; • The threat of pollution to habitat condition and animal species e.g. chemical, fuel spillages; and • Disturbance of protected species, including bats and nesting birds, from artificial light spill during works and the completed operational site
Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EclA) have been developed by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and are available on their website. The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites. European sites (e.g. designated Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSls) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites) The development site is close to the following designated nature conservation site: . Combs Wood SSSI The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. Local Sites are identified by the local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or a local forum established for the purposes of identifying and selecting local sites. They are of county importance for wildlife or geodiversity. The Environmental Statement should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of such sites. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any
16 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. Contact the local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or local sites body in this area for further information. Protected Species - Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats). Habitats and Species of Principal Importance. The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed as 'Habitats and Species of Principal Importance' within the England Biodiversity List, published under the requirements of S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act As noted above air quality has been scoped out of the ES, but having regards for its possible impact on biodiversity regards should be had to this impact within this section of the ES. The ES should assess the likely impact of the proposed development on protected species and their habitats via appropriate survey / assessments having regard to the Natural England standing advice and appropriate pre-application consultation. It shall include mitigation measures together with opportunities for enhancements to be incorporated into the development. The ES should provide sufficient information to enable the LPA to discharge their duties under the EC Habitats Directive. Refer to: NPPF, policy CLB of the MSDC Local Plan 199B, policy CS5 of the MSDC LDF Core Strategy DPD 200B, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focussed review 2012, policies 4.2, 6.15, 7.1, 9.1 and 9.2 of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation response from Natural England Consultation response from Place Services - Ecology Landscape and Visual Impacts
This is scoped into the ES and will consider • The physical changes to the Site itself, such as alterations to landform, land use, vegetation cover etc; • Changes to the character of the Ancient Plateau Claylands and Rolling Valley Farmlands and Furze Landscape Character Areas of which the Site forms part; • Any changes to the character of the wider landscape including adjoining Landscape Character Areas.
The visual assessment will consider the following visual receptors:
17 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
• Recreational users such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders using the lanes and Public Rights of Way network; • Users of primary roads including the A14 and A1120; • User of local minor roads including Gun Cotton Way, Needham Road, Mill Lane, Pound Road and Creeting Lane; and The local community including residents of Stowmarket to the west, as well as surrounding villages such as Creeting St Peter.
The visual impacts will be considered from a number of viewpoints. The methodology and viewpoints should follow that discussed with Place Services Landscape during pre-application discussions. Due regard should also be had to the expectations of the Development Brief and how the mitigation expected from that would be delivered within this application.
Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, such as changes in topography. The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies including the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2013. Refer to: NPPF, policies SB3 and CL2 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, policy CS5 of the MSDC LDF Core Strategy DPD 2008, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focused review 2012, policies 4.2, 7.1 and 7.11 of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation response from Place Services - Landscape and Natural England Historic Environment
Archaeology is scoped into the ES, with likely effects being considered in respect of disturbance, removal and/or destruction of archaeological remains and paleoenvironmental deposits during the works. A series of archaeological investigations have taken place across the site which have identified buried heritage assets dating from the Late Prehistoric, Roman, medieval and post-medieval periods (Historic Environment Record reference no. CPR 012). This has identified significant clusters of buried heritage assets dating from the later prehistoric and medieval periods. These are concentrated on the higher ground of the central and northern parts of the site, with concentrations of medieval features occurring on the lower slopes of the south-western parts of the site. These are of local and regional importance.
18 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
Currently an archaeological evaluation and targeted excavation are being undertaken on this site (CPR 029 & CPR 030) which has identified further Late prehistoric, medieval and post-medieval heritage assets. These are reflected in section 7.5 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping report. However, the trenched archaeological evaluation is ongoing and there is no mention of the major excavation area (Area B) which has been identified through earlier phases of evaluation and was one of the areas for mitigation identified in previous planning conditions of the site. Section 7.56 of the EIA scoping report and the EIA moving forwards should reflect the major excavation Area B and other excavations, which may be necessary, based on the results of the ongoing trenched archaeological evaluation.
Within the EIA the results of the geophysical surveys and trenched archaeological evaluations already undertaken and ongoing, should be used to inform appropriate strategies to mitigate the impact of development, in this instance we recommend archaeological mitigation in the form of targeted archaeological excavations, with excavation areas defined on the basis of the evaluation results. Provision should also be made for outreach of the project, to be secured through either conditions on consent or appropriate obligations, this could include public engagement through site visits and talks, a blog, information in homeowner packs, display boards and display of material or inclusion of archaeological themes in artwork and public space.
Heritage Heritage matters are proposed to be scoped out of the ES. The impacts are considered to be likely to mainly affect the setting of two listed buildings close to the eastern boundary. However Historic England note the following as potentially being affected by the proposal: Scheduled Monument – Site of a Chantry Grade I Registered Park and Garden – Shrubland Hall (and associated designated heritage assets, notably grade II* listed Shrubland Hall and multiple grade II* garden structures) Grade I listed - Church of St Mary Grade I listed – Church of St Peter Grade II* - Dovecote Grade II* - Barn Grade II* - Badley Hall Grade II* - Creeting Hall Grade II* - Cedars Hotel Grade II* - The Meadlands Public House
Historic England request the ES to consider the potential impacts on any grade II listed buildings and non-designated features of historic, architectural, archaeological or artistic interest, since these can also be of national importance and make an important contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of an area and its sense of place.
