Staffordshire Place c/o Wedgwood Building Tipping Street ST16 2DH

Telephone: (01785) 276643

Email: james.chadwick@.gov.uk Please ask for: James Chadwick

29 August 2017

Dear Sir/Madam

WEST INTERCHANGE – STAGE 2 CONSULTATION

Thank you for consulting Staffordshire County Council on your Stage 2 public consultation for the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at Four Ashes. In July 2016 we responded to your Stage 1 consultation and set out the broad parameters and issues we felt would need to be considered as the proposal evolved. Whilst we have been in discussions with you in certain specific technical areas some of the information and documents we are seeing for the first time, indeed this is the first time we have seen the full application detail packaged together. It is acknowledged that the documents provided at this stage are working drafts and our comments below are provided on that basis.

Before moving into detailed comments on the technical documentation we note that the newsletter accompanying the consultation makes reference to a Community Fund. However, this then does not feature in the technical documents or the draft Order. We acknowledge that the provision of a community fund is a voluntary offer and that such funds have no weight in the planning balance. As such the decision maker in this respect will have no regard to the provision of a community fund in determining the application. However, this point is not made clear in the consultation documents nor is it evident what mechanism by which the fund will be secured. It could therefore be the case that the public may have misinterpreted the offer of the fund and responded negatively.

Alternative Site Assessment

The draft Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) sets out to identify potential alternative sites that could provide a SRFI. It is noted that there is no specific guidance on the production of an ASA. The approach taken here to review and take direction from previous assessments that have been through the planning process therefore seems an appropriate starting point. The structure of the report follows a logical progression in setting out the search criteria and then applying those to narrow the search area.

At the point where actual sites are defined from the narrowed search area, with the exception of the documented sites, it is unclear how alternative sites have been determined. Whilst the ASA sets out the process there is no means of verifying the outcome in the report. It is also noted that in terms of evidence available no apparent regard has been had to any SHLAA in the search area, which could have assisted in defining ownerships and potential availability. Furthermore, for the three undocumented sites that have been identified it is unclear how the boundaries of these sites have been determined.

Economy

With regard to the suggested, “benefits arising from the WMI project,” we acknowledge that the proposed scheme would create a significant number of jobs through the construction phase and once the scheme is complete and fully operational, whilst logistics operations do indeed provide a vital function in support of the other industries, particularly manufacturers, which are prevalent within the area. However, we do have a number of concerns as to the work that has been done so far, particularly in considering the potential labour force for the site. Firstly the Draft Planning Statement states that:-

“The jobs available will provide a range of skill and salary levels; part time and full time; shift and non-shift. These would be high quality jobs with opportunities for career development and training – and salaries well above the regional average for skilled and experienced roles. It is estimated that 20% of jobs would have salaries above the median for the area.”

Whilst we agree that there will undoubtedly be a range of jobs available, the definition of, “high quality,” is debatable as is the suggestion that salaries will be, “well above the regional average.” There seems little evidence to support this statement, whilst it is also questionable as to whether all of the jobs are high quality when it is estimated that 80% of the jobs will have below average salaries. This is important as it will affect the travel to work area (TTWA) for the site.

This is not to say that the jobs that will be created are not suitable for the residents within the locality and we agree that the development would have benefits in providing jobs for people who are unemployed. However, the statement that, “ Workers will be drawn from a travel to work area (‘TTWA’) that includes neighbourhoods in , Stoke and Stafford,” is far too simplistic.

Whilst there are likely to be workers at the site from all parts of the TTWA and beyond, the nature of the labour force required at the site and where these workers will come from is far more nuanced than the analysis that has been completed so far suggests. It has already been acknowledged that the vast majority of jobs at the site will have below average salaries, and it is known that people with lower-skilled, lower-wage jobs are far less likely to commute relatively longer distances. The number of people that the site will be able to draw from Stoke-on-Trent, for example, is therefore likely to be relatively small, despite the fact that the large unemployed cohort of Stoke-on-Trent residents are currently being considered as potential workers at the site.

Given this issue it also seems to be an omission that no consideration has been given to the official TTWAs produced by ONS. The WMI site straddles two TTWAs (75% self-

containment), covering a far smaller area than what is currently being used by the site promoters. Given the nature of the jobs at the site, it may actually be that the expected TTWA for the site may be even smaller than this as suggested by the ‘alternative travel to work area’ for people with low levels of qualifications, produced by ONS. 1 Intuitively this is what we would expect and is supported by evaluations we have previously completed for Staffordshire County Council employment sites, including those that have primarily been occupied by logistics companies.

2011 Travel to Work Areas

Source: ONS, Produced by Staffordshire County Council Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017 © Crown copyright and database rights 2017. Ordnance Survey 100019422.

Of course the travel to work areas provide an indication of commuting patterns at a point in time and this will change, not least as a result of housing and employment developments. However, it does have to be questioned as to whether there is currently a credible plan in place as to how the labour force for the site will be met. There is commitment within the Planning Statement for an employment and skills plan to be produced for the site prior to commencement, but given the importance of this issue we believe that further work is needed not prior to commencement but prior to submission of the DCO. Whilst there is a relatively large unemployed cohort within the Black Country, the level of unemployment in Staffordshire is at its lowest ever point and

1 Alternative Travel to Work Areas, 2011 Census, ONS, http://ons.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=397ccae5d5c7472e87cf0ca766386cc2

ultimately we have concerns that full labour force for the site cannot currently be met, which may have further implications locally that have not been identified and consequently not been assessed in the work to date. We believe that there needs to be further assessment undertaken and, if necessary, strategies devised as to how this issue would be addressed throughout the development of the site.

The Planning Statement also implies that all of the business rates expected to be generated by the site will be retained by South Staffordshire Council and Staffordshire County Council. Whilst it is expected that a proportion of the business rates will be retained locally, the move to 100% business rates retention is not currently being progressed as the Local Government Finance Bill is no longer before Parliament. Regardless of this however, the exact design of the 100% business rates retention scheme was not known and it therefore could not be said with any confidence as to whether the full amount of business rates generated by WMI would indeed be retained locally. The Planning Statement gives the impression that the business rates generated by WMI would directly be supporting local council services, and whilst this may be true to a small extent it certainly does not provide a true picture and needs to be clarified.

We also question the work that has been done to assess the issue of job displacement. The Planning Statement makes a very general statement that job displacement would be expected to be minimal, but there again seems to be little evidence to support this. Given that the logistics industry has grown substantially in the area in recent years, and the wider area is now home to a great deal of large logistics operations and big-sheds, the rail connectivity provided by WMI would surely provide an added benefit which could lead to displacement, particularly given that a key argument frequently used by the site promoters in favour of the development is that it will bring both time and cost benefits for freight movement. This issue therefore requires greater consideration than it has been afforded so far, and particularly how displacement can be minimised and mitigated against.

Transport

It is noted that regular meetings have been held with the highway authorities and South Staffordshire District Council as the highways work progressed. Through these meetings agreement has been reached over the likely trip generation for the site that is to be used in the assessment work. It is acknowledged that the construction of the traffic model has taken somewhat longer to produce than anticipated and we acknowledge that this was necessary to inform the draft Transport Assessment (TA). However, given the significance of the transport impacts of the proposal and the long wait for figures to be publicised we feel that the transport details provided at this Stage 2 to be somewhat brief given the context. Further, we note that a number of the elements we had requested to be assessed in our Stage 1 consultation response have not been picked up in the work to date.

We have requested throughout that in addition to the assessment of the completed development we need to understand the impact of the proposed development at various stages prior to certain infrastructure being in place. These being the Rail terminal and the A5/A449 road link. The Stage 2 documentation now provides an indication of the phasing of the development and identifies the phases during which the road link and rail terminal will be delivered. However, the TA does not provide any

indication as to the traffic impacts of the development ahead of the infrastructure being in place. In relation to the A5/A449 link road the TA promotes this link as mitigating the impact on the Gailey roundabout. However, until the link is constructed traffic will have to continue to use Gailey roundabout. It is noted that the link road is proposed to be constructed during phase 1. However, phase 1 contains a considerable amount of warehousing floor space at 262,672sqm, which would constitute a major application in its own right. Whilst no details are provided in the TA it is assumed that the timing of delivery of the link will be dependent upon take up of floor space and also track possessions with Network rail for construction of the bridge over the west coast main line. We need to understand what the likely impact will be on the operation of the Gailey roundabout will be until the link is complete and consequently whether there is a limit on floor space that can be occupied until such time as the internal link road is complete or an alternative interim scheme is in place. The TA will therefore need to test junction(s) and link capacity at various stages of development buildout. In addition we need to understand how the construction of the link road and construction of the new road bridge over the railway will affect access to the Berricote site and Four Ashes industrial estate during the works.

