Quinn Estates
Highsted Park, Land to the South and East of Sittingbourne, Kent
Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report
January 2021
Highsted Park, Land to the South and East of Sittingbourne, Kent
Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report
Revision Date Notes Author Checked Approved
2.0 20-01-21 E2165 Various Alison Banks Dr Nick Davey
2.1 07-02-21 E2165 Various Alison Banks Dr Nick Davey
Entran Limited 7 Greenway Farm Bath Road Wick Bristol BS30 5RL
T: 0117 937 4077 www.entranltd.co.uk
ii
CONTENTS PAGE
1 Introduction 1 2 Site Description 4 3 Proposed Development 6 4 ES Methodology 6 5 Key Issues to be Addressed by the EIA 10 6 Air Quality 11 7 Noise and Vibration 13 8 Landscape and Visual Impacts 16 9 Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk 34 10 Archaeology and Heritage assets 36 12 Built Heritage 39 13 Ecology and Nature Conservation 45 14 Soils, Geology, Contaminated Land and Waste 50 15 Transportation 53 16 Socio-Economics, PopuLation and Human Health 55 17 Climate Change 57 18 Environmental Topics Scoped Out of the EIA 59 19 Conclusions 60 Appendix A - Proposed Visual Assessment Photograph Locations Appendix B - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology
i
1 INTRODUCTION
Background
1.1 Quinn Estates Kent Limited (hereafter known as ‘the Applicant’) is seeking to obtain planning permission for a mixed-use development, including new infrastructure to create new junctions onto the M2 and A2 joined by a new relief road, at land to the south and east of Sittingbourne. This forms the southern part of the wider Highsted Park Proposed Development for which a separate Environmental Statement Scoping request has been submitted. This also follows a previous Scoping Opinion for the wider Site in 2018 (ref. 17/506551/EIASCO), which has assisted in shaping the current proposals.
1.2 This report forms the Applicant’s written request to Swale Borough Council (‘SBC’), made under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, for its opinion on the likely scope of the Environmental Statement (‘ES’) which would accompany a planning application submission, where.as here, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required. SBC have previously identified that the Proposed Development constitutes EIA development in its Screening Opinion (17/506492/ENVSCR).
1.3 The following sections provide a description of the Site and Proposed Development, the proposed EIA methodology to be adopted by the Applicant and an overview of the key issues to be dealt with within the ES.
1
Figure 1.1: Site Location
The Need for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
1.4 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the ‘EIA Regulations’) apply to the assessment of environmental effects likely to arise from certain types of development. The Proposed Development falls under Section 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations for the following reasons:
• The development includes more than 1 hectare of urban development which is not dwellinghouse development; • The development includes more than 150 dwellings; and • The overall area of development exceeds 5 hectares.
The Purpose of Scoping in the EIA Process
1.5 This Scoping Report identifies the topics which the Applicant considers need to be addressed in the ES. It also sets out the methods to be used in order to determine the significant environmental effects which are likely to arise during both construction and operation of the Proposed Development.
2
1.6 In this way, the Scoping Report forms the basis for on-going consultation on the scope and content of the ES with statutory authorities and other relevant stakeholders. Its contents, having taken account of comments received during consultation, will be incorporated within the Environmental Statement (‘ES’).
Consultation on Scoping Report
1.7 The formal Scoping Opinion by SBC will be informed by consultee feedback from statutory bodies, including SBC officers, other consultees, and statutory bodies including Natural England and the Environment Agency.
1.8 It is therefore assumed that this Scoping Report will be circulated by SBC to the relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees for comment and information.
Structure of the Scoping Report
1.9 The remainder of this Scoping Report is structured as follows:
• Section 2 describes the Site; • Section 3 describes the Proposed Development; • Section 4 describes the proposed ES Methodology; • Section 5 describes the key issues to be assessed; and • Section 6 onwards comprises technical assessments.
3
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The Site covers an area of 568 Ha approximately centred at grid reference 591420, 161400.
2.2 The Site is situated immediately adjoining the built-up edge of Sittingbourne and housing areas served off Swanstree Avenue and Highsted Valley. It extends from the M2 motorway, to the south of Kent Science Park, up to the A2 London Road near Bapchild, which lies to the east of Sittingbourne.
2.3 To the north and north east of the Site and A2 / London Road is open farmland and areas of woodland / tree belts and Teyham village, Teynham Street and Conyer occupying low lying areas which extend northwards to The Swale and Isle of Sheppey. To the east of the Site are further areas of open farmland including arable and pasture fields, commercial fruit growing areas and orchards extending towards the town of Faversham, approximately 9 kilometres from the Site. The small villages of Lynsted (about 2.5 kilometres from the Site) and Norton (about 4.5 kilometres from the Site) lie between the Site and Faversham.
2.4 To the south east and south of the Site and M2 motorway is open farmland and wooded areas. To the south west is Ruins Barn Road and an area of open farmland / countryside and dispersed development extending towards the villages of Tunstall and Borden. To the north west and west lies the built-up area of Sittingbourne, with its town centre approximately 1.1 kilometres from the Site.
2.5 The Site forms an extensive area of undulating farmland and areas of woodland on the dip slope the North Downs and North Kent Plain with a subtle undulating landform to the north of the M2 motorway and more open undulating ridge and valley landform to the north falling to the coastal plain. The Site includes large-to-moderate scale arable and pasture fields, commercial fruit growing areas and orchards subdivided by hedgerows, fences, roads, lanes and farm tracks with small-scale pasture fields adjoining Highsted and Romersham Green, with a scattered settlement pattern of farmsteads, hamlets and isolated dwellings.
2.6 The boundary of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’) aligns with the southern edge of the M2 motorway and therefore a small part of the Site lies in the AONB.
2.7 The topography of the Site is undulating and focused on a steep sided dry valley that extends through the central southern parts of the Site in a north west to south east direction with a broad ridgeline / area of elevated ground extending northwards from Rodmersham Green to connect to the western edge of Sittingbourne. To the north and north west of the ridge, the land falls to low lying gently undulating land around Bapchild and the A2 / London Road boundary of the Site. To the north of the Site the land falls to low lying areas and the Teynham Levels and The Swale at below 5 metres AOD.
4
2.8 The lowest part of the Site is situated in the north-eastern parts, adjoining the A2 / London Road at about 12 metres AOD with the land rising to the southwards to an area of elevated ground around Rodmersham Green at about 60 to 70 metres AOD before the land falls to the Highsted Valley at between 30 to 60 metres AOD and rises to broad area of elevated ground surrounding the Kent Science Park at about 70 to 75 metres AOD. The highest part of the Site adjoins the M2 motorway and southern boundary of the Site along Bexon Lane at about 92 metres AOD whilst to the south of the Site, the landform is gently undulating between 90 to 190 metres AOD rising to the escarpment of the North Downs at above 190 to 195 metres AOD following an east to west alignment.
2.9 The Site would be accessed via a new motorway junction on the M2 (J5a) and a new strategic relief road to link from this junction to the A2. This would significantly improve the current access arrangements to Kent Science Park, one of Kent’s most significant employment generators, and assist with current air quality and traffic issues experienced by Sittingbourne and along the A2 corridor.
5
3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 A planning application will be submitted for the following Proposed Development:
• up to 8,000 residential dwellings; • up to 33.2 Ha of commercial floorspace/land; and retail, learning, non-residential institutions and community uses; and • the provision of open spaces, woodland and greenspace; and highways and infrastructure works, including new junctions to the M2 and the A2, and associated link/relief roads at land to the south and east of Sittingbourne.
4 ES METHODOLOGY
General Methodology
4.1 The Environmental Statement (ES) will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Regulations.
4.2 Proven techniques, specialist methodologies and guidelines will be drawn on as necessary. Individual environmental topics have their own methods for survey and assessment which are briefly described in Section 5.
4.3 The following methodology will be generally applied:
Identification and evaluation of baseline conditions
4.4 Baseline environmental conditions relevant to each environmental topic, defined as the existing environmental conditions, will be described in the ES through collation of existing environmental records and data, consultation with relevant parties, new surveys, and with reference to environmental legislation, planning guidance and relevant published guidelines.
4.5 An evaluation will be made of the importance of the identified environmental conditions and receptors, against defined criteria, scale-specific to each environmental topic. Legislation, standards, codes of practice, planning guidance and policies will be referred to as applicable.
6
Identification of potential impacts
4.6 Potential impacts are defined as the potential changes to environmental conditions and receptors that would be caused by the construction and operation of the Proposed Development, when compared with the existing baseline conditions.
4.7 The potential impacts of the Proposed Development will be described in the ES, including adverse or beneficial, direct or indirect, temporary or permanent, long-term or short-term, and cumulative impacts.
Spatial and temporal scope
4.8 The area over which potential impacts could occur may extend beyond the Site boundary. The study area will therefore vary depending on the environmental topic under consideration. Specific study areas are defined in each topic section, and will allow for assessment of indirect as well as direct effects.
4.9 Specific time periods will be defined for the assessment of potential impacts during the construction period, and the long-term operation of the Site.
Assessment of impacts
4.10 The magnitude of predicted impacts will be assessed and described in the ES for each environmental topic, in order to indicate the size of the impact (i.e. the degree of change to be experienced). The ES will have regard to the relevant legislation, standards, codes of practice, planning guidance and policies.
4.11 The magnitude of impacts does not always equate with the significance of impacts (their importance for decision-making), as a large change to an environmental variable could be unimportant if it did not cross any thresholds of concern (such as legislative standards).
4.12 The significance of each impact will be assessed by comparing the magnitude of impact (the extent of change) with particular standards, thresholds and criteria relevant to each environmental topic.
4.13 As significance ultimately relies on professional judgement, the ES will be as transparent as practicable as to the criteria and judgements used and any assumptions that underpin the assessment.
7
4.14 Where significant adverse impacts are predicted during the EIA and drafting of the ES, mitigation measures (see below) will be identified for incorporation into the proposals for the development.
4.15 As a result of including mitigation measures in the proposals to address specific impacts, the magnitude and significance of those impacts would then be reassessed. This means that the impact assessments above can be made against a ‘mitigated’ scheme.
Mitigation measures
4.16 Where negative significant environmental impacts are predicted, and can be avoided, reduced or remedied through the incorporation of practical and cost-effective measures into the project, these mitigation measures will be identified in the ES and incorporated into the proposals for development. A description of mitigation measures will be included in the ES.
Residual impacts
4.17 These are the impacts which will remain after mitigation. Residual impacts will be identified within the ES for each topic.
Cumulative Effects
4.18 The ES will also assess the impacts of the Proposed Development in cumulation with other developments for which applications have been made and planning permissions granted, within the relevant vicinity of the Site agreed with SBC. It is anticipated that such schemes will be identified as part of the council’s Scoping Opinion. The wider Highsted Park site to the north of the A2 and subject to a separate planning application, will also be considered as a cumulative scheme.
4.19 The cumulative effects on both the construction and operational phases will generally be considered on a qualitative basis, unless it is possible to quantify such effects based on the information that is currently available. Mitigation measures will be proposed where necessary.
Assessment of Alternatives
4.20 An assessment of alternatives will be undertaken. However, the proposals are site-specific and based upon the strategic availability of this Site and its suitability for the application scheme.
4.21 Alternative site layouts will be assessed to demonstrate that an appropriate design and configuration of uses is proposed for the Site.
8
Format of the ES
4.22 The ES will consist of the following documents:
1. ES Volume 1: Main document; 2. ES Volume 2: Technical Appendices; and 3. ES Volume 3: Non-Technical Summary (as a separate document to enable wider availability).
4.23 A provisional contents list for Volume 1 of the ES is set out below:
1. Introduction; 2. The Site and Surroundings; 3. Assessment Approach & Methodology; 4. Alternatives and Design Evolution; 5. The Proposed Development; 6. Development Programme and Construction; 7. Transport and Access; 8. Air Quality; 9. Noise and Vibration; 10. Landscape and Visual Amenity; 11. Ecology and Nature Conservation; 12. Water Quality, Hydrology & Flood Risk; 13. Soils, Geology, Contaminated Land and Waste; 14. Archaeology; 15. Built Heritage; 16. Socio-Economics, Population and Human Health; 17. Climate Change; and 18. Conclusions.
4.24 The technical Chapters 7-17 will follow the general structure below:
• Introduction; • Methodology; • Baseline Conditions; • Potential Effects & Impact Significance; • Mitigation Measures; • Residual Effects; and • Summary.
9
5 KEY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE EIA
5.1 The key issues to be addressed have been identified as those upon which the Proposed Development may have potentially significant effects. These cover the following subjects:
• Air Quality; • Noise and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual Amenity; • Water Quality, Hydrology & Flood Risk; • Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; • Built Heritage • Ecology and Nature Conservation; • Soils, Geology, Contaminated Land and Waste; • Socio-Economics, Population and Human Health; • Climate Change; and • Transportation.
5.2 Further information in relation to the proposed scope for each discipline is provided in Section 6 onwards.
5.3 The Application will be supported by a standalone Planning Statement and a Sustainability / Energy Statement.
10
6 AIR QUALITY
Key Issues
6.1 Swale Borough Council (SBC) has declared seven Air Quality Management Areas within their administrative area as follows:
• AQMA 1 (Newington) – Declared in 2009 for annual mean NO2. An area encompassing those parts of London Road and High Street, Newington where the speed limit is 30mph;
• AQMA 2 (Ospringe St, Faversham) – Declared in 2011 for annual mean NO2. Area incorporating all of Ospringe Street which is a section of the A2 London Road near Faversham;
• AQMA 3 (East Street, Sittingbourne) – Declared in 2013 for annual mean NO2. Area incorporating the area of East Street, Sittingbourne;
• AQMA 4 (St Paul’s Street, Sittingbourne) – Declared in 2013 for annual mean NO2. Area incorporating St Paul’s Street, Sittingbourne;
• AQMA 5 (Teynham) – Declared in 2016 for annual mean NO2. Area along the A2 London Road in Teynham; and
• AQMA 6 (Ospringe St, Faversham) – Declared in 2016 for annual mean NO2. Extension of AQMA 2 eastwards to the Mount.
• AQMA 7 (Keycol Hill) – Declared in 2020 for annual mean NO2. An area incorporating Keycol Hill in Sittingbourne.
6.2 These AQMAs have been declared for exceedances of the annual mean nitrogen dioxide air quality objective.
Potential Impacts
6.3 The Proposed Development may result in the following potential impacts:
• Generation of dust and PM10 during the construction phase and the potential to cause a nuisance; • Impact on local air quality arising from the emissions of pollutants from the exhausts of road vehicles during the construction phase; and • Impact on local air quality arising from the emissions of pollutants from the exhausts of road vehicles and any energy generating plant (if included in the proposals) during the operational phase.
Methodology
11
6.4 The air quality assessment will comprise detailed dispersion modelling (ADMS Roads) for road traffic emissions. The assessment will take account of all relevant national and local policies and relevant Defra technical guidance relating to air quality.
6.5 The extent of the assessment of the traffic-related air quality impacts will be determined by the extent of the Transport Assessment as agreed with the relevant bodies. It is anticipated that this will cover the local road network and any roads predicted to experience significant changes.
6.6 The ADMS Roads modelling will be verified against existing monitoring data for the area (where relevant data exists) and the approach will be agreed with the Local Authority. It is not intended at this stage to carry out further air quality monitoring. Predicted impacts will be compared with Air Quality Objectives set for the protection of human health.
6.7 If energy generating plant are included in the proposals, consideration of emissions from such sources will be included in the assessment, the scope of which will be dependent on the level of detail available at the time of assessment.
6.8 Construction-related impacts will also be examined. This will involve a review of the proposed construction work and related traffic data to identify any potentially adverse effects at nearby sensitive receptors. The construction assessment will be carried out in-line with IAQM guidance.