19 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
Given the nature of the structures associated with the proposed development and the surrounding landscape character, this development has the potential to be visible across a large area and could, as a result, affect the significance of heritage assets at some distance from this site itself. We would expect the assessment to clearly demonstrate that the extent of the proposed study area is of the appropriate size to ensure that all heritage assets likely to be affected by this development have been included and can be properly assessed. It is important that the assessment is designed to ensure that all impacts are fully understood. Section drawings and techniques such as photomontages are a useful part of this.
The assessment should also take account of the potential impact which associated activities (such as construction, servicing and maintenance, and associated traffic) might have upon perceptions, understanding and appreciation of the heritage assets in the area. The assessment should also consider, where appropriate, the likelihood of alterations to drainage patterns that might lead to in situ decomposition or destruction of below ground archaeological remains and deposits, and can also lead to subsidence of buildings and monuments.
The proposed site is on the edge of the town of Stowmarket but it is experienced within a rural setting with wide reaching views. Historically this land has had an agricultural use. The land has a gently rolling character with hedgerows and small patches of woodland being prominent. Although direct views of the site may be screened by the presence of abundant hedgerows, glimpsed views of the field are likely to exist through any gaps, the effects of which may increase in winter when leaves are off of trees, and lighting from the site will be visible across a wide area.
Given the elevated nature of the site a wider study area should be employed to assess the impact of the noise, lighting and building heights upon those highly graded heritage assets situated currently outside of the study area. The grade I registered park and garden at Shrubland Hall includes terraced gardens and parts of the mansion that afford elevated views north and north-west in the direction of Stowmarket, and therefore has the possibility of being affected by the increase in light pollution and the visibility of taller buildings within the proposed site.
The Church of St Mary, Comb is also in an elevated location and could be affected by elevated building heights and increase in light pollution, in particular given the intention of the site to be available 24hrs.
The grade II* listed buildings have the potential to be affected and the impacts from additional noise, traffic and light upon their setting should be considered in more detail.
As well as the wider study area, a detailed section relating to cultural heritage and the impacts upon the setting of the listed buildings noted above and registered park and garden should be provided.
In line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance the Environmental Statement should contain a thorough assessment of the potential impact of the development on the significance of any
20 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET heritage assets affected, including any impact caused by development in their setting. This is defined in the Framework as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.’
The “Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 the Setting of Heritage Assets”, provides general advice on understanding setting and how it may contribute to the significance of heritage assets. It also recommends a staged approach to assessing the proposals affecting the setting of heritage assets. Views and visual considerations will be an important component of setting. However, a consideration of other environmental factors such as noise, traffic and light should also be included. The assessment should be carried out in accordance with established policy and guidance, including the National Planning Policy Framework. The Planning Practice Guidance contains guidance on setting (Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 18a- 013-20140306), which is amplified by the Historic England document.
Whilst standardised EIA matrices derived from Design Manual for Roads and Bridges(DMRB) Vol 11, ICOMOS’s guidance, or similar, are useful tools, the analysis of setting (and the impact upon it) as a matter of qualitative and expert judgement cannot be achieved solely by use of systematic matrices or scoring systems. Historic England therefore recommends that, if used, these matrices should be seen primarily as material supporting a clearly expressed and non-technical narrative argument within the cultural heritage chapter. The EIA should use the ideas of benefit, harm and loss (as set out in the NPPF) to set out ‘what matters and why’ in terms of the heritage assets’ significance and setting, together with the effects (including both positive and negative effects) of the development upon them.
It is important that the assessment is designed to ensure that all impacts are fully understood. Section drawings and techniques such as photomontages are a useful part of this. There are viewpoints proposed in relation to the landscape and visual impact assessment, but these should also be used to enable an assessment of the impacts on the historic environment.
Refer to: NPPF, policies HB1 and HB14 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, policy CS5 of the MSDC LDF Core Strategy DPD 2008, FC1 and FC1.1 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focused review 2012, policy 9.5. 11 of the Stowmarket Area Action Plan 2013, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Consultation response from SCC and MSDC Heritage Land use and economy (including employment impacts) Economics and employment are proposed to be scoped into the ES. The likely significant effects are proposed as: • Generation of direct, indirect and induced employment opportunities during the Works and the completed and operational Development. • Contribution of the Works and completed and operational Development to the wider economy
21 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET
The ES should also include an assessment of the contribution of the proposal to the local and regional economy, including details of likely relocation of existing uses and the impact the proposed development will have on land use value to the economy. Land Use The EIA scoping report proposes scoping out agricultural land use and soils. The site whilst a large area of land is predominantly Grade 3 agricultural land, with around 6.5ha at Grade 2. However, the land is not critically important to local agriculture, and although a resource in itself the impact is not considered to be significant as to require scoping into the ES. Refer to: NPPF, polices E5, E10 and CL11 of the MSDC Local Plan 1998, policies FC1, FC1.1 and FC3 of the MSDC Core Strategy Focused review 2012, Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park Adopted Development Brief 2014. Other Matters 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS Beyond the ES but as part of the overall EIA application the Council encourage the Developer to enter into full pre-application engagement with all relevant stakeholders. MSDC Officers have an established development project team under a PPA for the development of this site and are available to manage pre-application discussions. The Developer is also encouraged to prepare a SoCC (Statement of Community Consultation) in order to manage the timely progress of the application and appropriate engagement with local communities.
22 SCOPING OPINION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT GATEWAY 14, LAND BETWEEN A1120 AND A14, CREETING ST PETER, STOWMARKET