Continuing on the link road it is noted that this has been proposed to be put forward for adoption as public highway and that the potential signage will direct drivers an either or option of getting to/from the A5 and A449. It is unclear whether there is anything in legislation that would preclude the signing of trunk road traffic off the trunk road to re- join the trunk road network when that journey is possible wholly on the trunk road. Initially this road was proposed to remain under the control of the developer but open to the public. Has any assessment of legislation over signage strategies etc been undertaken and thought given as to which highway authority the road may be offered to for adoption given it will be linking trunk road to trunk road? Furthermore, it is noted that the Highway Classification plans propose the road to be unclassified. Given the volumes of traffic the road that will use the road it is suggested it should carry an ‘A’ road classification if it is to be adopted.

We acknowledge that the external junctions to be assessed have been agreed previously however as the scheme design has evolved over time it has become evident that assessments of the junctions on the internal link road will need to be required. In particular the access to the rail terminal, given its proximity to the A449 junction, and the access to the Berricote site. However, it is suggested that all junctions/accesses off the link road be assessed to demonstrate not only the capacity of the junction but how movements will affect flow on the link road.

In earlier versions of the Masterplan the access to the Four Ashes Industrial Estate was provided off the access drive to unit 2010 (on the current Masterplan) coming back under the proposed link road, parallel to the railway line to tie in with its existing arrangement. The current version now has access to the Industrial estate being provided via a reconfiguration of the Berricote access roundabout and then over the existing canal road bridge. Currently, access to the industrial estate from the A449 does not require traffic to cross the canal. In the proposed scheme traffic from the A449 will have to cross the canal twice over two separate bridges. Under the original proposal the existing canal road bridge became redundant and potentially could have been removed leaving just the older pedestrian bridge and the new bridge carrying the link road. We now have a scheme with three bridges in close succession that will create a tunnelling

effect on the canal. We would like to see the scheme revised so that access to the industrial estate can be achieved without having to make use of the existing canal bridge.

Whilst trip rates have been agreed we had asked that a full traffic profile over a 24 hour period be provided. This was to identify the increase in traffic flows and patterns across a full day to take into account the 24 hour operation of the site and give local residents a clear picture of how the local road network will be affected. The TA only provides flows for the network peak hour and a total for the 24 hour period. From this it is apparent that the development flows at the network peaks are possibly below the average hourly traffic flow for the development and potentially development traffic flows will peak at other hours. However, until a full profile has been provided it cannot be demonstrated what the full traffic impact will be. This will be important for implications on residential amenity and will need to be in the next iteration of the TA/ES.

At Stage 1 and throughout discussions we have raised concerns over potential issues with HGV parking. Whilst the rail terminal will have a holding area we remain to be convinced that provision for parking of HGV’s, whilst drivers are taking their legally required breaks, has been addressed adequately. Across the County we are aware of issues in and around distribution parks with HGV’s parking on roads and in laybys that can result in issues of anti-social behaviour and waste/littering. We note that the position presented is that each unit will have provision for parking for HGV’s however our experience is that unit occupiers do not want space in their service yards taken up by HGV’s parked after they have made their delivery/collected their load. We therefore believe that provision within the scheme for a lorry park should be provided; it is noted that the DIRFT III proposal includes a lorry park. In addition at Stage 1 we advised that in the vicinity of the proposed site there are a number of HGV transport stops/café’s. With the significant increase in HGV’s that will be accessing the local road network we speculate that these will see an substantial increase in demand for their services. We suggested that this matter be assessed in the TA to consider the capacity of these facilities and the impact of increased usage of the accesses in relation to safety, capacity, and effect on free flow of through traffic on the main road; noise and local air quality. We note that the TA and ES contain no such assessment.

During member presentations queries have been raised on possible routes that could be used by employees commuting to work at the site. The assignment of routes will be informed by the traffic distribution and we have suggested that this needs to accord with the employment and skills plan in relation to the likely areas where the workforce will be drawn from. This is set out in the section 6.3 of the TA and Appendix M and whilst it is stated that discussions have been undertaken with the socioeconomic consultants there is no apparent evidence to support the position and whether that has influenced the gravity model.

It is noted that construction traffic is discussed in the TA and a construction traffic management plan is to be produced. However, the TA does not appear to quantify the likely level of construction traffic movements or whether or not any abnormal load deliveries will be required for the terminal e.g. for the cranes/loaders.

In relation to the sustainable transport strategy and framework travel plan we acknowledge the production of these two documents and will continue to work with you

to update the current drafts. It is recognised that the sustainable transport strategy and travel plan will have to focus on public transport (bus) and car sharing given the location of the site and proximity of any residential settlements. As the strategies progress we will need to ensure that the proposed bus services have sufficient capacity to carry the proportion of workers the travel plan sets out will travel via this mode. We will also need to understand how the services will be funded and secured through the consent order.

We acknowledge the proposal to prepare a Framework HGV Management Plan to control HGV traffic on local roads and villages. The objectives set out in the draft in TA Appendix I are laudable however it is unclear what control can be exerted by the plan on individual occupiers and/or hauliers. The proposed ban on HGV traffic on the A449 between Gailey Roundabout and M6 J13 is set out to be enforced by using ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) camera technology at the site accesses and within on the A449. The plan states that if any HGVs are found to be using the A449 inappropriately, action could be taken which could include written warnings and fines. Again it is unclear what authority the developer has to make such fines or warnings to hauliers or occupiers. It is also not clear who will be responsible for the installation and on-going maintenance of the camera’s or whether there are any data confidentiality issues through potential capturing of number plate data of all vehicles travelling along the A449.

With regards to the highway works proposed we have been provided with general arrangement drawings for checking. However, whilst these may serve purpose to demonstrate geometry in accordance to standards it is not possible from the detail provided to confirm deliverability of the works. We will require further engineering plan, including for example vertical and horizontal alignments; the precise detail will need to be discussed and agreed with our engineers along with provision of a design check fee. It will also be necessary to ensure within the consent order there is provision for the highway authority to approve the technical specifications and construction drawings for the works; and provision for appropriate supervision and sign off of completed works, which will necessitate a fee for County engineers. Such provision was made in the consent order with Network Rail for the Stafford Area improvements. From experience of that order, including implementation of the works and feedback from contractors working on behalf of the developer it is suggested that the order should be framed to mirror the processes set out in S278 and S38 agreements. It is acknowledged that the order itself grants consent to work in the highway etc. that the S278 and S38 agreements provide usually i.e. it is just the processes of signing off the technical details that we would like to see followed.

We have also identified the following additional points in relation to the TA:

• Para 2.6.2 The Freight Strategy currently under review.

• Para 3.3.7 could mention AQMA near Hollies café on A5

• Para 3.4.2 HE are currently looking at cycle infrastructure improvements at M54/A449 junction

• Para 3.4.7 No mention of impacts on canal route made here or condition of existing towpath

• Para 3.5.2 The northbound bus stop on the A449 near Crateford Lane/Gravelly Way has no facilities at all other than a layby, no flag or shelter. Southbound stop does not have a pole as such as the stop is fixed to a lamp post, no layby.

• Para 3.5.3 The southbound stop at Gailey Island is fixed to a lamp post, there is no pole.

• Para 3.5.5 Remove references to route 876 from Table 1 as this was withdrawn on 25th July 2017. For the 54, the earliest arrival is 0523 and the latest departure is 1932 at present.

• Para 3.5.6 Replace ‘Bus and Coach Station’ with ‘Town Centre’. The journey time on route 54 is approximately 27 minutes, and for route 76A it is 29 minutes. Remove references to route 876.