6.9 The opportunities for improvement to the current situation will also be considered as part of this process.
12
7 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Key Issues
7.1 Assessments of noise, whatever its source, are usually undertaken in one of two ways; by reference to either an increase in noise level over the prevailing situation (e.g. BS 4142:2014+A1:2019, Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound) or to an absolute internal or external noise limit at nearby noise sensitive buildings (e.g. 'Community Noise', prepared for the World Health Organisation, or similar guidance such as BS 8233:2014, Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of practice etc.).
7.2 This section of the ES will assess the potential for noise effects from the various sources associated with the Proposed Development against the prevailing national standards and guidelines. Consideration will also be given to any relevant local authority guidance, standards or policies.
Potential Impacts
7.3 Potential impacts from the Proposed Development and the construction phase.
7.4 The following key impacts will be addressed:
• road traffic noise with and without Proposed Development; • existing ambient noise levels; • existing vibration levels at the Site; • noise levels at proposed residential dwellings; • noise effects of commercial elements on existing/future residential; and • noise effects of schools/playground on existing/future residential.
Approach & Methodology
7.5 Existing baseline noise and vibration levels will need to be established in order to assess the effects of the Proposed Development. This will be carried out in multiple locations over both the day and night time periods.
7.6 Measurement of baseline conditions will be made using a combination of attended survey and long-term unattended measurement techniques as necessary at representative positions. The noise parameters LAeq,T, LA90,T, LA10,18hr and LAmax will be monitored and the relevant values obtained for the standard measurement periods.
13
7.7 The results from the noise monitoring will be used as a basis to assess the likely impact from the Proposed Development and will take account of existing noise sources outlined above.
7.8 The baseline noise assessment will determine the existing noise levels around the Site. Baseline surveys will be undertaken on the Site boundaries adjacent to the nearby roads, and adjacent to existing industrial noise sources.
7.9 Legislation and guidance documents to be used in the assessment will include:
• World Health Organisation - Guidelines for Community Noise 2000 and subsequent WHO guidance; • BS 8233:2014: Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice; • BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for Rating and Assessing Industrial and Commercial Sound’; • BS 5288:2009+A1:2014 'Construction Code of Practice for Noise & Vibration Control on Construction & Open Sites'; • BS 6472:2008 'Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings Part 1: Vibration Sources Other Than Blasting'; • The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB); • BB93 'Acoustic Design of Schools’.
7.10 With respect to the prediction of impacts, construction noise will be estimated using the approach set out in BS 5288:2009+A1:2014 'Construction Code of Practice for Noise & Vibration Control on Construction & Open Sites'. At representative locations around the Site, the potential noise and vibration impacts of construction works will be predicted and assessed, including those associated with site clearance and construction traffic.
7.11 The effect of noise from the traffic on local roads generated by the Proposed Development will be assessed at nearby sensitive locations. Predictions will be made in accordance with the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN 1988) document and will be based on the likely traffic flows forecast for the surrounding road network. Information on the proportion of heavy goods vehicles, the average speed of the vehicle flow and any changes to the road layout will be established. Predictions will be compared against the existing levels of noise determined during the baseline survey, and, consequently, the likelihood of disturbance to residents living nearby can be determined by assessment against the criteria contained with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and other relevant standards and guidelines, such as those outlined above.
14
7.12 The assessment will consider the potential for noise disturbance from the Proposed Development to noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Site. In particular, this assessment will consider the time of day when the potential for disturbance will be at its greatest for the nearby noise sensitive locations and highlight suitable generic mitigation measures where necessary. The assessment will also consider the existing noise climate on the proposed residential development when taking the guidance in BS 8233:2014 into account.
7.13 The significance of the noise impact assessment exercise will be determined with regard to the advice contained within BS 8233:2014, as well as other relevant standards and guidelines. Where necessary, generic mitigation advice will be provided to minimise noise impacts of the development. The residual noise and vibration impacts, after the implementation of the mitigation measures, will also be identified and their significance established.
7.14 The proposals have the potential to give rise to noise during the construction and operational phases. Where appropriate, mitigation measures will be proposed to minimise the noise impacts of the development. The residual noise and vibration impacts, after the implementation of the mitigation measures, will be identified and their significance established.
15
8 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS
Landscape and Visual Impacts
8.1 The landscape assessment will consider the potential landscape and visual effects which may occur as a result of the demolition, construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.
8.2 A number of field surveys have been carried out of the Site and surrounding area in August 2017, January, March and May 2018, February, March and April 2019 and March 2020 to establish the likely landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development. Subject to Covid-19 constraints, further site surveys may be undertaken as part of the landscape and visual impact assessment (‘LVI’) work and preparation of the LVI chapter of the ES.
Key Issues
Landscape Character
8.3 In 2004, Kent County Council published the ‘Landscape Assessment of Kent’ which drew together a number of existing landscape character assessments of the county and updated these studies to conform to the current guidance at that time. Additional work on the condition and sensitivity of the Kent landscape was carried out and used to formulate character-based strategies to ensure the continued distinctiveness of Kent’s landscapes. The Landscape Assessment of Kent is intended to be used in a variety of forward planning strategies, in land management schemes and in planning control. The assessment offers a broad-brush, strategic approach and was written with the intention that detailed local studies should be undertaken to assess site specific proposals.
8.4 The County assessment sub divided the county into 8No. County-level Character Areas with each character area further sub divided into smaller landscape character areas (LCA) relevant to the distinctive characteristics of the area and these areas were evaluated and “strategies” proposed for each area. The Site and landscape to the south of Sittingbourne is identified as lying within the Thames Gateway character area and “Fruit Belt” sub-character area. The area to the south of the Site is identified within the Kent Downs and the “Bicknor: Mid Kent Downs” sub-character area and landscapes to the north are identified as “The Swale Marshes” sub-character areas. The key characteristics of the “Fruit Belt” are defined as:
• “Rural/agricultural landscape. Complex fruit, hops, pastoral and arable divided by small woodlands. • Small scattered villages and farms. Rolling landscape with distinct valleys. • Large pockets of flat, open farmland, especially in coastal areas.
16
• The M2 & A2-ribbon development and urban features.”
8.5 The Study goes on to analyses the areas condition and sensitivities and provides a summary as follows:
Condition:
“The inherent richness and complexity of this rolling landscape has developed a new emphasis towards a larger scale more open, landscape. Some blocks of intensive fruit growing also contribute to the larger scale. Isolated shelterbelts typify the incoherent landscape pattern which has many detracting suburban and industrial influences, and main transport corridors. Isolated remnants of old orchard can be found within the character area. The woodland cover is limited, and where there are shelterbelts, these are often single species; the ecological integrity of the area is considered to be weak. The stunted form of coastal woodland is distinctive due to the climatic conditions. Overall, the condition is poor.”
Condition Very Poor Pattern of elements Incoherent. Detracting features: Some. Visual Unity: Interrupted. Cultural Integrity: Variable. Ecological integrity: Weak. Functional integrity: Weak.
Sensitivity
“This is landscape of varied continuity, influenced by historic settlement and communication routes but with strong influences from the recent past to the current day. Highways retain historic characteristics such as narrow hedgelined roads, following ancient routes (e.g. Watling Street). The historic fruit growing patterns are characteristic in some areas, but dwarf root stock and single species shelterbelts have a more recent form. The area's hedgerow and mature tree stock has suffered greatly from the demise of the elm. Settlement too has many influences. Apart from occasional flint churches, landscape features are not thought to be highly distinctive in the locality. Visibility is moderate as the rolling landform is apparent, but views are contained by intermittent tree cover. The overall sensitivity is considered to be low.”
17
Sensitivity Low. Distinctiveness: Indistinct. Continuity: Historic. Sense of Place: Weak. Landform: Apparent. Extent of tree cover: Intermittent. Visibility: Moderate.
8.6 The Study suggests a “Create” landscape strategy (i.e. actions that create new features or areas where existing elements are lost or in poor condition.) and the following landscape actions:
“The creation of semi-natural habitats would enhance the ecological bases. These may also be used to enhance the relief of the natural landform and to create a more distinctive land pattern. Use the developing suburban edges of settlement to create new frameworks and enhance the definition of the change in land use with woodland blocks, and shelterbelts where appropriate. Identify unmanaged areas of coastal ridge for woodland replanting. The cultural heritage of the area may be enhanced by the creation of new settings for heritage buildings in the landscape. The creation of traditional orchards may be used as cosmetic or suburban features in this way.”
• “Create ecological interest by planting broadleaf woodland on steeper valley sides and on ridges overlooking the coastal plain; • Create an urban edge, using woodland blocks and the retention of shelterbelts where appropriate; • Create small scale enclosure to the coastal ridge with diverse species broadleaf woodland; • Create significant rural cultural features by the enhancement of the setting of large oasts; • Create mature standard tree cover at nodes such as road junctions, in hedgerow and at settlement edges”.
8.7 In August 2011, SBC published the ‘Swale Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal’ as part of the evidence base supporting the (now superseded) Core Strategy. The appraisal is envisaged to be a useful tool for a variety of practitioners including planners, land managers, developers and conservation bodies. The appraisal formed an update; and extension to the previous assessment work undertaken by consultants on behalf of the Council. The Site is identified as lying part within the ‘Dry Valleys and Downs’ landscape type and part within the ‘Fruit Belt’ landscape type. The northern parts of the Site lie within Landscape Character Area (LCA) No.29 – ‘Rodmersham Mixed Farmlands’ with the central parts of the Site identified as lying within LCA No.40 – ‘Rodmersham and Milstead Dry
18
Valley’ and southern / western parts of the Site lying within LCA No.42 – ‘Tunstall Farmlands’. The land to the north of A2 / London road is identified as lying within LCA No.31 – ‘Teynham Fruit Belt’.
8.8 The landscape characteristics of the LCA No.29 – ‘Rodmersham Mixed Farmlands’ character area are defined as follows:
• “A gently rolling landscape with steeply sloping, rounded, dry chalk valleys; • Complex geology of rich drift deposits, chalk and clay-with-flints; • Land largely used for grazing and arable production, with significant areas of fruit production, including traditionally managed orchards; • Isolated properties and farmsteads, occasional small-scale historic villages; • Occasional unsympathetic largescale modern agricultural buildings; • Scattered remnant deciduous woodlands at field boundaries; • Isolated long views from open grazing land, elsewhere enclosed by topography and vegetation; • A’ road and narrow winding lanes”
8.9 The assessment goes on to analyses the condition and sensitivities of the area and provides a summary as follows:
“Condition: Poor
Generally this landscape is in poor condition and is considered to be incoherent. In places the traditional character is well maintained, whilst elsewhere orchards have been removed to make way for large-scale arable and grazing land. Although some new orchards have been planted, the landscape remains damaged from the largescale removal of hedgerows which have been replaced by wire fencing. This has both further undermined the character of the landscape and opened up views. Coupled with the insignificant areas of woodland cover, the ecological interest of the area is poor.
The condition of the built development varies widely from large-scale modern agricultural sheds to fine historic cottages and churches, to derelict traditional Kentish buildings. Overall it may be said that built development currently has a moderate impact on the landscape with potential for improvement, through screening and restoration.
Sensitivity: Moderate
This is a moderately sensitive landscape. Many features help to reflect its historic functions. In general terms the visibility of this landscape is moderate. However, this
19
varies greatly from high on the open elevated slopes to low within the more enclosed fruit producing areas and the chalk valleys”.
8.10 The Study suggests landscape guidelines of “Restore and Create” that encourages the restoration and creation of features to strengthen the landscape character and outlines number of actions some of which would be relevant to the Site including:
• “Pay particular attention to the generic guidelines for fruit belt landscapes and on landmark buildings. • Restore and improve the remaining landscape structure of hedgerows, shelterbelts, remnant woodland and orchard and look for opportunities to create and link such features and to enclose the landscape, especially within denuded areas and along roads and lanes. • Conserve the traditional landscape character of the older/mature orchards. Improve the integration of large-scale modern agricultural buildings and new development into the landscape using woodland blocks and hedgerows. • Use local and vernacular materials appropriate to the location: for boundaries - red or yellow stock brick, estate iron railings, fuse-brick (in more suburban areas), or hedgerows, for roofs - Kent-peg tiles and occasional slate or thatch and corrugated sheeting on outbuildings and for building walls - weatherboarding, timber frame and plaster infill, red or yellow stock brick, white painted brick, brick oast roundels and weatherboarding. For new hedges and hedgerow trees - hawthorn, hazel, field maple, blackthorn, elder, dog rose, crab apple, bullace, damson and dogwood, for mixed woodland or other planting - hornbeam, ash, pedunculate oak, hazel, field maple, yew, beech and wild cherry. Additionally, within developed areas - older fruit tree varieties for trees, beech, box, holly or yew hedging. Shelterbelts – poplar or alder. Other - fruit orchards, predominantly cherry.”.
8.11 In relation to the landscape characteristics of the LCA No. 40 – ‘Rodmersham and Milstead Dry Valley’ character area are defined as follows:
• “Dry chalk valley, sloping steeply on either side to adjacent ridges; • Mixed geology of chalk overlain by drift deposits and clay-with-flints on the North Downs dip slope • Many narrow lanes traverse the valley. The M2 motorway that divides the area north-south is generally well screened despite its elevated position; • Enlarged arable fields are enclosed by numerous small to medium-scale woodlands, some used for the production of coppiced timber;
20
• Occasional isolated areas of well managed orchard; • Several small villages with historic buildings at the centre and enclosed by 20th century infill; • An enclosed landscape with isolated long views from strategic high points; • Strong sense of remoteness in some areas, particularly given the close proximity to the urban boundary.”
8.12 The assessment goes on to analyses the condition and sensitivities of the area and provides a summary as follows:
“Condition: Moderate
The landscape is generally in moderate condition. Whilst some parts are apparently intact, numerous elements have had a degrading effect creating areas that are locally poor. Many hedgerows are in good condition and well managed, but where fragmented, they have been supplemented or replaced with chestnut pale or post and wire fencing. The M2 motorway bridge is an unsympathetic feature within this otherwise rural landscape, which attracts fly tipping. Poorly screened commercial premises, located adjacent to the motorway, has been poorly sited on the elevated slopes above the valley floor. The functional integrity of the area is coherent. Woodland blocks, species rich hedgerows and orchards all provide habitats that are distinct and diverse. These have been fragmented and some areas lost as a result of agricultural intensification. However, the topography and location of woodland blocks means that many small isolated fields, which are valuable for biodiversity, remain. Settlements are in good condition and modern housing has had a moderate impact on the traditional character of the area, since properties tend to be set back from the road and are generally well screened.
Sensitivity: Moderate
Overall this is an area with moderate sensitivity overall, although there are localised parts with an exceptionally strong sense of remoteness given the proximity to the urban boundary. It is an enclosed landscape with isolated woodlands, fragmented hedgerows and traditional orchards. The rolling topography and vegetation retain the distinctiveness of the area and create a moderately visible landscape, more so at its exposed northern end following the loss of orchards”.
8.13 The Study suggests landscape guidelines of “Conserve and Create” that aims to conserve important landscape elements, whilst creating the landscape where traditional elements have been lost and goes on to outlines number of actions some of which would be relevant to the Site including:
21
• “Guidelines for the Rodmersham and Milstead Dry Valley aim to conserve important landscape elements, whilst creating the landscape where traditional elements have been lost. • Consider the generic guidelines for dry valleys and downs landscapes. • Refer to the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2009 – 2014 (First Revision 2009) for policies relating to the management of the Kent Downs AONB. • Conserve the rural setting of the Kent Downs AONB and the southern edge of Sittingbourne. Actions within this character area should be undertaken in accordance with the Core Strategy Natural Assets Policy which aims to conserve and enhance the AONB. • Conserve the distinctive and predominantly enclosed landscape character of valleys and hillsides (including panoramic views), together with the remaining landscape structure of hedgerows, shelterbelts, woodland and mature and remnant orchards. Additionally look for opportunities to restore this structure and to link features, especially within locally denuded parts of the area and along roads and lanes. • Use local and vernacular materials appropriate to the location: for boundaries - red or yellow stock, (occasional) red brick and flint for walls, picket fencing or hedgerows, for roofs - Kent-peg tiles, some slate and for building walls – some timber frame and plaster infill, white or black weatherboarding, red or yellow (for newer buildings) stock brick, (occasional) red brick and flint. For new hedges and hedgerow trees - hawthorn, hazel, field maple, blackthorn, dog rose, crab apple, elder, dogwood and pedunculate oak, for mixed woodland or other planting - ash, pedunculate oak, ash, hornbeam, hazel, field maple, sweet chestnut, lime, yew, beech and wild cherry. Additionally, within developed areas - older fruit tree varieties for trees, beech, box, holly or yew hedging. Shelterbelts – poplar or alder. Other - fruit orchards”.
8.14 In relation to the landscape characteristics of the LCA No. 42 – ‘Tunstall Farmlands’ character area are defined as follows:
• “Gently rising North Downs dip slope overlain with drift deposits of Thanet and Bagshot beds and clay-withflints; • Dry valley to the east with a strong sense of remoteness given the proximity to the urban edge; • Landscape around Kent Science Park maintains features characteristic of former parkland; • Areas of traditional orchard lost to agricultural intensification. Where present many orchards mature or remnant and grazed;
22
• Fragmentation of hedgerows along lanes and internal field boundaries lost with enlargement of field sizes; • Narrow winding lanes; • Former quarries with nature conservation interest; • Woodland is ancient and rare; • Historic villages and hamlets maintain rural character despite influence of modern development; • Strong, well defined urban edge; • M2 motorway and pylons detract from rural tranquillity”.
8.15 The assessment goes on to analyse the condition and sensitivities of the area and provides a summary as follows:
“Condition: Moderate
The Tunstall Farmlands are in moderate condition. On the whole the landscape is visually coherent and many features, including the built form, help to maintain the strong historic character of the area. However, a number of detracting features do interrupt and downgrade the landscape quality. These include the pylons and the motorway corridor, both of which are prominent elements. The modern buildings of the Kent Science Park bear no relevance to the surrounding historic landscape. Modern residential development has to a degree diluted the character of the villages and occasional isolated executive homes are an incongruous element in the landscape.
Sensitivity: High
This is an area of high sensitivity. The landscape has been opened up as a result agricultural intensification and tree cover is intermittent. Coupled with the more enclosed settlements this has created a landscape of moderate visibility, although there are some long views to the Swale.
The quality of the built environment is distinct and historic in the villages of Tunstall, Borden, Bredgar and the outlying hamlets. Here there are many fine buildings in local vernacular styles, their setting enhanced by mature trees in and around the settlements. There is a strong sense of place. The well defined urban edge of Sittingbourne is locally visible and here, the integrity and setting of some rural settlements is sensitive”.
23
8.16 The Study suggests landscape guidelines of “Conserve and Restore” that aim to conserve and restore the distinctive features whilst improving the general landscape within which they are set. and outlines number of actions some of which would be relevant to the Site including:
• Consider the generic guidelines for dry valleys and downs and Fruit Belt landscapes, landmark buildings and for commercial (including equine). • Refer to the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2009 – 2014 (First Revision 2009) for policies relating to the management of the Kent Downs AONB. • Conserve the rural setting of the Kent Downs AONB. • Actions within this character area should be undertaken in accordance with the Core Strategy Natural Assets Policy which aims to conserve and enhance the AONB. • Conserve the remote character belonging to the dry valley along the eastern edge of the area. • Conserve the parkland character around Kent Science Park and plant new parkland oak trees so that they mature to replace ageing specimens when they die. • Conserve the remaining landscape structure of hedgerows and shelterbelts, woodland, former parkland trees, vegetated quarries and mature and remnant orchards. Additionally, look for opportunities to diversify and restore such features to create a more enclosed landscape, whilst additionally creating links between existing features. • Consider ways, including major tree screening and sensitive earth modelling, to improve the appearance of the Kent Science Park and any associated infrastructure, particularly in views from the south/ south east. • Use local and vernacular materials appropriate to the location: for boundaries - red or yellow stock, red brick and flint for walls, chestnut paling/diamond spile fences, picket fencing or hedgerows, for roofs – Kent-peg tiles, occasional thatch, some slate and for building walls – white or black weatherboarding, tile hanging, timber frame and plaster infill, red or yellow (for newer buildings) stock brick, red brick and flint, also white painted brick. For new hedges and hedgerow trees - hawthorn, hazel, blackthorn, dog rose, crab apple, bullace, damson, field maple, dogwood, pedunculate oak, for mixed woodland or other planting - hornbeam, ash, hazel, field maple, wild cherry and sweet chestnut and pedunculate oak as parkland tree. Also goat willow, sallow, hawthorn, wayfaring tree, silver birch and elder in colonising quarry areas. Additionally, within developed areas - older fruit tree varieties for trees, beech hedging. Shelterbelts – poplar or alder. Other - fruit orchards”.
8.17 More recently, Swale Borough Council, appointed Land Use Consultants to carry out an assessment of the landscape sensitivity of the main settlement edges within Swale Borough and the Council published a final report entitled ‘Swale Landscape Sensitivity Assessment’ in May 2019. The
24
purpose of the Study was to provide a robust and up-to-date evidence base and assessment to inform the appropriate scale, form, and location of future development to minimise harm to landscape and the setting of settlements. The outputs of the study will be used by the local planning authority to: identify land where development would be most appropriate to minimise impact on landscape i.e. areas of least sensitivity, help in refining broad growth areas and inform the evaluation of potential development locations, and help establish site options for consideration the Sustainability Appraisal process and future consultations.
8.18 The document also refers to preliminary landscape and visual appraisals of four distinct areas of land being promoted as potential locations for new settlements, in response to SBC’s New Garden Communities Prospectus. It states that: “the new settlement appraisals complement and can be read in conjunction with this study: however, they are separate pieces of work with a different scope, as the landscape sensitivity assessment looks at strategic patterns of sensitivity to a generic scale and form of residential and employment development, whereas the appraisals consider specific emerging masterplans of a generally larger scale of overall development”.
8.19 The Site is located within five landscape sensitivity areas defined by the study and assesses these as having the following overall landscape sensitivity to residential or employment development:
Landscape Sensitivity Area + Landscape sensitivity to Landscape Sensitivity to related landscape character area Residential Development Employment Development
SE2 – Rodmersham Mixed Moderate - High Moderate – High Farmlands LCA (No.29)
SE3 – Rodmersham and Milstead High High Dry Valley LCA (No.40)
SE4 – Tunstall Farmlands LCA Moderate - High Moderate – High (No.42)
TM1 – Lynsted Enclosed Farmlands Moderate Moderate LCA (No.26)
TM2 – Rodmersham Mixed Moderate - High Moderate - High Farmlands LCA (No.29)
8.20 In addition to the above, Swale Borough have also completed a full review of Swale Local Landscape Designations (LLD) and published a report in October 2018. The review considered the Highsted Dry Valley AHLV (Kent Level) and recommended that the area largely meets the criteria for an LLD and recommended its retention and suggested two minor boundary changes to extend the designation northwards to cover two quarries and eastwards to cover parts of Highsted. This was subsequently confirmed by Swale Borough Council at a Local Plan Panel meeting dated 29th November 2018 together with a “Kent Downs – Rodmersham, Milstead and Highsted Dry Valley – Statement of Significance’”
25
8.21 The consideration of the above landscape sensitivity assessment, the review of local landscape designations and the more detailed comments received from SBC / LUC relating to the Site and its promotion through the ‘New Garden Communities Prospectus’ will be considered as part of the overall Masterplan and LVIA chapter.
Site Visibility
8.22 A number of assessments of the visibility of the Site within its surroundings has been carried out during August 2017, January, March and May 2018, February, March and April 2019 and March 2020. The assessment was carried out by foot, travelling along the network of local roads, footpaths, bridleways and other paths in the wider area. These assessments were informed by the ZTV of the previous much larger proposals for the Site and the visual assessments indicated that views towards the Site can be obtained from a number of vantage points in the immediate vicinity of the Site and a number of middle distance viewpoints to the north - west, north and south of the Site.
8.23 Based on the initial site visits the following viewpoints with views towards the Site have been identified as follows:
i) Local open views from sections of the A2 / London Road immediately adjoining the Site looking southwards; ii) Local open views from short sections of Swanstree Avenue, School Lane, Church Street, Dully Lane and Claxfield Road through and adjoining the northern parts of the Site looking eastwards and westwards; iii) Local open views from short sections of Public Footpath No.,ZR150, ZR155, ZR156, ZR157, ZR158, ZR194, ZR196, ZR197, ZR198, ZR199, ZR208, ZR209, ZR210, ZR211, ZR262, ZR272, ZR682, ZU30, ZU31, ZU31A and Restricted Byways No’s.ZU34A, ZU35 through and adjoining the northern parts of the Site looking north, east, west and southwards; iv) Local open, partial and restricted views from short section of Green Lane, Stockers Hill, Highsted Road, Highsted Valley and Cromers Road within the central parts of the Site generally looking north and south; v) Local open and partial views from section of Public Footpath No’s. ZU37, ZU39, ZR147, ZR155, ZR159, ZR214, ZR215 and Public Bridleway NO. ZR151,Restricted Byway No’s ZU38 and ZU39 through and adjoining the central parts of the Site looking north, east, west and southwards; vi) Local open and partial views from sections of Bottom Pond Road, Cheney Hill, Rawling Street, Broadaok Road, Ruins Barn Road and Bexon Lane through and adjoining the southern parts of the Site looking north, east, west and southwards;
26
vii) Middle and longer distance open / partial views from a short section of Public Footpath No.ZR191, ZR192, ZR205 and section of Lomas Road and Lower Road (which forms part of the National Cycle Network Route 1) to the north of the Site looking south; viii) Middle distance open and partial views from section of Public Footpath No’s. ZR199, ZR203, ZR259, ZR260, ZR261, ZR280, near Lynsted looking generally westwards; ix) Middle and longer distance open and glimpsed views from the short sections of Public Footpaths and Public Bridleways to the south of the M2 motorway within the Kent Downs AONB looking generally northwards; x) Middle and longer distance from section of Public Footpath and network of local roads / lane to the west of the Site near Tunstall looking eastwards; xi) Longer distance views from section of the network of local road / footpaths to the north including potential views sections of the Saxon Shore Way and Swale Heritage Trail.
8.24 The final visual assessment will be informed following the preparation of two Zone of Theoretical Visibility plans (ZTVs) relating to the specific development proposals for the Site. The first ZTV will be been prepared using the standard method of producing ZTV, which is based on the topographical data and proposed building height parameters. This is likely to indicate that the Site and Proposed Development could potentially be visible / seen from large swathes of north east Kent. The second ZTV will also be based on topographical data and the proposed building heights parameters, but the main visual barriers within the landscape such as existing built up areas, woodlands and tree belts will have been assigned assumed heights (woodland areas 15m, tree belts – 12m, housing areas 9-10m and commercial areas 14m). This generates a more realistic ZTV indicating that the visibility of the Site and Proposed Development is likely to be confined to a significantly reduced area within north east Kent.
8.25 At this stage, it is estimated that the ZTV will extend to the immediate surrounding countryside (landscape) areas up to 10 kilometres from the Site to the north and north east due to the low-lying topography of the landscape adjoining The Swale and Isle of Sheppey and up to 4 – 5 kilometres to the west, south, south-east and east. There are also likely to be number of outlying areas situated up to 15 kilometres from the Site where theoretically views of the Site and Proposed Development would be seen. These locations have been visited and potential views assessed.
8.26 The landscape and visual assessment will assess and consider these longer distance views including potential views from within the Kent Downs AONB to the south west, south and south east of the Site. It is proposed to agree the exact number and location of selected viewpoints with Swale Borough Council and Kent Downs AONB Unit as part of the ES process and, at this stage, 77No. potential viewpoints have been identified and these are included as Appendix A to this scoping report.
27
8.27 Based on the above, the principal ‘key’ viewpoints within the area surrounding the Site will be identified, and the viewpoints used for photographs will be selected to demonstrate the relative visibility of the Site (and existing development on it) and its relationship with the surrounding landscape and built forms. The selection of the key viewpoints was based on the following criteria:
i) The requirement to provide an even spread of representative viewpoints within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), and to up 4 kilometres around all sides of the Site; ii) From locations which represent a range of near, middle and long-distance views; iii) Whilst private views are relevant, public viewpoints i.e. from roads and public rights of way and other areas of open public access, will be selected since they are the most significant in terms of the number of receptors affected; and iv) Views from sensitive receptors within designated landscapes.
Potential Impacts
8.28 Potential significant landscape and visual effects may arise from:
• Loss of existing vegetation; • Changes to existing landscape patterns and character through the introduction of new development including lighting and landscape infrastructure; • Changes to existing landscape patterns and character through the construction of new buildings and infrastructure; and / or • Changes to existing views from residential properties, public rights of way and near and middle and longer distance views from locations to the west, north-west, south and east.
Approach & Methodology
Scope of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
8.29 A review of the 2017 Local Plan Proposals Map and the Magic interactive website revealed that the Site is located outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary of Sittingbourne and therefore within the open countryside. In addition, a small part of the southern portion of the Site lies within the Kent Downs AONB, (subject to Policy DM24 of the adopted Local Plan), whilst the central and southern parts of the Site are identified as lying within an Area of High Landscape Value (Kent Level) (Policy DM24) and the northern and western parts of the Site are designated as part of an Important Local Countryside Gap (Policy DM25). In addition, a number of the wooded areas within the Site are identified as Local Designated Site of Biodiversity (Policy DM28) and several of the roads are designated Rural Lanes, (subject to Policy DM26).
28
8.30 The initial site visit identified a number of potential landscape and visual issues and Table 8.1 below sets out the proposed scope of the landscape and visual impact assessment, insofar as it can be defined at this stage of the EIA process.
Table 8.1 – Proposed Scope of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Receptor Scoped Reason Action in (✓)/ Change and Likely out (x) potential effects significance of effect Construction and permanent land use change Landscape ✓ Loss of existing Construction could Tree and hedgerow survey to elements vegetation (trees, result in the loss of BS: 5837:2012 by shrubs, grass). existing landscape Arboriculturalist and features of local assessment of vegetation importance. lost.
Landscape ✓ Removal of Construction LVIA - Assessment of patterns and existing open activities result in development proposals on character fields and change to character required introduction of landscape new character has the development potential to including change significant effects to landform, lighting and landscape infrastructure.
Close range ✓ Construction of Construction LVIA - Assessment of visual new buildings effects may have development proposals from receptors – including change some localise key viewpoints required. people at to landform, adverse visual work, local lighting and effects that are residents and landscape temporary in public rights of infrastructure. nature. way network in the vicinity of and adjoining the site.
Medium to ✓ Potential views of Likely to be of LVIA – Assessment of long range construction slight adverse development from key visual activities and significance viewpoints to determine likely receptors e.g. new buildings visual effects. views from during viewpoints to construction set the north west, on the sloping north and east. and elevated As well as parts of the site. identified views from the Kent Downs AONB to the south.
29
Receptor Scoped Reason Action in (✓)/ Change and Likely out (x) potential effects significance of effect Construction and permanent land use change New Infrastructure and Operational effects Landscape ✓ Potential for new Introduction of new Input from Landscape elements landscape landscape Architect required into Master infrastructure elements could be Plan and Design and Access beneficial Statement compared with baseline.