• Para 3.5.7 Remove references to route 876. 76A journey time to Wolverhampton is approximately 29 minutes. Only the 76A serves , the 54 operates direct along the A449 between Coven and Penkridge.

• Para 3.5.11 Table 2 – Journey time from Penkridge to Birmingham New Street is 32 mins. Journey time to Liverpool Lime Street generally 67 minutes, there are 2 trains per hour during the peak hour but only 1 per hour off peak. The earliest arrival into Penkridge is at 0645 from Crewe, and the last departure is 2346 as far as Crewe.

• Para 3.5.12 There are two trains per hour in each direction at Cannock Station (peak hours) but only 1 train per hour off peak Mon-Fri.

• Para 3.5.13 Table 30 (should this be Table 3?) – earliest arrival into Cannock is 0643 from Birmingham New Street. Table 4 needs to be amended as trains from Wolverhampton to Stoke-on-Trent do not call at Stone. Off peak there are only 3 trains per hour between Wolverhampton and Birmingham International. There are only 2 trains per hour between Wolverhampton and Walsall.

• Para 5.3.15 although there are proposals to include pedestrian facilities as part of the new roundabout access on the A5 there is no mention of stand-alone pedestrian crossing facilities on the A5 in the vicinity of the site, these should be considered to promote sustainable connectivity and access to bus stops on this heavily trafficked A road.

Ecology

The site supports a complex landscape of interconnected habitats used by a range of protected and priority species including 11 of Staffordshire’s 12 bat species, otters, a range of farmland birds and badgers. There are a number of hedgerows classified as important under the Hedgerow Regulations and numerous veteran and transitional

(close to veteran status) trees. Key for bats is the habitat connectivity between roost sites, especially Calf Heath Wood and water features especially the Staffordshire and Canal and Gailey Reservoir. The proposal involves considerable loss of habitats, hedgerows and trees. While substantial Green Infrastructure is proposed under current proposals it remains to be demonstrated that this will deliver effective mitigation of ecological impacts.

Whilst the Green Infrastructure framework and habitat compensation measures are proposed in ES Chapter 10 are, in principle appropriate, the timescales of delivery, design and actual ecological connectivity value are all unclear meaning that it cannot be concluded that effective compensation for loss of biodiversity is proposed. Indeed phasing proposals indicate that substantial ecological compensation is not proposed to be implemented until many years after impacts occur. While legal provision for protected species may be met, the habitat network that supports these species will not, under current proposals, be maintained. There is a lack of clarity regarding habitat loss and compensation. The proposal is therefore not in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework s.9 aim of moving from net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains; and s.109 which advises that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…. minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”.

South Staffordshire Local Plan Core Strategy policy EQ1 Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to species that are protected or under threat and that wherever possible, development proposals should build in biodiversity by incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity within the development scheme.

Design and timescales of delivery of proposed green infrastructure will be key to effective mitigation of impacts on habitats and protected and priority species. To meet national and local planning policy requirements amendments to the current phasing proposals are required; along with improved green infrastructure design; and addition of some species and habitat specific measures.

A fundamental issue is that proposed phasing of development will not allow effective mitigation of all ecological impacts. In particular phasing of delivery of Calf Heath Community Park in Phase 4-5 will mean that replacement habitat for bats and compensation for woodland loss will not fully be delivered at or before habitat loss occurring in Phase 2 and 3. ES Table 10.10: Summary of Proposed Mitigation and Enhancement Measures states that the Community Parks will be created as soon as practically possible but phasing proposals contradict this. There is a time lag of up to 10 years indicated in ES Table 4.2 Indicative Phasing Strategy while there is no guarantee that Phases 4 and 5 will follow other phases meaning that compensation may never be delivered. This is not acceptable in terms of NPPF guidance.

Design & Access Statement

Section 5.1.15 states ‘The aims of the landscape parameters are to Integrate the proposed development harmoniously into the receiving landscape, Improve local biodiversity & ecological value of the site and Improve the interconnectivity of Green infrastructure (GI) within and immediately adjacent to the site whilst maintaining safe and enjoyable public access to the community parks.’ These aims are laudable; the challenge is to ensure that they will be delivered through effective design and timing of green infrastructure works.

The concept of a Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan is supported but the proposed plan fails to deliver ecological mitigation that is identified as required by the Environmental Statement chapter 10. Rather than the strong landscaped infrastructure suggested in text the Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan shows a poor and fragmented approach to ecological corridors within the site and fails to maintain the habitat corridors indicated as important for bats by ES chapter 10, all being lost or significantly severed by the proposed road network.

Not all the GI shown on the Illustrative Masterplan is shown on the Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan notably south of Vicarage Road between units 5010, and 5030 where retention of the existing trees and hedgerow is indicated in the Illustrative Masterplan (Zone A7 on the GI Parameter Plan), along the road between Zone A4 plots and between Zone A5 plots. This severely compromises ecological connectivity proposals. The delivery of the “ creation and conservation of landscape corridors throughout the development;” stated in DAS s.5.1.31 will not be effectively secured.

Section 5.1.11 states ‘The heights of the landscaped mounding are set so they are relative to the adjacent development zone FFL, this will ensure that the mounding will provide the screening required to the active elevation. Simply, if the warehouse FFL gets raised so will the landscape mounding height.’ It is queried how this can be achieved without compromising other green infrastructure functions due to added land take. Core GI needs to be identified that is unaffected by landscape bunds as these are undetermined.

Measures proposed in section 6.0 of the DAS are appropriate. The challenge is to develop a strategic framework that enables the biodiversity objectives to be delivered in a timely and effective manner that meets planning policy requirements. It is also hard to see how dark corridors as described in s. 6.1.21 will be achieved.

Section 6.1.16 states that the local community and other relevant organisations will be invited to be involved in the detailed design and agreement of the final proposals for the community parks. How and when will this take place? How will ecological mitigation requirements and community aspirations be balanced if these conflict? It may be challenging to fit all the habitat compensation measures outlined in ES Chapter 10 into the Community Parks.

Section 6.1.19 states that An Ecological Mitigation and Management Plan (EMMP) will be prepared for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development but DCO Requirement 8 and ES s.10.152 refer to EMMPs for each phase. Given the way that species use the site and the need to retain ecological connectivity and create a new landscape framework it is recommended that a comprehensive EMMP covering the full site be prepared and agreed prior to the DCO

being granted so that it is an integral part of the development. Given the proposed timescale of development the EMMP will need to include ecological re-survey requirements prior to development of detail for each phase. A programme monitoring the impacts of development and the efficacy of mitigation measures should also be included to assist in informing forthcoming phases.

Environmental Statement

Chapter 10 covers ecology supported by Technical Appendix 10.1 - Baseline Ecology Report. ES s.10.36 states that additional surveys are scheduled to be undertaken in 2017 including bat activity, emergence and re-entry and radio-tracking surveys, water vole and otter surveys, breeding bird surveys, invertebrate surveys, hedgerow surveys and reptile surveys. Results of any outstanding surveys and the assessment and mitigation that relates to these needs to be assessed before final comments can be made.

While surveys to date have followed published guidance and results are considered robust the presentation of survey data relating to habitats, hedgerows and trees is such that assessment of impacts is hampered. Documents are large and unwieldy and finding relevant sections, report and maps is time-consuming. It can be necessary to examine several reports and plans to assess simple impacts.

Environmental Statement - Habitats, hedgerows and trees

There is a lack of clarity in the ES regarding habitat loss and the degree of compensation and enhancement proposed. There is confusion of terms in places, for example ES s.4.44 appears to suggest that retention of a small portion of Calf Heath Wood is enhancement when in fact as most of the wood is lost it should be considered a significant impact. Landscape planting is described as enhancement when it should be viewed as compensation for loss. It is difficult to assess the amount of habitat impact as no quantified compensation proposals are made. ES Table 10.9: Summary of Habitat Loss: Important Ecological Features quantifies habitats losses but there is no quantification of compensatory habitat provision. Use of the Defra biodiversity offsetting metric is recommended to calculate the compensatory habitats required to achieve no net loss of biodiversity, the Government’s aim.