Landscape ✓ Introduction of Proposed Input from Landscape character new Development and Architect required into Master development new landscape Plan and Design and Access including change infrastructure has Statement to landform, the potential to lighting and create beneficial landscape effects. infrastructure. Close range ✓ Introduction of New buildings and Input from Landscape visual new buildings landscape Architect required with receptors – including change infrastructure has particular focus on landscape people at to landform, the potential to mitigation and site boundary work, local lighting and result in adverse treatments. residents and landscape and beneficial public rights of infrastructure. effects. way network in the vicinity of and adjoining the site.
Medium to ✓ Potential views of Likely to be of no LVIA – Assessment of long range new buildings set significance development from key visual on sloping and viewpoints to determine likely receptors e.g. elevated parts of visual effects. views from the site. views from viewpoints to the north west, north and east. As well as identified views from the Kent Downs AONB to the south.
30
LVIA Methodology
8.31 The assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development will be undertaken using a methodology that accords with the “3rd Edition of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” (GLVIA3) published by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in 2013, and in accordance with the best practice guidance set out in the following documents:
• Landscape Character Assessment – “An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment” by Natural England (October 2014); ; • “An approach to landscape sensitivity assessment – to inform spatial planning and land management” by Natural England (June 2019); and • The lighting of the development will be assessed as an inherent part of the landscape and visual effects and the assessment of this component would be based upon “Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice” published by the Government, in conjunction with the Countryside Commission, in 1997 and “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” 2011 and ‘Dark Skies’ guidance from CPRE website.
8.32 A copy of the method is included as Appendix B to this scoping report. The night time assessment will be carried out separately and will form the basis for the Lighting and Night Time Assessment in the ES.
8.33 At the outset of the assessment of landscape and visual effects it is useful to provide a definition of the terms “Landscape effects” and “Visual effects”.
• Landscape effects: These consist of direct and indirect effects or changes in the fabric, character, individual features or elements and condition, (quality) of the landscape i.e. landscape receptors within the application site or surrounding area, and; • Visual effects: These are the predicted effects on views available to the public from publicly accessible areas and residential dwellings i.e. visual receptors. Specific effects result from changing the consistent elements within an existing view. This may be caused by construction of a new feature/element, or the obstruction or modification of an existing view. The overall effect upon visual amenity can range from degradation to enhancement.
8.34 In line with best practice, the landscape assessment will include:
• A desk review of all relevant documents, landscape planning policy and guidance including:
31
a) National Planning Policy Framework February 2019; b) National Planning Policy Guidance - Various March 2014 onwards; c) The adopted Bearing Fruits 2031 - Swale Borough Local Plan July 2017; d) Swale Borough Council – Local Plan Proposals Map e) The Natural England National Character Area Profiles published in April 2014 - ‘North Downs’ NCAP No.119; f) ‘Landscape Assessment of the Kent Downs’ 1995 and Kent Downs AONB Unit updates in the emerging Management Plan; g) ‘Landscape Assessment of Kent’ 2004 h) ‘Swale Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal’ September 2011 where relevant; i) ‘Swale Landscape Sensitivity Assessment”, October 2019 where relevant; j) Swale Local Landscape Designation – Review and Recommendations Report”, October 2018, where relevant; k) Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014 – 2019 Second Revision April 2014; l) ‘The Kent Downs Landscape Design Handbook’, m) ‘The Kent Downs Setting Position Statement’ n) Historic England ‘National Heritage List for England’ (https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/ ); o) Aerial photographs (Google Earth / Bing Maps); p) Magic website (For Schedule Ancient Monuments/ Listed Buildings / Landscape Designations);
• A field survey to assess baseline landscape character and visual amenity; • A description of the key features associated with the Proposed Development that have the potential to alter the characteristics of the landscape and visual baseline; • Appropriate generic and site-specific mitigation that is reasonable and possible; • Assessment of the predicted significance of residual effects on the landscape resource, character and visual amenity including public rights of way network and rural lanes within and adjoining the Site, and compliance with landscape policy; and • An assessment of cumulative effects arising from the Proposed Development, in combination with other proposed large-scale development proposals in the locality.
8.35 The landscape chapter will describe the effects of the Proposed Development on both landscape receptors and visual receptors using assessments tables as appropriate.
8.36 The landscape and visual effects are a function of the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change. The evaluation of potential effects is summarised in the Table 8.2 below with significant effects toned in grey:
32
Table 8.2: Evaluation of Effects for Landscape and Visual Assessment:
Magnitude of Landscapes and Visual Sensitivity Change Very High High Medium Low Very Low Very High Major Major Substantial Moderate / Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial High Major Substantial Moderate / Moderate Moderate / Substantial Substantial Slight Medium Substantial Moderate / Moderate Moderate / Slight Substantial Slight Low Moderate / Moderate Moderate / Slight Negligible Substantial Slight Negligible Moderate Slight Slight / Negligible Negligible Negligible
8.37 It should be emphasised that while the methodology is designed to be robust and transparent, professional judgement is ultimately applied to determine the significance of each effect.
33
9 WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY AND FLOOD RISK
Key Issues
9.1 This chapter will assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on water quality, hydrology and flood risk.
9.2 A majority of the Site area (approx. 98%) is located within Flood Zone 1, indicating that it has the lowest risk of flooding from rivers and seas. However, as would be expected for a site of this area, appropriate consideration will be given to the management of flooding through an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), the findings of which will be summarised in the ES.
9.3 As is common for sites of this scale, there are existing incidents of surface water flooding occurring across the Site, associated with the existing surface water regime. The FRA will consider how this surface water can be adequately managed on site, to both avoid any increase in off-site flooding and to ensure that there are no detrimental incidents of surface water flooding on the Site. The drainage strategy will also address the 4 pillars of SuDS – water quantity, water quality, amenity and biodiversity.
Potential Impacts
9.4 The Proposed Development will invariably increase the hardstanding area of the Site and therefore the volume and rate of run-off of surface water will increase. This will impact on flood risk both within the Site and on land outside of the Site boundary. The drainage solution will need to address this appropriately. The impact of the Proposed Development on surface water is likely to be significant during both the operational and construction phases.
9.5 A small part of the Site is located with Ground Water Source Protection Zone 1 (inner zone) and the rest within zone 2 (outer zone) and zone 3 (total catchment area). Therefore, the impact on the ground water from the risk of contamination needs to be considered thoroughly through the FRA, Drainage Strategy and ES.
9.6 The Site is located over Principal and Secondary A aquifers. Therefore, the impact on groundwater abstraction for water supply will need to be considered within a Water Cycle Strategy.
34
Methodology
9.7 The following documents will be acknowledged in the preparation of this chapter:
• Making Space for Water; • National Planning Policy Framework; • UK Climate Projections 2018; and • KCC Drainage and Planning Policy Statement – December 2019.
9.8 The ES will draw on the FRA that is being produced for the Site as well as supporting information from other sources. The assessment will be undertaken via a desk study and consultation with various statutory bodies (including the Environment Agency). This will assess the impacts of the development against a set of threshold criteria that have been defined to establish the sensitivity, magnitude and significance of the impacts identified. The sensitivity of receptors is a matter of professional judgement and is taken to be the likelihood that one of the sensitive receptors suffers the impact.
35
10 ARCHAEOLOGY
Key Issues
10.1 There are no designated below ground archaeological assets (Scheduled Monuments) within or close to the Site. However, there is potential for the survival of non-designated archaeological assets with heritage significance to exist within the Site. Built Heritage is addressed separately in Section 11.
10.2 Historic landscape features such as post medieval field boundaries may also be present.
Potential Impacts
10.3 Construction has the potential to lead to the damage or loss of identified and as yet undiscovered archaeological assets, including buried features and layers, as well as sediments of geo- archaeological and palaeo-environmental significance, which may exist within the Site.
10.4 These impacts may arise via the process of site clearance, construction of working areas and compounds, constructions of new buildings, roads and infrastructure, enabling works, service connections, hard and soft landscaping, tree planting and any other ground works, including temporary works.
10.5 Changes to the landscape, such as removal or interruption of field systems, may affect the integrity of historic landscapes.
Methodology
10.6 The Archaeology and Heritage chapter will provide an assessment of the potential effects on cultural heritage remains within the Site and a defined Study Area surrounding the Site boundary. For the purposes of this chapter ‘archaeology and heritage’ is defined as below ground archaeology, historic landscape and historic landscapes. Built Heritage is considered separately in Section 11.
10.7 The assessment will be undertaken with reference to national planning policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and specifically Section 16 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the historic environment’, along with relevant local policies where applicable.
10.8 In the absence of an industry standard methodology for heritage impact assessment, the assessment methodology to be used will be based upon that outlined in the Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB Vol. 11 Section 3 Part 2, LA106). This is recognised as the
36
most up-to-date and rigorous methodology available for cultural heritage assessment within the Environmental Impact Assessment process.
10.9 In order to assess these potential impacts an Archaeological and Historic Landscape Desk- Based Assessment has been carried out. This has included the following scope of works:
• analysis of the Kent Historic Environment Record within a 1km study area; • analysis of National Heritage List for England; • analysis of National heritage datasets including the Archaeological Data Service, Heritage Gateway, OASIS, PastScape and National Record of the Historic Environment Excavation Index • analysis of historic maps held by Kent Archives; • analysis of historic aerial photographs; • analysis of LIDAR imagery • use of relevant national, regional and thematic Research Frameworks (South East Research Framework (KCC) • Relevant primary and secondary sources held at the local archive and in Wessex Archaeology’s own library; • Archaeological reports relating to excavations and observations within the vicinity of the site and the study area; • a walkover of the Site and its environs to understand the existing ground conditions and to assess the potential effects on the historic landscape, non-designated and designated heritage assets (such as listed buildings and Conservation Areas); • consultation with the archaeological advisors to SBC in order to check whether archaeological fieldwork is required to inform the planning application; and • prediction of the effects of the Proposed Development on heritage assets and the potential need for mitigation.
10.10 Following the completion of this assessment (which will be included as an appendix to the ES chapter) a full ES chapter will be produced outlining the baseline position and predicting the likely effects on heritage assets. A geophysical survey of the Site is currently underway which will inform the need for further archaeological assessment. This will be included as an appendix to the ES chapter and will inform the assessment of effects.
10.11 Potential significant effects as a result of the Proposed Scheme will be described in terms of their deviation from the archaeological and heritage baseline environment, to be based upon the Archaeological and Historic Landscape Desk-Based Assessment, Geophysical Survey and any subsequent archaeological investigation to be undertaken within the Site.
37
10.12 Significance will be determined based on the relative importance of the heritage assets (receptors) affected and the magnitude of change from the baseline conditions. The magnitude of change will be assessed on a scale (from large to negligible) and the relative importance of the heritage assets will be assessed on a scale of high to negligible. Assessment of significance will be based on professional judgement; definitive assessments will be provided for each effect, along with conclusions.
10.13 All work will be carried out in accordance with the Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment issued by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2017); Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment by English Heritage (2008); Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets by Historic England (2015); Specification for Standard Desk-Based Assessment and Walkover Survey (Kent County Council) and Guiding Principles for Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment (Kent County Council & Planarch 2006).
38
12 BUILT HERITAGE
Key Issues
12.1 The Site does not contain any designated or non-designated heritage receptors. The Site is not associated with any World Heritage Sites or Registered Battlefields.
12.2 A study radius of 1km has been set around the site boundary to identify heritage receptors in the surrounding area, the value of which could be affected by the Proposed Development. Site visits have been carried out, with Historic England, to help identify the key receptors that may be affected and to identify also how the masterplanning exercise should be informed by the presence of these heritage assets to reduce the potential impacts.
12.3 The scoping exercise and the built heritage baseline identifies a large number of heritage receptors in the area surrounding the Site. The presence of heritage receptors outside the redline boundary means the effects on these assets would arise from a change to their setting as a result of the Proposed Development.
12.4 The following heritage receptors have been identified in this study area:
• Listed buildings; • Conservation areas; • Scheduled Ancient Monuments; • Key locally-listed buildings (non-designated heritage receptors)
12.5 The statutory provisions set out at Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’) are therefore engaged and these will be outlined in the Legislation and Planning Policy section of the forthcoming ES chapter.
12.6 It should be noted that for the purposes of EIA, heritage assets are referred to as heritage ‘receptors’ and heritage significance is expressed as ‘value.’
Baseline Findings
12.7 The Heritage Baseline Study scoping exercise has been carried out in accordance with paragraph 189 of the NPPF which requires a proportionate approach taken to the identification and assessment of built heritage receptors. Accordingly, at this stage, we have identified all designated heritage receptors within a 1km radius of the Site.
39
12.8 This work has identified and described the value and the contribution made by the settings to the value of the heritage receptors within the (built) heritage study area. The study will provide the basis for agreement between the Applicant, the Council and Historic England.
12.9 The key receptors identified in the study area and which will be subject to further assessment are as follows:
• 6 Conservation Areas; • 7 Grade I listed buildings; • 8 Grade II* listed building; • 130 Grade II listed buildings; and • 1 Key locally-listed building.
12.10 Historic England identify in their scoping response the importance of considering the value and effect on the setting of the following receptors in particular:
• Church of St Nicolas, Rodmersham (grade I) • Church of St Lawrence, Bapchild (grade I); • Rodmersham Green Conservation Area; • Rodmersham House and nearby barn (grade II); • Woodstock Cottage and Broadoak Farm (grade II); and • Bexon Court (grade II).
12.11 The particular characteristics of the area and the historic development of this part of Kent mean dispersed historic farming settlements and hamlets derive some value from a visual and functional connection to their rural settings which helps explain their historic use.
12.12 In some cases the attractive rural setting also enhances the aesthetic values of individual receptors and the ability to appreciate a connection between an asset and its setting is important to consider where there is a strong visual connection between the two. This work will be identified in the baseline Heritage Assessment.
12.13 Historic England note in their scoping response that a number of views will be important to consider as part of the baseline work and overall assessment, these are identified as:
• The Church of St Nicolas, grade I, whose tower is silhouetted on a long flat ridge in views towards the Site from the east. • Shorter views are also important in understanding the relationship between an asset and its setting
40
• Rodmersham Conservation Area, where a number of views to the surrounding countryside are possible from the village green at the centre of the village.
12.14 These will be considered in the final assessment.
Methodology
12.15 In order to assess these potential impacts an initial Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment will be carried out. This will include the following scope of works:
• analysis of the Kent Historic Environment Record; • analysis of historic maps held by Kent Archives; • analysis of historic aerial photographs held by the Historic England Archives Service; • National Library of Scotland, Map Search
41
12.16 The assessment of the value of the receptors, and the ensuing assessment of the likely impact upon that value will be carried out in accordance with adopted policy and guidance which set out best practice on the approach to development and the historic environment.
12.17 In assessing the effect of development proposals on heritage receptors, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) (‘NPPF’) states that:
“In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.”
12.18 ‘Significance’ (for heritage policy) is defined in the NPPF (Annex 2) as follows:
“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.”
12.19 This is reaffirmed by Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015).
12.20 It is commonly agreed that Grade I and II* listed buildings and World Heritage Sites are of “exceptional” and “particularly important” interest; therefore these are generally afforded a higher heritage value. This differentiation is best summarised by the drafting of paragraph 189 of the NPPF, which states that the “level of detail [to describe the significance of heritage assets] should be proportionate to the assets’ importance”; thus, a grading is appropriate. This assessment, carried out within this study, has had due and proportionate regard to all heritage receptors assessed.
12.21 Where a proposal may have an effect on the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced, a qualitative assessment is made of whether, how and to what degree setting contributes to the significance of a heritage receptor. Setting is defined in the NPPF as:
“the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
42
12.22 The assessment of setting is informed by the checklist of potential attributes outlined by the Historic England guidance document Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) (‘GPA3’).