The ES should adopt the NPPF framework for mitigation of avoid-minimise-mitigate- compensate-enhance and make clear in a quantified way the losses that will occur, how they have been minimised, the mitigation proposed to minimise loss, how unavoidable losses are proposed to be compensated for and, separately, the enhancements proposed.

Unfortunately the Technical Appendix 10.1 - Baseline Ecology Report fails to include location references for most of the habitats described, significantly hampering assessment. It would be helpful if the final version was to include better locational information. The 11 hedgerows classified as important are not mapped on the Phase 1 habitat map nor are the veteran and late-mature trees while in relation to the maps included in the arboricultural assessment laborious cross referencing is required to identify losses. The transitional/future veteran trees are not identified in the arboricultural report text meaning a laborious trawl through tree numbers and plans.

The ponds are not numbered on the map. No ponds are described meaning that value is not clear and impacts of loss cannot be assessed. Do they support aquatic plants or invertebrates? No information has been provided.

Descriptions of habitat parcels are not systematic in regard of the layout of the site meaning it can be difficult to work out which parcel is being referred to in text when viewing the Phase 1 habitat map. Impact assessment is therefore hampered. Combine these issues with the format of the documents presented as a few extremely large documents with no page numbers on the contents lists, and in some cases reports divided between documents, it appears that it is more difficult and time consuming than it need be for reviewers to find and cross-reference text and mapped information.

Perhaps woodlands, ponds and important hedgerows could be numbered to assist reviewers and veteran and transitional trees added to the Phase 1 habitat map?

It is not clear the amount of woodland loss as Table 10.9 indicates 15.4 ha but s.10.236 indicates that 19 ha of Calf Heath Wood alone would be lost without accounting for small woods to be lost. Loss will be between 58 and 68% of existing woodland – including native and coniferous woodland a significant impact. It is not at all clear how and if woodland loss will be adequately compensated for by proposed planting. Most woodland loss related to a large block of Calf Heath Wood – not well mitigated by diffuse and fragmented planting carried out over at least 15 years. It would be helpful if impact assessment was to distinguish better between native woodland loss and loss of non-native conifers.

Out of the 11 veteran trees on the site 4 will be lost. It would be helpful if it could be demonstrated that this loss is unavoidable. Have alternative layouts been considered that allow retention? The only native black poplar on the site will be lost. Proposals for propagation are welcomed. Proposed harvesting of cuttings should allow these to be used on site in later phases of the development. The proposed s.10.334 mitigation plan is welcomed. 6 of the transitional trees will be lost. Clarity is required regarding location of these and unavoidability of loss. In accordance with Arboricultural Assessment (Appendix 12.7) s.5.33 a Veteran Tree Management Programme should be an element of the proposed EMMP. Measures for mitigation of veteran and transitional tree loss found in s.5.37-5.41 of the Arboricultural Assessment, which should also be applied to, should be included in the DCEMP and EMMP.

Technical Appendix 10.1 - Baseline Ecology Report s.1.2.15 states that “only” 11 hedgerows were considered ‘important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. This is an extraordinary statement given the very low percentage of Staffordshire hedgerows classified as important under the Regulations. s.10.193 fails to identify the length of important hedgerows to be lost; these are not mapped. Mitigation and compensation are not clear. There is conflicting information relating to hedgerow loss. The ES states 5.8 km, the Arboricultural Assessment (Appendix 12.7) states 7.058 km. It is difficult to see how the overall loss of either 5.8 km or 7 km of hedgerows will be compensated for.

Environmental Statement - Species

In general proposed measures to protect species during construction and to compensate for habitat loss are appropriate, although in some cases severely

compromised by green infrastructure deficiencies and phasing proposals. Operational impacts are less well addressed.

Environmental Statement – Birds

Section 10.225 and Table 10.11: Summary of Residual Effects state that there will be permanent impact on farmland birds including birds of conservation concern and priority species of County significance. While species that utilise woodland, scrub, hedgerows and wetlands can be accounted for in green infrastructure design no mitigation is proposed for impacts on species of open farmland of habitat loss. Green roofs could be considered as potential mitigation for farmland species. Proposals for a range of bird boxes, including specific designs for species such as swift, are welcomed. Measures will be required to secure building-mounted boxes in detailed design.

Environmental Statement – Bats

There will be, as ES chapter 10 acknowledges, very significant impacts on local bat populations due to actual and potential roost loss and extensive loss and severance of foraging habitat. s.10.240 lists key bat foraging corridor that it states will be retained but fails to note that these are not the same as the key corridors identified in the bat survey report which will almost all be lost or severely compromised by severance by proposed road infrastructure which will required to be lit to meet highways standards. This is a significant under-representation of impacts on bats.

Two bat roosts will be lost and the viability of others will be affected as foraging habitat and commuting routes are lost. Technical Appendix 10.1 - Baseline Ecology Report s.1.2.9 identifies key bat commuting routes. These are mostly not retained including those where the bat roost will be retained. There are no corridors retained between woodland and water bodies that are not severed by highways and other infrastructure that will inevitably be lit. Therefore bat use of this landscape will be severely compromised. Given the records of 11 species of bat present of the 12 recorded in the county this is a significant impact.

Links between Calf Heath Wood and the canal appear fundamental for the Daubenton’s bat population, which is considered to be of District importance and they are recorded roosting in the wood and foraging along the canal. These will be severed by the proposed A449-A5 link road which presumable will be lit to Highways standards.

The site is also identified as important for whiskered/Brandt’s bats which are identified as breeding on or close to the site. The local whiskered bat population is considered to be of District value. Calf Heath Wood is important for several bat species that require dark conditions and commute to and from the wood mainly to the south and south west. Commuting routes need to be maintained but are severed by roads and buildings. It is hard to see how the mitigation in regard of lighting referred to in s.10.295 is feasible given the proposed layout which places roads within all of the important bat foraging corridors that are not to be lost.

Section 10.243 is not logical as it states that the Proposed Development is likely to result in a long term, permanent, adverse effect of major magnitude on the bat assemblage on or using the Site, which the bat survey report identified as of District

importance yet states that this impact is of local significance only. This appears to be an under-estimate of impacts on bats. Sections 10.297-10.301 cover impacts and mitigation/compensation in different parts of the site stating that there will be a direct, permanent adverse effect of major magnitude on the local bat populations.

Section 10.296 proposes compensation in the form of bat boxes and roosting features. This needs to be clearly related to foraging habitat and both should be delivered early in the project so that a well-connected landscape with roosting and foraging opportunities is available for displaced bat populations especially due to the prediction that Daubenton’s roost abandonment is likely.

The lighting strategy proposed in sections 10.416-10.418 is laudable but it is hard to see how this will be effective given the development type and proposed levels of night- time activity. Indeed section 4.15 of the Technical Appendix 12.8 Lighting Strategy makes clear that internal road lighting will not be suitable to allow bats to utilise the very corridors which the ES states will be retained or created for bat habitat connectivity.

All UK bats are priority species protected by both UK and European legislation with several appearing on the Defra list of species of importance for the conservation of biodiversity. While legal obligations regarding roosts may be met, in the absence of improved mitigation of impacts on bat use of the landscape the degree of impact predicted is not in accordance with the NPPF or Government policy.

Due to the significant roost and habitat loss proposed a comprehensive bat mitigation plan is recommended which identifies a new connected landscape for bats to be created prior to loss/disruption of the current habitat features and locates compensatory bat roost features within this. Retention of Calf Heath Wood outside Bill limits would be a key element. Proposed Phasing means that effective delivery of mitigation of impacts on bats would not be achievable.

Environmental Statement – Otter

Section 10.321 states that there will be an adverse impact on otters at a District scale due to increased road mortality related in the main to increased traffic on existing roads. Measures to reduce mortality on new roads are proposed but none for existing roads. Otter is a priority species protected by both UK and European legislation and appearing on the Defra list of species of importance for the conservation of biodiversity. This degree of impact is not in accordance with the NPPF or Government policy. Further work is required to identify the risk locations on existing roads and create safe otter crossings.

Environmental Statement - Badgers

The Confidential Badger Technical Appendix 10.2 covers survey for badgers, impact assessment and proposed mitigation. Mitigation proposed in s.4.1 and 4.2 of Appendix 10.2 is appropriate but would be compromised should Calf Heath Community Park delivery be delayed until Phase 4 and 5 well after impacts on foraging habitats and sett loss for the southern badger group. As is the case with otters impacts of increased traffic on existing roads on badger mortality are considered to be significant. Installation of safe badger crossings on existing roads should be considered.

Environmental Statement - Great crested newts and other amphibians

Discussions have been carried out regarding the approach to great crested newts given the anomalous survey results. The approach proposed is considered reasonable. There is a minor anomaly in mapping. Figure 10.1.4 Amphibian species in ponds shows great crested newts as found in pond 21 (to be lost) but Figure 10.1.3 Pond Map indicates that none were found despite a positive e-DNA test. Text indicates a possible record. Embedded mitigation proposals fail to include amphibian friendly highways and car park drainage features.

Environmental Statement - Off-site impacts

It is noted that impacts of traffic emissions from the A5 on Belvide Reservoir are being considered but not impacts on Cannock Extension Canal also adjacent to the A5.

Technical Appendix 2.5: Outline Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan

Section 6.4 refers to possible soil management plans. It is recommended that a strategic soil management plan is required that includes provision of suitable soils for habitat creation including, if appropriate topsoil removal or inversion for meadow creation.

Despite ES undertakings regarding prevention of impacts of construction phase lighting on wildlife, no provision is found in s.10 of the ODCEMP.

Section 13 Ecology includes no information regarding protective measures, not even a summary, leaving this to the EMMP. It is recommended that the construction phase EMMP elements be embedded in the final DCEMP to ensure that there is comprehensive protection and to avoid potential inconsistencies. It is recommended that regular reporting to the LPA be required, e.g. quarterly reporting as carried put for the Stafford Rail Improvements scheme (Norton Bridge) DCO.

Landscape

Draft Environmental Statement (ES) – Volume 1

Further clarity is sought on what measures would be put in place to minimise landscape and visual effects. In previous discussions there appeared to be potential for reducing effects through early construction of screen bunds and advance planting. It is very disappointing to note in ES s12.136 and s12.137 that it is not expected to be possible to form mounding or undertake planting significantly in advance of the built development.

In regard to Section 12.137 Clarity is sought of the statement ‘ Where planting and habitat creation proposals are not linked to other earthworks and drainage works, there will be opportunities to undertake some of these works in advance or early in a particular phase of development.’ - what would this be likely to constitute? If there is any intention to deliver visual mitigation through screen bunds and / or advance planting this should be put forward in response to the findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment (LVIA) in a strategic rather than incidental way. A potential issue arises if perimeter bunds are installed at the time of each successive phase, that there would be views towards earlier phases of the development that would be seen without the benefit of visual mitigation (eg views from the south to 24m high buildings on Zone A5 prior to the last phase construction to the south of Vicarage Road). The LVIA should be more explicit about temporary views during development phases, as some receptors may be open to ‘temporary’ more open views of completed development (prior to later bund construction) over a relatively long period of time. Further detail on phasing and site planning is needed to better understand the expected effects and level of visual mitigation achieved.

Section 12.181 and the Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan describe the height of perimeter bunds as typically 4.5-6 metres but possibly extending up to 8 metres on the northern site boundary. Clarity is sought regarding the rationale for determining the heights of mounds, and whether in all cases this has been led by the need for visual mitigation or other factors. Assimilating an 8 metre high mound into an essentially flat landscape is challenging. In order to make a judgement on the efficacy of screen bunds for local receptors, and the optimum height of bunds a number of sections from representative viewpoints should be produced to supplement the ES. Sections illustrating southerly viewpoint(s) should illustrate the situation during different phases.

Consideration needs to be given to the LVIA statement s 12.323 –‘views towards the container stacking area within the rail area are however unlikely from these properties ’. Can the LVIA not be more definitive on this?

Greater acknowledgement needs to be given to the potential loss of trees, particularly veteran and ‘transitional’ veteran trees. The Arboricultural Assessment places strong emphasis on the landscape significance of the veteran tree stock on the site which is barely acknowledged in the LVIA. Section 3.13 of the Arboricultural Assessment refers to the potential of these and the high number of Category A trees to contribute to the site in future. Section 3.15 again highlights that the numbers of category A and B trees, their overall high quality and contribution to the local landscape. The ES needs to demonstrate what measures have been taken during design development to incorporate veteran and transitional veteran trees into the proposals in order to maximise conservation and protection of these assets, and how retention of Category A trees has also been maximised. Tree Survey Plans and Tree Retention Plans should separately indicate veteran, transitional veteran and Category A trees, both for clarity, and to ensure that the opportunity for retention of these trees is maximised during design development.

In relation to mitigation the ES (and provisions in the Order) needs to set out the implications of some phases being delayed or not coming to fruition, which may necessitate revisions to the mitigation strategy and the mechanism by which this would be undertaken.

Design and Access Statement (DAS)

Section 6.6 of the DAS provides a potential example of colour and pattern for the elevations treatment of the buildings. It would be beneficial to establish some consistency of colour combinations across the site, rather than on a phase by phase /

plot by plot basis, and expand on and offer alternatives to the example in the DAS. From nearby, lower level viewpoints a simple pattern that of paler tone(s) on upper building elevations, above expected tree cover, may be preferential to disruptive multi- toned facades.

Further detail is required regarding the zonal split of roof colours, and how this will be managed. Further information on proposed colours and how roof mounted plant might be contained and controlled in relation to views from more elevated viewpoints is required to make an informed judgement. In order to reduce visual detriment to views from Cannock Chase AONB opportunities should be sought to incorporate green roofs. This may offer greater visual benefit and be more feasible on the smaller, lower height buildings on the fringes of the site where roofs may be more visible from elevated viewpoints and installation more feasible on the smaller roof area.

In addition to the above the following points should be addressed in the Design and Access Statement:

• There is an error in the figure reference number in paragraph 6.6.1. • Parameters Plan GI Plan Sheet B gradient arrows on bund along distributor road between A5 and A449 indicate a cutting. • P39 Swifts are not regarded as farmland birds, but there would be opportunity for incorporating swift boxes into new buildings, or a swift tower in one of the community parks. • Page 43 Figure 49: We find the example shown unsympathetic with the surrounding landscape and an example of poor detailing in relation to site levels. There needs to be commitment to a more appropriate solution than that currently shown.

Parameters Plans

A number of issues need to be addressed within the parameters plans. The Green Infrastructure Parameter Plan (GIPP) (Figure 23) leaves some landscape / biodiversity assets such as Calf Wood poorly connected to the wider landscape. Rather than emphasising mounding in the Green Infrastructure, retained vegetation and strategic woodland belts should be indicated to demonstrate how woodland (and other habitat) connectivity would be maximised and the new landscape structure that would be created. The GIPP fails to maximise the potential for connectivity and landscape structure that should be associated with the SuDS proposals such as along the open swale network next to road infrastructure (eg in Zone A4, Zone A5). It would be useful to include a separate Parameters Plan addressing visual mitigation.

The Draft Landscape and Green Infrastructure Strategy – Illustrative Plan is welcomed in principle but this needs to be supported by a ‘Strategy / Design Brief’ that sets principles and greater certainty that appropriate high quality biodiversity and landscape mitigation and enhancement will be delivered in an holistic and strategic manner. Setting principles at this stage is considered essential to ensure that adequate space is included in the layout and quality of design is not compromised later due to plot development pressures.

Document 2.18 C ‘Proposed Bridge Plans – Staffs & Worcs Canal’ indicates the proposed road bridge on the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal crossing, consisting of vertical concrete walls, and parapets with the note that parts of the structure are ‘suitable for focussed scenarios in accordance with HS2 Guidance Document by the Canal and River Trust’. Further detail is required. Here there is a need for a design that is informed and sympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area, minimises detrimental effects and delivers appropriate enhancement.