12.23 GPA3 identifies five steps towards assessing the implications of development proposals which may affect the setting of heritage assets (it is consistent with other guidance):
• Identify the assets affected; • Assessing the contribution setting makes to significance; • Assessing the effect of the proposed development; • Maximising enhancement and minimising harm; and • Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
12.24 The ES Chapter will consider the likely effects on heritage receptors during following stages of the Proposed Development: the demolition and construction stage, the completed or ‘operational’ stage, and also in the context of cumulative developments.
12.25 The demolition and construction stage comprises the short- to medium-term activities that take place to realise the Proposed Development. These generally include activities associated with clearing the site and construction, as well as site management such as the erection of hoarding and temporary access routes. These activities are temporary and will have no permanent effects on the value of the majority of receptors identified in the baseline.
12.26 At the completed stage, the change in use, alignment, height, scale and massing as a result of the Proposed Development, together with the provision of infrastructure, new buildings and green landscaping and buffers, would significantly alter the existing character of the Site, as well as views to, from, and through the Site. The setting and context of nearby built heritage receptors, including listed and locally listed buildings, and conservation areas, could also be affected.
12.27 The sensitivity of the built heritage receptors will be assessed as high, medium or low. The sensitivity of receptors is determined on the basis of their value (identified in the baseline assessment) and susceptibility to the type of change introduced by the Proposed Development. The assessment of the sensitivity of the receptor under consideration is moderated to take into account a judgement about its quality in the round.
12.28 The magnitude of the change to the composition and/or character of the receptor as a result of the Proposed Development takes account of factors including the proximity, scale and the contribution
43
of the Proposed Development to the value of the receptor. The magnitude of the impact resulting from the Proposed Development will be assessed as major, moderate, minor or negligible.
12.29 The final assessment of likely effects is based on an assessment of the nature of the existing condition of the receptor and its sensitivity to change, combined with an assessment of the nature and magnitude of proposed change, made through relevant guidance and policy and based on professional judgement and experience.
12.30 A likely effect will be judged to be none, negligible, minor, moderate or major. The type of likely effect is further qualified as beneficial, neutral or adverse.
12.31 A significant likely effect is that judged to be Moderate or Major. Likely effects which are judged to be Moderate/Minor or below (i.e. Minor, Negligible or None) are not significant.
12.32 Where the effect is minor, moderate or substantial adverse, good design can reduce or remove potential harm or provide enhancement, and design quality may be the main consideration in determining the balance of harm and benefit.
12.33 Finally, an overall assessment of cumulative effects i.e. of the effect of the Proposed Development taking into account other proposed and consented schemes, will also be provided. The approach to cumulative assessment will be to consider the effects of the Proposed Development in combination with the cumulative schemes.
44
13 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION
Key Issues
13.1 The Site is dominated by arable land, along with intensively-managed orchards, woodland, scrub, grassland, tall ruderal vegetation, trees and hedgerows, whilst disused quarries are present which support a mosaic of habitats dominated by developing woodland and scrub.
13.2 The disused quarries at the west of the Site, supporting a mosaic of habitats including species- rich grassland, are subject to non-statutory designation as Highsted Quarries Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Land adjacent to the Site at the south is designated as Cromers Wood LWS, and comprises ancient woodland. In addition to this, two further areas of ancient woodland are present within the Site, comprising Highsted Wood, located adjacent to the southern boundary of Highsted Quarries, and Bex Wood located at the south of the Site, to the east of Ruins Barn Road.
13.3 Other habitats within the Site considered to be of importance at the local level include other woodland, an area of parkland/scattered trees, hedgerows/treelines and veteran trees.
13.4 A number of statutory designations are located within the wider surrounds of the Site, including the Swale Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and Medway Estuary and Marshes SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site.
13.5 The Site supports a number of habitats and features that are suitable to support protected species as set out below:
• Bats – The Site contains some habitats of value to foraging and commuting bats in the form of hedgerows, treelines, woodland, species-rich grassland and mosaic habitats, although much of the Site comprises arable land and intensively managed orchards of low habitat value. As such, to assess use of the Site by foraging and commuting bats, manual and automated activity surveys have been undertaken between April and October 2017 (inclusive) in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust guidance. Monthly surveys were undertaken within areas of elevated habitat suitability for bats, with areas dominated by arable land and orchards subject to surveys on three occasions. A moderate number of trees considered to be of potential value to roosting bats have been identified at the Site, together with a number of buildings and tunnel openings within the quarries which provide bat roosting potential. Further survey has been undertaken in respect of features likely to be impacted under the proposals during summer 2018 to provide an assessment of roosting activity.
45
• Badger – Badger activity has been recorded across the Site, most notably including main setts at the south west of Highsted Wood and associated with a hedgerow in the north of the Site. Other setts considered to be largely outlier and subsidiary setts are also located throughout the Site. • Dormice – The Site contains habitats of value to Dormice in the form of woodland and hedgerows, whilst Cromers Wood to the south of the Site is known to support this species. As such, surveys have been undertaken for this species based on deployment of nest tubes within areas of suitable habitat, checked on a number of occasions between June and late November 2017. Presence of this species has been recorded at a number of locations within the Site including hedgerows within the north east, at Highsted Wood and within hedgerows and wooded areas in the south west. • Wintering Birds – Given the proximity of the Swale SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site, wintering bird survey visits were undertaken during January to March 2017 to assess any use of the Site by overwintering bird species across the full site, whilst the area around Rodmersham was subject to additional surveys during October 2018 to March 2019. Relatively high numbers of wading birds were recorded during the January 2017 and October 2018 visits, likely associated with notably severe weather. The other two visits did not record any significant interest, albeit small numbers of wading birds including Curlew were recorded, whilst large flocks of common birds such as the red listed Starling were recorded. The majority of notable species were recorded at fields to the north of Rodmersham. • Breeding Birds - Three breeding bird surveys have been undertaken during May to June 2017 to provide an assessment of breeding bird activity at the Site. These surveys have recorded a number of red listed species breeding at the Site, whilst Barn Owl, Quail and Turtle Dove were also recorded but not proven to be breeding. The majority of notable species were recorded at fields at the east of the Site. • Great Crested Newt – Several ponds are present within the Site and its nearby surrounds. These were assessed for their suitability to support amphibian species, and where appropriate were subject to eDNA survey (subject to access) for Great Crested Newt in 2017. Presence of Great Crested Newt was confirmed within an offsite pond at Cromers Wood, whilst remaining ponds were either largely unsuitable (e.g. dry at the time of survey) or returned a negative result for this species. • Reptiles – A number of areas were recorded to support habitat of potential value to reptiles such as field margins, rough grassland and scrub mosaic. As such the Site was subject to survey for this species group during July and August 2017. Moderate numbers of Common Lizard and Slow Worm (respective peak adult counts of 22 and 35 across the whole site) have been recorded within these areas during the surveys.
46
• Invertebrates – The majority of the Site comprises arable land and intensively managed orchards which provide few opportunities for invertebrate species, although some potential opportunities for this species group are present. As such a rapid habitat assessment for invertebrates was undertaken in 2017, with detailed surveys of the quarry, parkland and Ancient Woodland habitats undertaken in 2018. 12 notable invertebrate species were recorded, although five of these would not be designated on the basis of current knowledge, whilst most habitats were not recorded to support a particularly rich invertebrate assemblage. The central quarry area and parkland were recorded to support the most notable invertebrate interest.
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
13.6 Designations: Potential for adverse effects on Highsted Quarries LWS as a result of building, noise pollution, light pollution, recreational pressure and cat predation will be considered. Notably, the northern quarry, recorded to be encroached by secondary woodland and not characteristic of the habitat types for which the quarry is designated, is likely to be lost to built development. Enhancement and ongoing management of the central and southern quarries is therefore proposed to compensate for this habitat loss. Cromers Wood LWS will not be encroached upon, however it will be considered in relation to impacts resulting from noise pollution, light pollution, recreational pressure and cat predation. Appropriate safeguarding measures will be implemented, together with the provision of appropriate buffers from the boundaries of these designations.
13.7 Statutory designations including The Swale SSSI, SPA and Ramsar and Medway and Estuary Marshes SSSI, SPA and Ramsar are considered to be relatively well removed from the Site such that construction activities would be unlikely to result in any adverse effects, although consideration will be given to operational effects such as recreational pressure and air pollution.
13.8 Habitats: The majority of the Site is characterised by arable land and intensively-managed orchards considered to be of low ecological value. Habitats of elevated value are present and include ancient and semi-natural woodland, mosaic habitat within the disused quarries, species-rich grassland, trees, hedgerows and scrub. Where practicable, these habitats will be retained and protected during works, although some losses may be required. Notably, due to other site constraints, it may be necessary to locate the main access road through a small part of existing woodland, resulting in a minor
47
loss of Ancient Woodland. Consideration will be given to potential impacts including habitat damage, degradation or loss, with mitigation and compensation proposed as required.
13.9 Protected species: Potential impacts to each of the protected species groups on site will be assessed within Aspect Ecology’s ecological appraisal for the Site. Anticipated effects are outlined below:
• Roosting bats may be impacted if trees and buildings with bat roosting potential require removal. Appropriate survey work and associated mitigation will be implemented if necessary. • Bat commuting and foraging areas may be impacted upon by the proposals through the loss of habitats, connectivity and increased levels of external lighting associated with the development. Habitats of elevated value will be retained where possible, whilst compensatory habitat will be provided with an aim to offset losses. An appropriate lighting scheme will be developed. • Badgers may be impacted by loss of foraging habitat, disruption to commuting routes and disturbance to setts. Appropriate safeguarding measures will be implemented during construction works, with sett closures carried out under licence if required, whilst landscaping proposals will seek to maintain commuting and foraging habitat. • Dormouse may be impacted upon through the loss of woody vegetation and habitat connectivity, in addition to cat predation and lighting. Habitats of elevated value will be retained where possible, whilst compensatory habitat will be provided with an aim to offset losses. • Birds may be impacted upon through the loss of suitable vegetation, including woody vegetation for nesting, in addition to disturbance during both the construction and operational stages of the development. Appropriate safeguards will be implemented during such works, whilst new native planting will be provided which will compensate for such losses. • Great Crested Newt are considered unlikely to be present at the majority of the Site, although an assessment of potential effects (such as loss of distant terrestrial habitat) will be included. • Reptiles may be impacted through loss of suitable vegetation, with a risk of injury during construction works. As such, appropriate safeguards will be implemented during works, whilst new habitat creation will maintain opportunities for this species group following development. • Invertebrates may be affected through degradation and loss of habitat, although the proposals will seek to maintain habitat opportunities through new planting and compensatory habitat creation where losses of elevated value habitats are unavoidable.
48
13.10 Full mitigation strategies will be prepared for each of the impacted species following assessment of the likely significant effects. Such mitigation measures are likely to include the implementation of safeguarding measures to protect important habitats and protected species during construction works, such as protective fencing and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to reduce effects of dust, noise and hydrology during construction works; the sensitive design of lighting; replacement planting and habitat creation; and the provision of open space to enhance green infrastructure and recreational opportunities within the Site, whilst providing enhanced opportunities for faunal species.
13.11 In the case of Dormice, a European Protected Species (EPS) licence will be sought from Natural England at the appropriate stage, whilst should suitable habitat be affected, an EPS licence will also be sought in relation to Great Crested Newt and roosting bats.
Methodology
13.12 A desktop study was undertaken in 2017, contacting both the local records centre (Kent & Medway Biological Records Centre) and reviewing electronic resources (e.g. MAGIC database) to identify known ecological constraints such as statutory or non-statutory designations, or known sites for protected species.
13.13 The Site was initially surveyed based on extended Phase 1 survey methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 20101) during 2017, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. An update survey is proposed to inform the ES and record any changes to habitats and land management at the Site.
13.14 Based on the habitats present at the Site and the identified potential for protected and notable species, Phase 2 survey work has been undertaken for bats, Badger, Dormice, birds, Great Crested Newt, reptiles and invertebrates, in accordance with standard guidance. It is considered that these Phase 2 surveys will ensure that all significant habitat and faunal issues are assessed and that no other surveys are required in order to inform the baseline assessment.
13.15 The EIA assessment will be undertaken following the principles set out in the IEEM publication ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom’ (2019), and will include an assessment of cumulative effects, details of appropriate mitigation measures, and details of any residual effects (should any exist following mitigation).
1 Handbook for Phase I habitat survey: A technique for environment audit. JNCC, 2010.
49
14 SOILS, GEOLOGY, CONTAMINATED LAND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Key Issues Soil, Geology & Contaminated Land
14.1 Information obtained from the British Geological Survey (BGS) and Envirocheck® report indicates that the Site is predominantly located over superficial deposits comprising Clay with Flints Formation and / or Head Deposits both of which consist of clay, silt, sand and gravel.
14.2 The recorded bedrock geology underlying the Site comprises Thanet Formation towards the northern area of site, comprising fine grained sand that can be clayey and glauconitic. Seaford Chalk outcrops (and underlies the Thanet Formation) over the remaining area and consists of firm, white chalk with conspicuous semi-continuous nodular and tabular flint seams.
14.3 Further investigation has recently been undertaken, as such the Site Investigation report written in 2018 will be updated with these recent findings.
14.4 The Site is underlain by Head Deposits (Brickearth) which fall within a minerals safeguarding area. As noted previously, further investigation has recently been undertaken and this will be further assessed.
14.5 The quality of the agricultural land will be updated based upon the recent (further) site investigation findings.
Key Issues Waste Management
14.6 A high level scoping exercise will be undertaken to consider whether significant environmental effects may occur because of waste being generated by the construction and operational phases of the proposed development and its multiple land uses.
14.7 Wastes will be generated during the construction phase and subsequently once the site has been developed and is operational there will be routine wastes associated with the activities of the various land uses within the development (be that residential, commercial, industry, retail, employment, leisure, educational, community etc).
Potential Impacts Soil, Geology & Contaminated Land
14.8 The following potential sources of contamination and receptors have been identified whilst conducting the Phase 1 desk study.
50
- Presence of potential contaminants from previous land use adjacent to site - Principal and Secondary Aquifers, surface water features, construction workers, ground workers and future residents / users in addition to buildings on the outline development and proposed M2/A2 link road alignment.
- Geo-hazards – Potential for the following geo-hazards to be present on site - ground dissolution, running sands, collapsible ground.
14.9 Extensive site intrusive works (in addition to those already undertaken) will be required to determine the severity of the above potential impacts.
Potential Impacts Waste Management
14.10 Impact to existing waste management practices and infrastructure in the local and regional area (which are in turn governed by national, regional, and local policies).
14.11 The proposed development has the potential to generate vast amounts of waste during the constructional phase. Once operational this will create a significant new demand on the existing waste infrastructure in and around Sittingbourne (and at regional level). There is more than ever pressure nationally to reduce consumption (avoid landfill disposal) and to maximise all opportunities to support a circular economy in line with current government guidance.
Methodology Soil, Geology & Contaminated Land
14.12 During the assessment process the following key constraints will be investigated and adverse effects will be minimised through embedded and additional mitigation where practicable:
• The presence of any contaminated land;
• The presence of minerals safeguarding areas; and
• The presence of agricultural land
14.13 The presence of contamination and its potential to cause significant harm to the receptors identified above will be investigated in accordance with the Environment Agency Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM), BS 10175:2011, BS 5930:2015 and BS EN 1997 (Eurocode 7). This comprises a phased sequence of desk study (previously written) intrusive investigation (currently being updated to reflect the recent Site Investigation works), and qualitative and semi-quantitative risk assessment.
51
14.14 Remedial options will be formulated based on these assessments and agreed with the regulators. The remediation will be subject to validation and sign off.
Methodology Waste Management
14.15 The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) produced a guidance document Materials and Waste in Environmental Impact Assessment (2020), which sets out a methodology to assess the impacts and associated effects of material consumption and disposal of waste within EIAs. The IEMA guidance will be used to assess the waste and materials effects for the Proposed Development. Additionally, local authority guidance for planning of new developments will be used (where available).