Historic Environment

Draft Environmental Statement - Volume 1 – Chapter 8: Archaeology (Below Ground Heritage)

Within the Baseline Conditions section, individual heritage assets are discussed without Historic Environment Record (HER) Primary Record Numbers or any other unique identifier codes. Similarly, no maps, plans or figures support these sections (or are referenced within separate appendices) making the identification of specific heritage assets within the landscape difficult; this situation needs to be rectified.

Section 8.65, line 6 - The third road extends from Pennocrucium to the settlement at Greensforge (not Greensford).

In Section 8.69 it has been suggested that Watling Street continued to function as a principal highway during (and beyond) the gradual decline of the Roman administrative system into the 6 th and 7 th centuries AD and beyond. As such the Roman road is likely to have been an important feature in the Anglo-Saxon landscape of the Interchange site. This landscape feature should be considered at this point as well as in the Romano-British section.

At Section 8.83 there is no reference to historic landscape character within the ‘Post- medieval, 19 th century and modern’ section.

Section 8.88, bullet points one and two. The Historic Environment Record (HER) records the presence of a single ‘ring ditch’ within the proposed area of the scheme. As identified in the opening general comment, neither the bullet points nor the previous baseline evidence references HER Primary Record Numbers (or project-specific codes) and as such it can be difficult to easily locate specific heritage assets discussed in the text. Also in Section 8.88 it is not clear in both cases whether the statement ‘…any corresponding buried remains…’ relates to archaeological deposits directly associated with the burial site solely or considers broader archaeological potential. In particular Bronze Age burial mounds were often the focus of secondary activity (including burials) both within and surrounding the monument. As such there does remain the potential for further activity in the general area.

At Section 8.92 it should be noted that lidar and geophysical survey will only identify potential heritage assets and anomalies (respectively). It is only through targeted evaluative trial trenching that the presence/absence and significance of archaeological heritage assets will be more fully assessed.

Section 8.94-99 largely considers mitigation through archaeological intervention (such as excavation, watching brief etc.) and opportunities for public engagement. While these are laudable approaches, this section must also consider the potential for preservation in situ where significant (and potentially nationally important) archaeological remains are identified as being present. It is likely that the potential for ‘mitigation by design’ will be more achievable in areas of green infrastructure. In each case, there will be a need to understand the significance of archaeological remains; where this is understood at an early stage this can inform mitigation by design. This approach could potentially reduce cost, time and better manage archaeological risk to the project where applied in a timely and responsible manner.

At Table 8.6 it is concerning to note that the failure to recognise the potential for the preservation in situ (mitigation by design) of significant archaeological remains, particularly as in each instance it is stated that ‘the predicted significance of effect is currently unknown’. With this in mind there remains the potential for nationally important archaeological heritage assets to be present on and across the site. Where this is the case there must be the flexibility to consider preservation in situ as an option. Instead there is almost an assumption that ‘preservation by record… supplemented by public outreach works’ offers a reasonable approach. It is strongly advised that this inflexible approach be modified.

Draft Environmental Statement - Volume 1 – Chapter 9: Cultural Heritage – Built Heritage

Section 9.134 Table 9.4 relates to ‘Nature of the effect likely to occur to the receptor (magnitude)’ not, as suggested in this section ‘heritage value’; heritage value is instead considered under Table 9.3.

Section 9.134 (with reference to table 9.4) considers the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area as having low significance. Table 9.4 appears to consider the Conservation Area in isolation; this assessment therefore fails to consider the canal in combination with the range of associated undesignated heritage assets within the proposed area of the scheme. Taken in the round, it is argued that the presence of the working canal and a range of locally important canal structures associated with the historic running of the canal would suggest that this heritage asset (as a group) has moderate significance.

Sections 9.116-118 and 9.122 do consider historic landscape character and its association with other landscape features such as the canal, woodland and local historic farmsteads. There is however no consideration of field boundary loss or the integrity of the historic landscape character across the site and surrounding area. The integrity of this landscape (and its associations to historic farmsteads and road patterns) is key to understanding its significance as a group of heritage assets and sensitivity as a receptor.

In Section 9.123 (Within the Site Boundary) Historic Landscape Character is not considered as a heritage receptor here. As identified above, it should be considered a receptor and should also be considered as a group with Heath Farm and Woodside Farm (both locally listed).

At Section 9.175 the opening sentence is a little confusing, a ‘small defended fort’ is a military site. Pennocrucium contains a Roman fort but also an associated vicus which thrived throughout the Roman period. It is considered to be one of Staffordshire’s four Roman towns and should be described as such (see s9.181).

At Section 9.181 Pennocrucium is considered to have continued to function as an estate centre during the post-Roman and early medieval periods. As such, the area may have been the focus for activity during these periods as well.

At Section 9.294 the survival of historic hedgerows associated with the process of parliamentary enclosure may well be relatively common in the West Midlands and as such unremarkable when considered on the West Midlands Interchange site. However, this approach must not consider these field boundaries in isolation (as discussed in s9.123), they must also be considered in association with other aspects of the historic built environment such as surviving historic farmsteads, road patterns and indeed the presence of the canal to develop an appreciation of their group value. Only then can a clear and full understanding of their relative significance be fully understood.

At sections 9.313, 9.329 and 9.422 the introduction of new bridge (B3) across the route of the canal should consider the potential for the creation of a tunnel like character along the line of the Conservation Area. The historic canal has a ‘strong linear quality, which is emphasised by its design as a contour canal.’ (s9.129); s9.131 recognises that ‘It is the long view which contributes most to its significance as a historic canal…’ flanked, as it is, on either side by dense vegetation. The introduction of a new bridge (at B3) will potentially sever this linear appreciation of the canal and its setting. The presence of an existing 20 th century road bridge close to the location of B3 may also create a longer ‘tunnelling’ effect enclosing the canal for a longer period and thus further severing its linear character – care should be taken to avoid this effect, which as noted previously could be achieved by the removal of the existing road bridge if alternate arrangement can be made to access the Four Ashes Industrial Park. In relation to bridge B3 care must be taken when during its design (its general design, scale, materials etc.) to ensure that the severance of this designated heritage asset is minimised and that the character of the Conservation Area is not significantly impacted by its introduction. The current proposal does not achieve this and it is requested the design team engage in early discussions with the South Staffordshire District Council Conservation Officer and the Staffordshire County Council Principal Landscape Architect where these issues are concerned.

Section 9.422 also raises the possibility of damage to the bridge caused during construction works and states that ‘In the unlikely event that the historic bridge sustains any damage as a result of the construction of the new bridge, necessary remedial works will be undertaken with advice from a specialist.’ In the first instance the construction methodology for work on any new bridge in this area must include a detailed plan for the protection of the bridge during the construction process. It is advised that SSDC Conservation Officer will need to be closely involved in any such works. Secondly, in advance of any works to the bridge, this historic structure will need to be recorded to provide a record in its current condition and setting and, should it be damaged, act as a record to inform remediation works. This element of work must be included in the summary of Mitigation Measures at Table 9.8.

Draft Environmental Statement – Volume 2 (Part 1 of 7) – Outline Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan (DCEMP)

Section 14.1 - at this stage in the process it is entirely inappropriate to identify the need for only an archaeological watching brief across this site as part of the outline DCEMP as this pre-empts the results of future discussions between the applicants historic environment consultants and the cultural heritage advisors to the Local Planning Authority. A staged approach to understand archaeological significance and to inform the need for and scope of subsequent archaeological mitigation across the site has previously been discussed with the applicants’ historic environment consultants. Bearing this in mind, it is therefore strongly advised that this section be reconstituted to reflect the need for a staged approach across the scheme comprising:-

• Geophysical survey • Archaeological watching brief during Site Investigation (for geotechnical and environmental purposes) • Trial trenching exercise informed by the HEDBA and the results of work identified at bullet points 1 and 2

The results of this initial work will inform the need for, scope of and nature of any subsequent archaeological mitigation across the site. These results will also inform discussions regarding the significance of archaeological heritage assets and those regarding preservation in situ (where considered appropriate and achievable). Finally, site work will include a programme of historic building recording to focus on the two undesignated far complexes to be impacted and the bridge at Gravelly Way (discussed in s9.422 of the draft Environmental Statement).