14.16 The aim of the waste assessment will be to determine the likely waste generation rates and how waste should be managed during site clearance, construction and during operation of the Proposed Development. The desk-based waste assessment will involve the following:
• An assessment of waste collection systems operated and co-ordinated by the Local Council (Waste Collection Authority);
• An assessment of current baseline conditions in relation to waste generation rates and disposal facilities within County Council (Waste Disposal Authority) area;
• A review of the typical waste arisings, management practices and recycling rates within the Local Council area from a review of publicly available statistics e.g. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published Waste Statistics (where available) and information on other public websites;
• Estimates of the amount of waste generated, by type, throughout the construction phase of the Proposed Development with reference to data on similar large scale construction projects published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) SMARTWaste project; and
• An estimate of waste generation and storage requirements for the completed, occupied development using British Standard BS5906:2005 Waste Management in Buildings. This document provides guidance on the waste arisings and consequently storage provision.
52
15 TRANSPORTATION
Key Issues
15.1 The key issues to be considered within this chapter are:
• Public Transport Accessibility – for the existing baseline and future scenarios; • Pedestrian and cycle infrastructure improvements; • Highway capacity of both the local and strategic network, including the impact of a proposed new highway link between M2 and A2 and newly formed junctions at either end; and taking account of a separate proposal for a new highways link between A2 and Swale Way to be constructed by others and included as a reserved corridor in the Local Plan (known as Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road (SNRR) under Policy AS1); and • Highway safety.
Potential Impacts
15.2 The potential impacts to be assessed within this chapter will be as follows:
• Disruption to road users, due to construction and operational phase vehicle movements; • Additional traffic from net vehicular trips; • Additional site delivery activity; • Additional public transport use due to land use intensification; • The implications of traffic diversion from the existing network to the new road infrastructure; and • Additional walking/cycling activity due to land use intensification. • Severance and amenity impact to routes.
Methodology
15.3 A Transport Assessment (TA) will be carried out to examine the implications of the Proposed Development on the surrounding transport network. The results of this will be summarised in the ES.
15.4 The TA will be completed in accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance, published online in 2014 by the Department for Communities and Local Government and subject to regular updates.
53
15.5 The assessment will consider the potential significant transport effects arising from the development, in accordance with the best practice guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (IEA, 1993).
15.6 The potential effects will cover:
• Construction vehicle activity; • Additional car trips; • Additional highways infrastructure; • Additional site delivery activity; • Additional public transport use; and • Additional walking / cycling activity.
15.7 The TA and therefore the ES Transport Chapter will adopt the Swale Strategic Transport model as the basis for its assessment.
15.8 Various measures will be proposed to mitigate any significance adverse impacts, to include various travel management strategies, as follows:
• Off-site highway network mitigation; • Delivery of additional on-site highway infrastructure that provides a net benefit to over highway conditions; • Delivery of transport infrastructure/service improvements to encourage modal shift; • Framework Travel Plan (to manage people movements); • Delivery & Servicing Plan (to manage deliveries and servicing trips, including waste); and • Construction Management Plan (to manage the transport of materials and workers to and from the Site during the construction period).
54
16 SOCIO-ECONOMICS, POPULATION AND HUMAN HEALTH
Key Issues
16.1 Socio-economic effects are considered likely to have the most direct impact upon existing and future residents of the larger settlement of Sittingbourne and the outlying smaller villages such as Bapchild and Woodstock. Assessment will, therefore, focus on a Study Area comprising the administrative wards of Borden; Chalkwell; Grove; Kemsley; Milton Regis; Murston; Roman; St Michaels; West Downs; Woodstock and Teynham & Lynsted, which will be compared to a wider context assessment of the Borough of Swale and the South East Region.
16.2 Socio-economic effects can be expected to impact upon key receptors at both construction phase and operational phase. Key receptors in this respect are considered to be: effects on population and housing; employment; local expenditure; education; primary healthcare; community facilities provision and open space provision.
Potential Impacts
16.3 The Proposed Development may result in the following impacts:
• A permanent increase in housing provision, affordable housing provision and local population; • An increase in short-term, direct and indirect employment during construction and in permanent employment once completed; • An increase in household / business expenditure once completed; • An increased demand for primary and secondary school places once completed; • An increased demand for primary healthcare services once completed; • An increased demand for community facilities once completed; and • Effects on local open space provision once completed.
Assessment & Methodology
16.4 The Chapter will include the following methodology:
• Review of the policy context - at local, regional and national level; • Baseline review using accepted Government sources such as the 2011 Census, Labour Force Survey, NOMIS and Indices of Deprivation (2019); • Population estimates for residential dwellings will be calculated using the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2014-based Household Projections (average household size);
55
• Construction impacts (i.e. likely number of direct and indirect construction jobs generated) will be assessed using the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), Labour Forecasting Tool (LFT), regarded as an industry standard; • Operational phase employment levels will be calculated using floorspace ratios as set out in the Homes and Communities Agency: Employment Density Guide, 3rd Edition (2015); • Quantitative assessment of impact on local expenditure on goods and services based on Experian derived data; • Existing capacity in primary and secondary schools to be obtained through reference to the Department for Education, School capacity Statistics (2018/ 2019 data); Demand for education provision will be based on Kent County Council pupil yield multipliers; • Availability of GP healthcare facilities to be determined by reference to the NHS Digital, annual GP census database of General Practitioners (GP) and patient numbers; • Availability of NHS Dental Practice provision to be established by reference to NHS digital; and • Development of mitigation measures, if and where appropriate.
16.5 It is not considered necessary to scope in a wider assessment of human health given that other relevant aspects of human health will be covered in the Air Quality and Noise and Vibration ES Chapters.
16.6 There are no technical significance criteria relating to assessment of socio-economic effects on human populations. Socio-economic effects are therefore assessed based on professional judgement and experience. Where possible quantitative calculations will be undertaken and, where this is not possible, a qualitative assessment will be provided. In general, the assessment of potential effects will be summarised as follows:
Table 16.1: Assessment of Effects for Socio-economic, Population and Human Health Magnitude Sensitivity High Moderate Low Major Major Major - Moderate Moderate - Minor Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial
Moderate Major - Moderate Moderate – Minor Minor Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial
Minor Moderate – Minor Minor Minor - Negligible Adverse/Beneficial Adverse/Beneficial
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
56
17 CLIMATE CHANGE
Key Issues
17.1 Climate change is predicted to result in increased environmental hazards to the built environment due to increased temperatures and higher frequencies of extreme weather events including drought and surface water flooding. This will result in increased risks to the Proposed Development and future residents over the next 60+ years assuming global greenhouse emissions continue to rise.
17.2 Therefore, a climate change resilience assessment is required to ensure that the Proposed Development has included design features to adapt to and minimise any adverse future climate change risks. A qualitative assessment of in-combination climate change impacts is also required to identify any areas where future climate change impacts have the potential to alter the significance of environmental effects (e.g. air quality/ ecology/ socio-economic) identified in other topic areas.
17.3 In addition, the Proposed Development will result in greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation and these emissions will be assessed to minimise the Proposed Development’s impact on global climate change.
Potential Impacts
17.4 In accordance with the key issues outlined above, the Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ES chapter would examine the following likely significant effects:
• The risks of surface water flooding, overheating of homes and buildings, water shortages and landscaping failure as a result of future climate change scenarios; • The likely significant in-combination climate impacts whereby climate change alters the significance of environmental effects identified in other topic areas; • The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Proposed Development during construction; and • The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Proposed Development during operation (through transport and operational energy usage).
Methodology
17.5 The assessment will follow guidance within the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) EIA Guide to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation and the IEMA EIA Guide to Greenhouse Gas Assessment.
57
17.6 The Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases chapter of the ES will describe the likely climate change resilience impacts to the Proposed Development and future site users. The contribution of the Proposed Development to global climate change will also be considered.
17.7 The assessment will include the following:
• A policy and desk top review using relevant local, regional and national data; • Establishment of baseline conditions by modelling climate change scenarios for the Site of the Proposed Development using data from the UK Climate Change Projections for the 2030s, 2060s and 2090s; • A risk assessment of the climate change resilience of the Proposed Development; • An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Proposed Development including qualitative consideration of construction impacts, quantification of operational energy emissions and an estimate of operational transport emissions; • Mitigation to any adverse climate change risks will be developed in the form of adaptation measures as part of the Proposed Development; and • Mitigation of the impact that the Proposed Development has upon climate change will be developed in accordance with relevant local and national policy.
17.8 In terms of climate change risk to the Proposed Development, there are no standard significance criteria. This will therefore be evaluated using a risk-based methodology based on the IEMA Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation Guidance and baseline climate data projections. Risks will be scored (for the 2030s, 2060s and 2090s) will be established through an understanding of the specific risk and receptor and through a review of relevant literature and climate change data. Quantitative risk scores will then be categorised as either ‘Negligible’, ‘Minor Adverse’, ‘Moderate Adverse’ or ‘Major Adverse’.
17.9 In terms of the impacts of the Proposed Development on global climate change, IEMA recommend that all greenhouse gas emissions are significant and that their occurrence must be addressed by taking mitigation actions. The greenhouse gas emissions will be considered in the context of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for Swale Borough as published within the UK Local
Authority CO2 emissions estimates (2017).
17.10 The key conclusions from the assessment will relate to the extent that the Proposed Development has applied best practice and incorporated mitigation to adapt to climate change and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
58
18 ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS SCOPED OUT OF THE EIA
Major Accidents and Disasters
18.1 The vulnerability of the Proposed Development to risks from major accidents and / or disasters has been considered and a risk assessment completed. A summary of the findings of the risk assessment are presented in Table 18.1.
Table 18.1: Vulnerability to Risks from Major Accidents and / or Disasters Risk Assessment Where addressed in ES Potential Major Accident / Further Consideration Disaster Required Industrial Accident / Biological No, screened out as no NA Hazard significant sources. The Water Quality, Natural Disaster (Earthquake, Further assessment for Hydrology and Flood Risk Volcanic Eruptions, Severe Flooding only chapter of the ES will cover Weather, Flooding) risks from flooding. The Transport and Access Transport Accidents Yes ES chapter will include transport related accidents. No, screened out as unlikely NA Terrorist Incident in this location.
59
19 CONCLUSIONS
19.1 This EIA Scoping report has been prepared on behalf of the Applicant in relation to the Proposed Development.
19.2 The Scoping assessment has identified that the following topics will be addressed within the Environmental Statement:
• Air Quality;
• Noise and Vibration
• Landscape and Visual Amenity;
• Water Quality, Hydrology & Flood Risk;
• Archaeology and Cultural Heritage;
• Built Heritage
• Ecology and Nature Conservation;
• Soils, Geology, Contaminated Land and Waste;
• Socio-Economics, Population and Human Health;
• Climate Change; and
• Transportation.
19.3 An assessment of any cumulative impacts from other schemes identified by SBC will also be taken into account within each technical chapter of the Environmental Statement.
60
APPENDIX A – PROPOSED VISUAL ASSESSMENT PHOTOGRAPH LOCATIONS
0284/A3/Highsted Park/DWLC 2nd November 2020
HIGHSTED PARK, SOUTH EAST SITTINGBOURNE, KENT
Proposed Visual Assessment Photograph Locations
Criteria / rationale for selecting viewpoints: 1) The requirement to provide an even spread of representative / specific and illustrative viewpoints within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), and to up 4 kilometres around all sides of the Application Site; 2) From locations which represent a range of near, middle and long-distance views, both within and outside the site; 3) Whilst private views are relevant, public viewpoints (i.e. from roads and public rights of way and other areas of open public access / sports pitches / green etc), are selected since they are the most significant in terms of the number of receptors affected; including; a) Views experienced by residents of settlement within and adjoining the site (e.g. Bapchild Rodmersham, Rodmersham Green, Sittingbourne, Highsted, and Tunstall); b) Views experienced by public enjoying countryside recreation using public rights of way/access across the area (as requested by KCC); c) View from motorists including users of local rural roads and lanes including crossings over M2; d) Views from public buildings / places where people at work – Hempstead House Hotel / Kent Science Park / farmsteads within and adjoining the site. e) Views from countryside recreation (e.g. Sittingbourne Football Club ground / Tunstall playing fields) and visitor attractions e.g. Tonge Mill. and 4) Views from sensitive receptors within designated landscapes – i.e. views experienced by people within the AONB / AHLV and Important Local Countryside Gap (ILCG) using PRoWs (e.g. footpaths / bridleway / byways).