The archaeology section of the DCEMP need not include individual Written Schemes of Investigation (WSI) at this stage but it should detail the process of liaison and consultation between all parties (including the archaeological advisor to the LPA, the SSDC Conservation Officer and, where relevant historic England) to ensure that historic environment issues (including the preparation of WSIs) are dealt with in a satisfactory and timely manner. In any event, draft copies of the amended Archaeology/Heritage Section and individual draft WSI must be forwarded to the archaeological advisor to the LPA and the SSDC Conservation Officer for comment/approval prior to the commencement of any groundworks on site.

Section 14 should also detail the process of liaison between site managers, other discipline specialists and ground workers during site works and how archaeologists will work during groundworks. It should also afford archaeologists the opportunity to inform the development of future groundworks methodologies to ensure that techniques employed across the site do not threaten archaeological (below ground) heritage assets.

At section 14.2 the bullet point list does not include reference to the listed bridge (Gravelly Way) identified at s9.422 within the Draft Environmental statement (Volume 1). This is concerning as there is the potential (identified at s9.422) for damage to occur to this listed structure. As such, it has been advised that this also be the subject

a detailed building recording in advance of any works within the area of the bridge to produce a permanent record and inform any repairs (should damage occur).

Further Section 14.2, bullet point 7 as no important hedgerows were identified (under the historic descriptors included in the Hedgerows Regulations 1996) it is unclear where this reference comes from.

At Section 14.5 while preservation by record may be warranted, the outline DCEMP should also recognise that there may be opportunities for preservation in situ where significant archaeological remains have been identified (during initial archaeological evaluations) across the site. Where considered at an early stage, preservation in situ has the potential to reduce costs and time and can represent an effective method in the management of archaeological risk. This may be particularly achievable where significant archaeological heritage assets are present within areas earmarked as part of the green infrastructure plan.

At Section 14.6, as identified in comments at s14.1, bearing in mind the potential complexity and the phased nature of the scheme, it is inadvisable to identify detailed archaeological mitigation beyond the initial stages of evaluation at this stage. Instead it is advised that this section include a general statement which states that, in conjunction with the archaeological and historic built environment advisors to the LPA, a suite of historic environment evaluative and investigative techniques will be developed. This iterative approach will start with a programme of site evaluation (described above) to inform the need for, scope of and nature of any further mitigation as well as opportunities for preservation in situ and public engagement.

At Section 14.6 it is also noted here that a strip, map and record approach is identified where earlier archaeological watching brief was considered. These descriptors should be removed entirely as discussed previously.

At Section 14.8 it is noted that there is inclusion of a broad protocol for the discovery of significant archaeological remains, finds of treasure and human remains during site works. More detail is required to identify the notification process, the approach to fencing and the need to contact relevant external specialists (the coroner for human remains, the Portable Antiquities Scheme Finds Liaison Officer for finds of treasure etc.).

Continuing at Section 14.8 the appointed archaeological and historic building recording contractor/s will also prepare a series of toolbox talks (on site and digital) which all groundwork contractors will attend. They will also maintain close contact with groundworks and site management for the duration of groundworks and will prepare regular briefing notes for the archaeological advisor to the LPA and the SSDC Conservation Officer. These will be augmented by site monitoring meetings as and when these are considered to be appropriate.

Document 7.1 – Planning Statement for Stage 2 Consultation

At Section 13.2.10 the sub-section concludes that ‘…the setting of the canal is this area has already experienced change as a result of later industrial infrastructure, and that then historic landscape is not intact.’ This view is not contested here, however

bearing in mind previous impacts upon the designated canal, the current proposed development offers the potential for the enhancement of this historic waterway. This should be identified at this point and considered during the design of adjacent structures, landscaping etc and in particular the design of Bridge 3 (B3) which spans the canal.

Document 7.5 - Draft Design and Access Statement

At Section 2.5.2 it is noted that the Canal Conservation Area is identified (correctly) as a constraint to the development. However, it could also (with appropriate mitigation) be considered as an opportunity. Indeed, within the Environmental Statement, the recreation of towpaths and removal of extraneous industrial pipework crossing the waterway is identified as an enhancement to its historic character. These potential benefits, coupled with a sensitive redesign of Bridge 3 (and potentially Bridges 1 and 2) should be identified as an opportunity within this document.

Document 2.18C - Proposed Road Bridge 3 (B3) – (Drawing No. 1516-0425-WDK-SI-C- 301-008)

As identified in comments on s9.313, s9.329 and s9.422, the road bridge crossing the line of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area (B3) will sever the ‘… long view which contribute[s] most to its significance as a historic canal…’ (s9.131). This severance may be unavoidable but in developing a bridging solution the applicants’ designers must seek to minimise impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.

Section 9.313 argues that a simple design has been developed which will not ‘… detract attention from the canal for the user of the waterway.’ While it is important not to create a pastiche, it is argued that the construction of a rectangular concrete structure at this location represents an overly simplistic engineering solution to spanning this designated heritage asset. The proposed (draft) new road bridge (Revision P4) does not appear to have been informed at all by the historic character of the canal or its associated buildings (and importantly its original bridges). Instead this is a simple concrete structure which offers little to the Conservation Area and indeed impacts upon its unique historic character; a redesign of this structure is therefore advised. This process should be fully informed by local historic character designs and materials to develop a structure which compliments and can enhance the character of this Conservation Area. It is also strongly advised that the applicants’ design team will engage fully with the South Staffordshire District Council Conservation Officer and the Staffordshire County Council Principal Landscape Architect in this process.

Draft Environmental Statement - Volume 2 (2 of 7) - Technical Appendix 8.1: Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (HEDBA)

There are no further comments to make on the HEDBA beyond those previously identified in response to Chapter 8 (Cultural Heritage – Archaeological Heritage (Below Ground)) and Chapter 9 (Cultural Heritage – Built Heritage) of the Environmental Statement.

Minerals and Waste

Draft ES and Planning Statement The applicant’s response to the Secretary of State’s comments on waste from the scoping opinion is provided in table 2.1 of the draft ES, where it states in relation to waste management processes and mitigation “It is not considered feasible to provide the level of detail requested given uncertainty regarding specific construction works and ultimate occupants. Details about demolition and construction wastes are included in the ODCEMP, including hazardous and non-hazardous wastes .”

The demolition and waste chapter of the Outline Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan (ODCEMP 2) states it presents waste management principles and identifies the likely nature of waste arisings from demolition and construction stages. This information will be used by the Contractor to develop a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP). Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be uncertainty regarding specific construction works, no information is provided to indicate the scale of waste management issues associated with the project and the need for waste management facilities. In particular, little detail is provided regarding the backfill and restoration of voids created by previous mineral working under permission SS.12/08/681 MW . It is proposed that there will be balanced cut and fill engineering operations 3 and where areas of the application area have been used for the disposal of silts (resulting from mineral processing) there will be a requirement for specialised treatment. More information is required regarding the restoration of land that has been subject to mineral operations. The proposed site waste management plan is welcomed and this should to address issues as listed under Policy 1.2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan 2010 – 2026 . Mineral safeguarding Paragraphs 7.2.1 to 7.2.10 of the draft Planning Statement considers the opportunity for prior extraction of the underlying mineral resource and concludes that “ The Proposed Development will not extract the existing mineral resource. The mineral resource contained within the Site is not considered important or significant in the context of the Minerals Local Plan and the ‘loss’ of the minerals in the Minerals Local Plan period is not considered significant in the context of the benefits of the Proposed Development. ” The relevant national planning statement requires that applicants should safeguard any mineral resources on the proposed site as far as possible. 4 Policy 3 of the Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire 2015 – 203 provides a basis on which an appropriate assessment of the mineral safeguarding issue for the site can be undertaken. The proposal affects an existing quarry and would affect land allocated for sand and gravel extraction in the new Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 – 2030) (refer to

2 Refer to appendix 2.5 to the ES 3 Refer to paragraph 5.31 of the draft ES 4 Refer to paragraph 5.169 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks.