Photo SBC LCA Location / Description: Selection rationale (see No: Character above criteria) Area: View taken from Public Footpath No.194 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Bapchild, b), & 1 29 south east d) Hempstead Hotel View taken from Public Footpath No.682 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Bapchild & b) 2 29 east View taken from Public Footpath No.196 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a), b), & d) – 3 29 north west Radfield Farm View taken from Public Footpath No.196 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a), b), & d) – 4 29 west Radfield Farm View taken from Public Footpath No.197 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 5 29 north View taken from Public Footpath No.197 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 6 29 west View taken from Public Footpath No.197 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 7 29 south 8 29 View taken from Dully Road looking west 1 / 2 / 3 b), & c 1 / 2 / 3 a), b), d) – View taken from Public Footpath No.208 looking Rodmersham, e) – 9 29 north west Rodmersham Church & 4 - ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.208 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - ILCG 10 29 south east View taken from Public Footpath No.208 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - ILCG 11 29 north east View taken from Bridleway No.34A looking south 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Sittingbourne, 12 29/40 west b) & 4 – AHLV / ILCG
1
0284/A3/Highsted Park/DWLC 2nd November 2020
Photo SBC LCA Location / Description: Selection rationale (see No: Character above criteria) Area: View taken from Public Footpath No.31 / 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 – AHLV / 13 40 Bridleway 34A looking north east ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.209 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), d) & e), / 4 14 29/40 south west 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Rodmersham, View taken from Public Footpath No.209 looking 15 29 b), d) – Rodmersham Court north Farm View taken from Public Footpath No.199 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Rodmersham, 16 29 east b) & c) 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Rodmersham, View taken from Public Footpath No.211 looking 17 29 b) & d) – Rodmersham Court south west Farm View taken from Public Footpath No.210 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) – Rodmersham 18 29/40 north Green, & b) 1 / 2 / 3 a) – Rodmersham 19 40 View taken from Stockers Hill looking north Green, b) & c) View taken from Junction of Highsted Road and 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Highsted, b), c) 20 40/42 Stockers Hill looking north & 4 – AHLV / ILCG View taken from Junction of Highsted Road and 1 / 2 / 3 a) - - Highsted, b), 21 40/42 Stockers Hill looking west c) & 4 – AHLV / ILCG View taken from Bridleway No. 39 looking south 1 / 2 / 3 a) - - Highsted, b), 22 40 west & 4 – AHLV / ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.159 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), & 4 – AHLV / 23 42 north east (similar views from Cromers Wood) ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.159 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), & 4 – AHLV 24 42 north east View taken from Public Footpath No.159 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), & 4 – AHLV 25 42 west View taken from Public Footpath No.157 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), & 4 – AHLV 26 42 east View taken from Public Footpath No.156 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 27 42 north View taken from Public Footpath No.157 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 28 42 south View taken from Public Footpath No.150 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 29 42 east View taken from Public Footpath No.157 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 30 42 north 31 42 View taken from Bexon Lane looking north east 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AHLV 32 42 View taken from Bexon Lane looking north 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AHLV View taken from Public Footpath No.185 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - AHLV 33 42 north 34 29/31 View taken from A2 / London Road looking south 1 / 2 / 3 a) – Bapchild, & c) View taken from Public Footpath No.262 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) 35 29 north west View taken from Public Footpath No.203 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 36 29 west View taken from Public Footpath No.199 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 37 29 north View taken from Public Footpath No.199 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 38 29 west View taken from Public Footpath No.49 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - AHLV 39 40 west
2
0284/A3/Highsted Park/DWLC 2nd November 2020
Photo SBC LCA Location / Description: Selection rationale (see No: Character above criteria) Area: View taken from Bottom Pond Road / Bexon Lane 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 – AONB 40 40 looking north View taken from Primrose Lane / Doves Croft 1 / 2 / 3 a) – Tunstall, b) & 41 42 looking east c) View taken from Public Footpath No.147 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Tunstall, b) & 42 42 south east e) – playing fields View taken from Public Footpath No.37 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Tunstall, b) & 4 43 42 south east - ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.30 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - AHLV 44 40 west View taken from Public Footpath No.30 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), & 4 – AHLV / 45 40 east ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.30 / 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Sittingbourne, 46 --- Wadham Place looking north b), e) - POS View taken from School Lane (Bapchild) looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Bapchild, b) & 47 29/31 south c) & 4 - ILCG View taken from Public Footpath No.192 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - ILCG 48 31 south View taken from Public Footpath No.190 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) & 4 - ILCG 49 31 south View taken from Public Footpath No.198 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Sittingbourne, 50 31 south & b) 51 29 View taken from Lower Road looking south 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) View taken from Claxfield Road looking south 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & d) – 52 29 west Claxfield Farm View taken from Public Footpath No.261/ 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & d) – 53 29 Claxfield Road looking north west Sunderland Farm View taken from Unnamed Road near Lion Farm 1 / 2 / 3 b) 54 38/40 looking west View taken from Public Footpath No.147 looking 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Tunstall, & b) 55 42 south / west View taken from Public Footpath No.141 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 56 42 west View taken from Public Footpath No.184 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b), & 4 - AONB 57 42 north View taken from Bashford Barn Lane / Public 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AONB 58 42 Footpath No.184 looking north 59 26 View taken from Mill Lane looking west 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) View taken from Dungate / Pitstock Road / 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) 60 29/38 Kingsdown Road junction looking north west View taken from Swanton Street / Bashford Barn 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) 7 4 - AONB 61 42 Road looking north east 62 26 View taken from Bogle Road looking west 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) 63 26 View taken from Tickham Lane looking west 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) 64 26/38 View taken from Tickham Lane looking north 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) 65 29/38 View taken from Kingsdown Road looking west 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) Bicknor 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AONB 66 View taken from Bottom Pond Road looking north LCA 67 42 View taken from Vigo Lane looking west 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) View taken from Public Footpath No.134 looking 1 / 2 / 3 b) 68 42 west
3
0284/A3/Highsted Park/DWLC 2nd November 2020
Photo SBC LCA Location / Description: Selection rationale (see No: Character above criteria) Area: Bicknor View taken from Unnamed Road near Frinsted 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AONB 69 LCA looking north 70 38 View taken from Down Court Road looking north 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 – AONB View taken from Public Footpath No.219 nr 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AONB 71 38 Pinetrees Farm looking north west View taken from Public Footpath No.198 near 1 / 2 / 3 a) - Conyer, & b) 72 8 Conyer looking south west View taken from Public Footpath No.188 / Saxon 1 / 2 / 3 b) 73 8 Shore Way / Swale Heritage Trail looking south west View taken from Church Road near Tonge Corner 1 / 2 / 3 b) & c) 74 8 Farm looking south View taken from Public Footpath No.201 / Saxon 1 / 2 / 3 b) 75 8 Shore Way looking south 42 / 1 / 2 / 3 b), c) & 4 - AONB 76 Bicknor View taken from Deans Hill looking north LCA View taken from Scoles Road / Lower Road, Isle 1 / 2 / 3 b), & c) 77 8 of Sheppey looking south
4
APPENDIX B – LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS
Introduction
The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – Third Edition (GLVIA3)1” by the Landscape institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013), “An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment” by Natural England (October 2014)” 2 and “An approach to landscape sensitivity assessment – to inform spatial planning and land management” by Natural England (June 2019)” 3 also published by Natural England where relevant.
The assessment distinguishes between landscape and visual effects, which will be discussed in separate sections of the landscape effects chapter. A summary of the landscape and visual assessment methodology is provided below. The assessment process has been divided into the following stages:
• Description of existing landscape and visual resource and its value/sensitivity - the baseline;
• Undertaking a landscape and visual assessment of the development proposals against existing baseline conditions;
• Project description including embedded landscape mitigation incorporated into the design to avoid, reduce and compensate for adverse effects; and
• Landscape and visual assessment of residual effect and reporting
The assessment then summarises the landscape and visual effects likely to be generated by the construction and operation of the Proposed Development.
Definition of the Study Area
The ‘Study Area’ will be determined and used to inform the assessment of landscape and visual effects. It covers the ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the Proposed Development which is defined in the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA3) as “A map usually digitally produced, showing areas of land within which a development is theoretically visible”.
The first ZTV will be been prepared using the standard method of producing ZTV based on the topographical data and proposed building height parameters and this is likely to indicate that the Application Site and Proposed Development could potentially be visible / seen from large swathes of north east Kent. The second ZTV is also to be based on topographical data and the proposed building heights parameters but the main visual barriers within the landscape such as existing built up areas, woodlands and tree belts have been assigned assumed heights (woodland areas 15m, tree belts – 12m, housing areas 12m and commercial areas 14m). This generates a more realistic ZTV indicating that the visibility of the
1 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, April 2013 “The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Third Edition “(GLVIA3) Spons 2 Natural England, October 2014 “An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment” Natural England www.gov.uk/natural-england 3 The Natural England, June 2019, “An approach to landscape sensitivity assessment – to inform spatial planning and land management” Natural England www.gov.uk/natural-england .
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.1 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
Application Site and Proposed Development is confined to a significantly reduced area within north east Kent. It is estimated that the ZTV will extend to the immediate surrounding countryside (landscape) areas up to 10 kilometres from the Application Site to the north and north east due to the low-lying topography of the landscape adjoining The Swale and Isle of Sheppey and up to 4 – 5 kilometres to the west, south, south-east and east. There are also likely to be number of outlying areas situated up to 15 kilometres from the Application Site where theoretically views of the Application Site and Proposed Development would be seen. These locations have been visited and potential views assessed.
Baseline Information
The description of the existing (baseline) landscape resource and visual amenity within the Study Area will form the basis for establishing the character of the landscape its, susceptibility and sensitivity. The existing landscape character and condition of the study area will be reviewed including the Application Site, and the prevalent and predicted trends in landscape change. The features / elements / character / landscape / visibility etc. combine to provide an understanding of landscape sensitivity and an indication of particular key views and viewpoints that are available to visual receptors and therefore need to be included in the visual assessment.
Information on the existing landscape and visual context of the Application Site will be gathered through a combination of: desktop study of available information; review of the existing landscape character assessments; identification of predicted changes or trends in the landscape; and site visits of the Application Site and the surrounding area within the estimated ZTV of the Proposed Development. These will assist in determining the condition /quality of the landscape and the visibility of the Application Site.
On the basis of the above desk study and field surveys, a description of the existing (baseline) landscape resource and visual amenity within the Study Area will be prepared. This will form the basis for establishing the sensitivity and character of the landscape and will provide an indication of particular key views and viewpoints that are available from visual receptors and therefore views to be included in the assessment. Information on the existing landscape resource will be collected by reference to the following documents and sources of information:
• Ordnance Survey Explorer Map – Sheet 148 and 1494;
• Topographic surveys of the Application Site (when prepared);
• National Planning Policy Framework February 20195;
• National Planning Policy Guidance - Various March 20146 onwards;
• The adopted Bearing Fruits 2031 - Swale Borough Local Plan July 20177;
• Swale Borough Council – Local Plan Proposals Map8
4 Ordnance Survey 2013, OS Explorer 148 and 149 Ordnance Survey Limited 5 Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (February 2019) National Planning Policy Framework 6 Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (March 2014) National Planning Policy Guidance 7 Swale Borough Council (SBC), July 2017, Bearing Fruits 2031 - Swale Borough Local Plan 8 Swale Borough Council (http://www.cartogold.co.uk/swale/pdf/Swale%20Proposals%20Map.pdf)
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.2 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
• The Natural England National Character Area Profiles published in April 2014 - ‘North Downs’ NCAP No.1199;
• ‘Landscape Assessment of the Kent Downs’ 199510 and Kent Downs AONB Unit updates in the emerging Management Plan;
• ‘Landscape Assessment of Kent’ 200411
• ‘Swale Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal’ September 201112 where relevant;
• ‘Swale Landscape Sensitivity Assessment”, October 201913 where relevant;
• Swale Local Landscape Designation – Review and Recommendations Report”, October 201814, where relevant;
• Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014 – 2019 Second Revision April 201415;
• ‘The Kent Downs Landscape Design Handbook’16,
• ‘The Kent Downs Setting Position Statement’ 17
• Historic England ‘National Heritage List for England’ (https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/ )18;
• Aerial photographs (Google Earth / Bing Maps)19;
• Magic website (For Schedule Ancient Monuments/ Listed Buildings / Landscape Designations)20; and
• Field surveys and site visit during August 2017, January, March and May 2018, February, March and April 2019 and March 2020.
Mitigation Incorporated into the Development
9 Natural England, April 2014 “National Character Areas – NE431: NCA Profile: 119 – North Downs” - Natural England Publications 10 Countryside Commission 1995 ‘Landscape Assessment of the Kent Downs AONB’, (CCP479) Currently Unavailable 11 Kent County Council / Jacobs Babtie, October 2004, The Landscape Assessment of Kent, - Kent County Council 12 Swale Borough Council (SBC), September 2011, Swale Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal, - Swale Borough Council 13 Swale Borough Council (SBC) October 2019, “Swale Landscape Sensitivity Assessment” – Swale Borough Council 14 Swale Borough Council (SBC) October 2018, Swale Local Landscape Designation – Review and Recommendations Report” – Swale Borough Council 15 Kent Downs AONB Unit, April 2014, ‘Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014 – 2019 Second Revision April 2014’ www.kentdowns.orh.uk Kent Downs AONB Unit. 16 Kent Downs AONB Unit, Update ‘Landscape Design Handbook’ www.kentdowns.orh.uk Kent Downs AONB Unit 17 Kent Downs AONB Joint Advisory Committee Updated April 2020, Kent Downs AONB Setting Position Statement, www.kentdowns.orh.uk Kent Downs AONB Unit 18 Historic England (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection /process/national-heritage-list-for-england/) 19 Google Earth / Bing Maps, Aerial / Satellite photographs (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Sturry+Hill,+Sturry,+Canterbury+CT2+0NQ) 20 Natural England http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.3 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
Mitigation is an integral part of the overall design strategy to reduce potentially significant adverse effects to an acceptable level. Mitigation measures are considered under two categories:
• ‘Embedded measures’ as part of the design of the development scheme, designed through an iterative process and shown on the scheme drawings;
• ‘Additional measures’ to address any residual adverse effects of development proposals after the incorporation of the primary measures.
Mitigation is usefully considered as a hierarchy. Avoidance of potential adverse effects is the optimal strategy, followed by reduction of adverse effects and then remediation of residual effects. Where a predicted adverse effect is unable to be acceptably mitigated, there may be an opportunity for related environmental improvements to compensate for residual adverse effects. An example of compensation would be re-creation of a habitat lost as part of the Proposed Development. Compensatory mitigation may not be restricted to the Application Site.
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.4 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS
The landscape assessment is concerned with changes in the physical landscape in terms of elements / features that may give rise to changes in the character of the Site and immediate surrounding landscape. Changes may result in adverse or beneficial effects. The assessment will be carried out using a combination of desktop research and field survey work to establish the landscape baseline, against which changes and consequential effects may be assessed. Sources of baseline information that will be used in the desktop research will comprise existing data from statutory agencies and local planning authorities, Ordnance Survey maps and other relevant data including site surveys. The principal landscape elements will be recorded, which, depending of their prominence and importance, contribute to the overall character of the area. Typical elements may include topography, land use, watercourses, vegetation, built development and public rights of way. Special values attributed by others, such as landscape designations, will also be recorded.
In order to reach an understanding of the effects of development on a landscape resource, it is necessary to consider the different aspects of the landscape, as follows:
• Elements/Features: The individual elements or features that make up the landscape or site, including prominent or eye-catching features such as hills, valleys, woods, trees and hedges, ponds, buildings and roads. They are generally quantifiable and can be easily described.
• Patterns/ Site Characteristics: Elements or combinations of elements that make up a particular pattern and contribute to the character of an area / site, including perceptual characteristics such as tranquillity and wildness.
• Character: The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape and how this is perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement. It creates the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape. Character is identified through the process of characterisation which classifies maps and describes areas of similar character.
Assessment of Effects
The assessment will include a combination of objective and subjective judgements. The Proposed Development will be assessed against the baseline information to enable an evaluation of the effects that would occur upon the existing landscape resource. Judging the significance of landscape effects is described by GLVIA321 as the “methodical consideration of each effect identified and, for each one, assessment of the sensitivity of the landscape receptors and the magnitude of effect on the landscape”.
Landscape receptors will be assessed firstly in terms of their sensitivity, which is a combination of their susceptibility to the type of change or development proposed and the
21 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, April 2013 “The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Third Edition “(GLVIA3) Spons DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.5 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC value attached to the landscape receptor. Landscape susceptibility is defined in the GLVIA322 glossary as: “The ability of defined landscape or visual receptors to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences”.
SENSITIVITY / SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE RESOURCE
Factors that influence professional judgement when assessing the degree to which a particular landscape type of area can accommodate change arising from a particular development, without detrimental effects on its character typically include:
• The value placed on the landscape; • Condition or the physical state of the landscape which is one of the factors that helps identify the value of a landscape see Table 2.0 below for criteria used; • The nature of existing land uses; • The pattern and scale of the landscape; • Visual enclosure/openness of views, and distribution of visual receptors; • The scope for mitigation, which would be in character with the existing landscape; • The contribution of the receptor to landscape character; and • The degree to which the particular element or characteristic can be replaced or substituted.
Landscape condition or quality is defined in the glossary to GLVIA3 as “A measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include the extent to which typical character is represented in individual areas, the intactness of the landscape and condition of individual elements”. Landscape condition informs the baseline assessment of the landscape and has been assessed using the following criteria as a guide:
Table 1.0: Landscape Condition / Quality
Where the landscape and its features are in good repair / quality and have a high contribution to Good landscape character. Where the landscape and its features are in average repair / quality and make a moderate Moderate contribution to landscape character. Where the landscape and its features are in poor repair / quality and make a low contribution to Low landscape character.
Landscape value is defined in the glossary of GLVIA3 as “The relative value that is attached to different landscape by society. A landscape may be valued by different stakeholders for a whole variety of reasons” whilst paragraph 5.19 of GLVIA3 suggests that “A review of existing landscape designations is usually the starting point in understanding landscape value, but the value attached to undesignated landscapes also needs to be carefully considered and individual elements of the landscape – such as trees, buildings or hedgerows – may also have value” with Box 5.1 of GLVIA3 (page 84) setting out a range of factors that can help in the identification of valued landscapes including:
• “Landscape condition – defined as above; • Scenic Quality – a term used to describe landscapes that appeal primarily to the senses (primarily but not wholly the visual senses);
22 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, April 2013 “The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Third Edition “(GLVIA3) Spons DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.6 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
• Rarity – the presence of rare elements or features in the landscape or presence of a rare Landscape Character Type; • Representativeness – whether the landscape contains a particular character and / or feature or element which are considered particularly important examples; • Conservation interests – the presence of features of wildlife, earth science or archaeological or historic and cultural interest can add to the value of the landscape as well as having value in their own right; • Recreation value – evidence that the landscape is valued for recreational activity where experience of the landscape is important; • Perceptual aspects – a landscape may be valued for its perceptual qualities, notably wildness and / or tranquillity; • Associations – some landscape are associated with particular people, such as artists or writers, or events in history that contribute to perceptions of the natural beauty of the area”.