Policy 1 and Inset Map 7). The proposal is also located within a Mineral Safeguarding Area. Policy 3.2 of the new Minerals Local Plan (MLP) states that: Within a Mineral Safeguarding Area, non-mineral development except for those types of development set out in appendix 6, should not be permitted until the prospective developer has produced evidence prior to determination of the planning application to demonstrate: a) the existence, the quantity, the quality and the value of the underlying or adjacent mineral resource; and b) that proposals for non-mineral development in the vicinity of permitted mineral sites or mineral site allocations would not unduly restrict the mineral operations. To fully understand the impact of the proposal on the underlying mineral resource, the application and its environmental statement should include a mineral safeguarding statement to address the requirements of policy 3.2. An assessment of the value of the resource affected within the entire site (and not limited to an assessment of remaining permitted reserves and reserves allocated in the Minerals Local Plan) should take into account the quantity and quality of remaining resources affected and the contribution that the existing quarry has made in fulfilling market need. The applicant indicates that to provide the most suitable development platform and to maintain the current groundwater regime, the sands and gravels from the allocation should not be extracted. It is indicated in the environmental statement, however, that earthworks will be carried out and further assessment is recommended to establish whether any mineral could be extracted as part of proposed engineering or drainage works, or as part of the provision of open space. With regard to the loss of the production capacity at Calf Heath Quarry which is a safeguarded site, an assessment of alternative capacity to supply sand and gravel should be provided. In terms of assessing the proposals’ impact on permitted operations, more information as indicated above is required concerning proposals to restore mineral workings including timescales for completion of this work. Flood Risk and Drainage

Although the ES and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) documents refer to a more detailed Surface Water Drainage Strategy, the ES and FRA do not provide a sufficient level of detail on the conceptual design or the quantitative assessment needed to develop the SuDS design within the overall masterplan. We have previously advised that the drainage strategy should be developed to the level of a Conceptual Design, as set out in the SuDS Manual (CIRIA, 2015 – See pages 99-118; 7.4 Stage 1: Setting Strategic SWM Objectives, through to 7.5 Stage 2: Conceptual Design) Surface water should also be managed in accordance with the non-statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (Defra, March 2015). It is felt appropriate for this level of information to be included at this stage, as the Surface Water Drainage should form an integral part of the overall design of the site.

Public Health

From a public health perspective although the proposal comes with an Environmental Impact Assessment it is felt that this is not providing a full picture of the health impacts of the proposed development. There is reference made in the current Environmental Impact Assessments to issues such as air quality and noise and vibrations, but within the reports submitted to date there is no assessment of the impact of these on the health of local residents and the health of people working within the site both during construction and once operational. There is a reference made to health outcomes in the report made about the socio-economic impact of the development, but again a more thorough investigation into the physical and mental health impacts of the proposed development would aid the decision process. Therefore, it is suggested that a more comprehensive Health Impact Assessment should be carried out and included within the technical documents.

Draft DCO

We note that a draft version of the Development Consent Order itself is included in the Stage 2 documentation. We have not previously seen the Order but acknowledge that it is still a work in progress. It will be necessary for a detailed dialogue between now and the submission of the application on the content of the Order. However, we are mindful that some provisions within the Order will be informed by the technical work that is still underway and/or required as a result of the comments above.

Notwithstanding the above we have endeavoured to begin a dialogue on the Order by provision of the following points. It should be noted though that this is not an exhaustive list and will be subject to later legal advice.

1. Given the proposed extended timescale for development of 15 years it is of particular importance that a robust and clear framework of environmental protection be put in place through the DCO as during the project timescale it is likely that personnel involved will change and there will be a reliance on a clear documented and regulated process of mitigation and compensation design and implementation.

2. Part 1 lists NSIP development. Part 2 lists Associated Development which includes the community parks, habitat creation, woodland retention, screening bunds among other items. Clarification is sought regarding the difference between NSIP Development and Associated Works on whether or how that affects the approval process and subsequent control of development through application of the Requirements.

3. Article 4(d) provides for a lateral deviation of 20 metres between numbered work areas. This degree of permitted deviation could have fundamental impacts on ecological mitigation by severely compromising retained or proposed habitat extent and/or compromising ecological/green infrastructure corridors and connectivity. Justification for this degree of proposed deviation is not clear. Assurances are sought, in DCO wording, that such deviation will not be permitted where it would affect approved ecological mitigation and green infrastructure. The Stage 2 Consultation Overview s.2.1.3 states that location of Green Infrastructure will be

fixed as part of the application process. This should be reflected in Requirements with limits of deviation reflect this approval.

4. Requirement 5: Detailed design approval 5.(1) This should refer to supporting documents to the DCO, recommended below:

In order to ensure site-wide consistency of approach and for biodiversity and landscape enhancements to be developed at a landscape scale rather than in a piecemeal fashion, the DCO should be supported by a suite of documents that set principles and standards, and where appropriate a hierarchy of design solutions. This should include: i. Soil Management Plan: including protection of soils that will remain in situ, retention and reuse of soils appropriate to habitat creation / restoration and landscape treatments.

ii. Arboricultural and Hedgerow Management Plan: principles for protection and management of trees (including veterans and future / transitional veterans) and hedges to be retained and enhanced, cross referenced to the Tree Retention Plans. In addition to trees indicated as retained a number of retained hedgerows are indicated on the Draft Landscape and Green Infrastructure Strategy – Illustrative Plan, several of which are in very close proximity to areas of construction. Careful design, site planning and protection will be required to ensure these are retained intact. There should also be commitment in this document to an ambition to maximise tree retention during design development.

iii. Building / structure design: setting out principles for material selection so that buildings and structures such as the canal road bridge, gantries etc. are informed by local character and their design minimises visual impact. Colour finish of the gantry(s) (shown bright yellow on the photomontages) should be selected to minimise visual effects from local and more distant views.

iv. Green / blue Infrastructure: a Strategy / Design Brief for principal areas of green infrastructure, ensuring a strategic approach to ecological and landscape connectivity and enhancement. This should set principles for the minimum depth of linear Green Infrastructure (GI) such as between Zones A4 and A5, A1 and A2, and for GI integral to the open swale network. It should also set expectations for woodland, hedgerow and tree retention; planting and establishment principles for the various habitat types proposed; principles for selection of priority hedges for translocation and planting methods; species mixes, sizes of stock for planting types; timely completion of landscape / habitat creation; and establishment and long term management principles for retained and new habitats. Some principles of SuDS design should be set out in this document to ensure that the ultimate design incorporates adequate space for naturalistic slopes, and in the case of permanent water features marginal shallows suitable for appropriate biodiversity enhancement.

It would also be desirable to set out principles of the type, colour and standards of fencing that would be deemed acceptable within areas of GI and on Plots to minimise visual impact and ensure consistency.

v. Standards for ‘Plot’ Landscaping: Either as an Appendix to the Green/blue Infrastructure Strategy document or in a standalone guidance, standards for on plot landscaping (hard and soft) should also be addressed, offering some design principles, a potential palette of materials and plants, sizes of plants and planting densities that would be expected.

5. Requirement 7 : Provision of landscaping (7(1) c) – tree protection and hedgerow protection should be cross referenced into the DCEMP.

Requirement 7 part 3 should also account for replacement of failed habitat planting/seeding as well as trees and shrubs. Otherwise ecological mitigation may be compromised.

6. Requirement 8 : Ecological Management and Mitigation Plan Refers to an Ecological Management and Mitigation Plan for each phase. The landscape affected and the species which use it operate as a coherent whole with many species utilising several parts of the site. In order to prepare these plans an outline Ecological Management and Mitigation Plan will be required (as is proposed in Requirement 9 for the Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan) within which Ecological Management and Mitigation Plans for each phase can be prepared. In particular the impacts on bat roosting, foraging and commuting habitat need to be addressed at the landscape scale by creation of a new landscape network to replace that lost, requiring a site-wide strategic approach.

7. Requirement 9: Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan This should potentially include temporary visual mitigation such as fencing and hoardings

In conclusion it is apparent therefore that considerable further work is required between now and submission of the application to address the technical points raised above. The draft DCO will require significant further work and engagement with Staffordshire County Council and South Staffordshire District Council to ensure there is a clear understanding of how the provisions of the order will facilitate the delivery of the scheme and mitigation measures.

Yours sincerely

James Chadwick Planning Policy Officer