Landscape susceptibility is defined in GLVIA3 (Paragraph 5.40) as “The ability of the landscape receptor (whether it be the overall character or quality / condition of a particular landscape type or area, or an individual element and / or feature, or a particular aesthetic and perceptual aspect) to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and / or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies”.
The evaluation of susceptibility and landscape value has been made using the following criteria as a guide:
Table 2.0: Landscape Susceptibility / Value Criteria
Rank Value evaluation criteria Susceptibility evaluation criteria The receptor is in a very good / good condition and vulnerable, and is a landscape or feature (landform, woods, trees and hedges, ponds, buildings and International importance e.g. World Heritage roads) that are unlikely to accommodate the specific Site or key features of World Heritage Sites form of development without significant negative Very High or Ancient Woodlands. No or very limited consequence i.e. being completely out of scale or potential for substitution. character and effective mitigation measures would be very difficult to achieve and very limited potential for substitution or enhancement.
The receptor is likely to be in a good condition and High importance and rarity. No or limited vulnerable, and is a landscape or feature (landform, potential for substitution. woods, trees and hedges, ponds, buildings and National or Regional scale designated roads) that are unlikely to accommodate the specific landscape e.g. National Parks (including form of development without undue negative High AONBs), County level Special Landscape consequence i.e. being out of scale or out of Areas or features considered to be important character and effective mitigation measures would be component of the landscape. difficult to achieve and very limited potential for substitution or enhancement
Moderate importance and rarity. Some / The receptor is likely to be in a fair condition, and is Moderate limited potential for substitution. Regional, a landscape or feature (landform, woods, trees and Local designated landscape / conservation hedges, ponds, buildings and roads) which is area, registered park or garden, country reasonably able to accommodate the specific form of
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.7 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
park, area of landscape value or TPO or development without negative consequence i.e. in features considered a distinctive component scale and / or character not wholly out of character of the area. and effective mitigation measures would be possible Undesignated areas but value perhaps to achieve and has the potential for substitution or expressed through non-official publications give rise to enhancement. or demonstrable use.
The receptor is likely to be in a poor condition and is a landscape or feature (landform, woods, trees and hedges, ponds, buildings and roads) which is reasonably able to accommodate the specific form of Low importance and rarity with little or no development with minor negative consequences and Low statutory status and likely to be poorly can accommodate the type of change proposed with maintained or damaged. little or no effect upon its overall integrity i.e. in scale and / or character not wholly out of character and effective mitigation measures if needed would be possible with considerable potential for substitution and enhancement.
Landscape sensitivity is defined in GLVIA3 (Paragraph 5.39) as a term applied to specific receptors, combining judgements of the susceptibility of the receptor to a specific type of change or development proposed and the value related to that landscape (receptor). The following table has been used to determine the sensitivity of the landscape to change:
Table 3.0: Landscape Sensitivity:
Landscape Value Sensitivity
Very High Very High High Medium Low / Medium
High High Medium Low / Medium Low
Moderate Medium Low / Medium Low Very Low
Low Low / Medium Low Very Low Very Low
Very High High Moderate Low Susceptibility
Example appraisal categories are listed below:
Very High Typically internationally or nationally recognised landscape resource of strong landscape structure with many distinct features worthy of conservation with high susceptibility to the proposed change.
High Typically of national recognition and of recognisable landscape structure with some features worthy of conservation; may contain occasional detracting features with high or medium susceptibility to the proposed change.
Medium Typically of designated regional or district recognition or undesignated but value expressed through consensus, demonstrable use or non-official publications. Distinguishable
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.8 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
landscape structure. Some or few features worthy of conservation, some detracting features with medium susceptibility to the proposed change.
Low Typically of local recognition, undesignated areas identified as having some redeeming qualities, possibly for improvement. Very few or no features worthy of conservation. Weak landscape structure; evidence of degradation; frequent detracting features with generally medium or low susceptibility to the proposed change.
Very Low Typically areas identified for recovery. Damaged landscape structure; evidence of severe disturbance or dereliction; detracting features dominate with low susceptibility to the proposed change.
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE (NATURE OF EFFECT)
The magnitude of change is concerned with the degree of change, and its duration. Change may be adverse or beneficial.
Degree of Change
Example appraisal categories are listed below:
Very High: Substantial or total loss or comprehensive enhancement of the landscape resource.
High: Moderate loss or enhancement of the landscape resource.
Medium: Partial or slight loss/alteration or moderate enhancement of the landscape resource.
Low / Negligible: Very slight loss/alteration or slight enhancement of the landscape resource.
Negligible / No Change: No / very minor loss / alteration or minor enhancement of the landscape resource.
Duration of Change
The duration of the effect depends upon the length of time over which it occurs, i.e.:
Long Term (more than 15 years) which relates to when landscape treatment has matured mitigating likely effects and materials that form the floodlight masts / fittings will have ‘weathered’ and have more subdued tones.
Medium Term (5 – 15 years) which to relates to when landscape treatment is becoming established and maturing.
Short Term (1 to 5 years) which relates to the likely duration of the construction / installation of floodlights and the initial implementation of landscape treatments.
LEVEL OF EFFECT
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.9 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
The descriptions relating to each category within the following indicative scale are a function of the sensitivity of the landscape resource to change and the magnitude of change. The significance of an effect is not absolute and must be identified in relation to each individual development and its unique location. It should be emphasised that while the methodology is designed to be robust and transparent, professional judgement is ultimately applied to determine the significance of each effect. It should also be noted that the landscape effects could be beneficial and adverse depending on the development proposals and landscape resource affected.
The table below assists with the evaluation effects on landscape receptors.
Table 4.0: Evaluation of Effects for Landscape Assessment:
Magnitude Landscapes Sensitivity of Change Very High High Medium Low Very Low Moderate / Very High Major Substantial Major Substantial Substantial Moderate Substantial Moderate / High Major Substantial Substantial Moderate Moderate / Slight Substantial Moderate / Medium Substantial Moderate Moderate / Slight Slight Substantial Moderate / Low Moderate Moderate / Slight Slight Negligible Substantial
Negligible Moderate Slight Slight / Negligible Negligible Negligible
Example landscape assessment categories are listed below:
Major Substantial or Typically, the landscape receptor is of high sensitivity with the proposals Substantial Adverse: representing a major / moderate adverse magnitude of change. The changes would be at complete variance with the landscape character and would permanently diminish or destroy the integrity of a valued landscape.
Moderate / Substantial or Typically, the landscape receptor has a medium sensitivity with the Moderate Adverse: proposals representing a medium adverse magnitude of change.
Moderate / Slight or Typically, the landscape receptor has a low sensitivity with the proposals Slight Adverse: representing a low adverse magnitude of change.
Slight Adverse or Typically, the landscape receptor has a very low sensitivity with the Negligible: proposals representing a very low magnitude of change that may be adverse or beneficial although the effect of either change would not be significant.
Neutral: Typically, the landscape receptor has a low sensitivity with the proposals resulting in no losses or alterations to the landscape resource.
Slight or Slight / The removal of some existing incongruous landscape element and/or the Moderate Beneficial: introduction or restoration of some potentially valued landscape elements would reflect landscape character and result in some improvements to landscape condition.
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.10 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
Moderate or Moderate / The removal of existing incongruous landscape elements and the Substantial Beneficial: introduction or restoration of some valued landscape elements would complement landscape character and improve landscape condition.
Substantial or Major The removal of substantial existing incongruous landscape elements and the Substantial Beneficial: introduction of restoration of highly valued landscape elements would reinforce landscape character and substantially improve landscape condition.
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECTS
The significance of the level of effect has been assessed as follows:
Not significant – Neutral, Negligible, Slight, or Moderate effects Significant – Moderate/Substantial, Substantial or Major Substantial effects (Areas toned grey above)
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.11 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL EFFECTS
The assessment of visual effects is concerned with changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects on visual amenity. The appraisal will be carried out using a combination of desktop research and field survey work to establish the visual baseline. Sources of information used in the desktop research will comprise existing data from statutory agencies and local planning authorities, Ordnance Survey maps and other relevant data e.g. aerial photographs. Principal viewpoints, sensitive visual receptors and the approximate visibility of the Proposed Development will be recorded.
The principal ‘key’ viewpoints within the area surrounding the Application Site will be identified, and the viewpoints used for photographs will be selected to demonstrate the relative visibility of the Application Site (and existing development on it) and its relationship with the surrounding landscape and built forms. The selection of the key viewpoints was based on the following criteria:
a) The requirement to provide an even spread of representative viewpoints within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), and to up 4 kilometres around all sides of the Application Site; b) From locations which represent a range of near, middle and long-distance views; c) Whilst private views are relevant, public viewpoints i.e. from roads and public rights of way and other areas of open public access, will be selected since they are the most significant in terms of the number of receptors affected; and d) Views from sensitive receptors within designated landscapes.
Assessment of Visual Effects
The appraisal will include a combination of objective and subjective judgements. The Proposed Development will be assessed against the baseline information to enable an evaluation of the effects that would occur upon the existing views. In the assessment of views there is likely to be a continuum in the degree of visibility of the Proposed Development from no view to open view. In order to assist in the description and comparison of the effect on views, the following factors will be considered:
• The extent of the view that would be occupied by the Proposed Development (degree of visual intrusion i.e. full, partial, glimpse, none); • The proportion of the Proposed Development or particular features / parts of the Proposed Development that would be visible (full, most, partial, limited, none); • The distance of the observer from the Proposed Development and whether viewers at that location would focus on the Proposed Development due to proximity, or the Proposed Development would form one element in a panoramic view; and • Whether the view is transient or one of a sequence of views, as from a moving vehicle or Public Rights of Way (PRoW).
The significance of visual effects will be described as a consideration of effect in terms of:
• Sensitivity of the visual receptor (viewer) is dependent on the following: o the value attributed to a given view; and
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.12 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
o the susceptibility of visual receptors at that location to the type of development proposed.
• Magnitude of visual effect: o this results from a combination of the degree of change to the view resulting from the Proposed Development with consideration of the extent of the area over which the changes would be visible, the period of exposure to the view and its reversibility.
SENSITIVITY / SUCEPTIBILITY OF VISUAL RECEPTOR
The sensitivity of the visual receptor will be influenced by the following factors: • Location and the context of the view; • Characteristics of the view e.g. whether it is continuous or intermittent and static or transient; • The importance of the view and the activity or expectations of the receptor; • Numbers of people affected; • The popularity of the view; and • Significance of the view in relation to valued landscapes or features.
Table 5.0 – Visual Susceptibility / Value Criteria
Rank Value evaluation criteria Susceptibility evaluation criteria People with a particular interest in the view and with a prolonged viewing opportunity: View from a location that is likely to be of
national importance, either designated or - People at their place of residence; and with national cultural associations, where High the view obtained forms an important part - People engaged in outdoor recreation, including of the experience. users of PRoW, whose attention is likely to be
focussed on the landscape.
People with a partial interest in the view and their surroundings:
- People engaged in outdoor sport and recreation, where their appreciation of their View from a location that is likely to be of surroundings is incidental to their enjoyment; local importance, either designated or with Medium and local cultural associations, where the view
obtained forms part of the experience. - People travelling along recognised ‘scenic routes’ or where their appreciation of the view contributes to the amenity experience of their journey.
People with a minimal interest in the view and their surroundings as their focus is on other activities:
View from a location that is not designated, Low - People in moving vehicles travelling through or with minimal or no cultural associations. past the affected landscape; and
- People at their place of work.
The following table has been used to determine the sensitivity of the visual receptors to change:
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.13 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
Table 6.0: Visual Receptor Sensitivity:
Landscape Value Sensitivity
High Very High High Medium
Moderate High Medium Low
Low Medium Low Negligible / Low
High Medium Low
Susceptibility
Example sensitivity appraisal categories are listed below:
Very High The most sensitive receptors would typically include users of well used public rights of way (e.g. National Recreational Paths / Trails) whose attention or interest would be focussed on a landscape of acknowledged importance or value. Residential properties that are listed or are located within Conservation Areas would also typically be considered as the most sensitive receptors with a high susceptibility to the proposed change.
High Typically, receptors may include users of public rights of way (e.g. Footpaths / Bridleways / Byways) whose attention or interest may be focussed on the landscape and occupiers of residential properties with views directly affected by the Proposed Development with high or partial / medium susceptibility to the proposed change.
Medium Typically, receptors may include people travelling through or past the affected landscape along footpaths, in cars along main transport routes or on trains/other transport modes that is partially (medium) susceptible to the proposed change.
Low Typically, receptors may include intermittent views for people travelling through or past the affected landscape in vehicles along minor transport routes with partial (medium) or low (limited) susceptibility to the proposed change.
Negligible / Low The least sensitive receptors are likely to be people at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities, whose attention may be focussed on their work or activity and who may therefore be potentially less (very low / limited) susceptible to changes in the view.
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE (NATURE OF EFFECT)
The magnitude of change is based on the degree of change including the scale of change, contrast or integration of the change, duration of the change and distance and angle of the view. Changes may be adverse or beneficial in nature.
Distance and angle of view
The distance of the viewpoint from the Site / development is important as the perceived height and width of a building will reduce by about half with the doubling of distance involved (i.e. the height and width of a building when seen at a distance of say 25 metres reduces by half if viewed at 50 metres and half again at 100 metres) and whether the viewpoint would focus on the Proposed Development due to the proximity or whether the Proposed Development would form one
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.14 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC element in a panoramic view will be considered. Views are categorised into three ranges depending on the proximity of the viewpoint i.e.:
Close Less than 500 metres
Medium Distances between 500 metres to 1 kilometre
Long Greater than 1 kilometre
The angle of the view in relation to the main activity of the receptor is an important consideration and will vary from direct to oblique.
Degree of Change
The degree of proposed change refers to the loss or addition of features in the view and changes in the composition of the view including the proportion of the view occupied by the Proposed Development. The extent of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale and mass, line, height, colour and texture is also considered. Change may be beneficial or adverse.
Example appraisal categories are listed below:
Major Typically, the proposals become the dominant feature of the scene to which other elements become subordinate.
Moderate Typically, the proposals may form a visible and recognisable new element within the overall scene and may be readily noticed by the observer.
Minor Typically, the proposals constitute only a smaller component of the wider view, which might not be immediately apparent to the casual observer.
Minor / Negligible Typically, only a very small part of the proposals is discernible and/or they are at such a distance that they are scarcely appreciated.
Negligible / No Change Typically, no part of the development would be visible although work or activity associated with it may be discernible e.g. traffic generated on adjacent roads.
Duration of Change
The duration of the effect depends upon the length of time over which it occurs, i.e.:
Long Term (more than 15 years) which relates to when landscape treatment has matured mitigating likely effects and materials that form the external envelope of the buildings will have ‘weathered’ and have more subdued tones. Medium Term (5 to 15 years) which to relates to when landscape treatment is becoming established and maturing.
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.15 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
Short Term (1 to 5 years) which relates to the likely duration of the construction / installation of the development and the initial implementation of landscape treatments.
Magnitude of Effect (Change): Summary
The categories below apply to both beneficial and adverse changes to the existing view. Example appraisal categories are listed below:
Typically the proposals form a dominant or immediately apparent feature within the view that significantly affects and changes overall landscape character. Views affected would Very High typically be direct and close range in nature.
Typically the proposals would typically form a visible and recognisable new element within High the view that affects and change overall landscape character.
Typically the proposals constitute a distinct feature within the view that would not change Medium the existing overall landscape character. Typically the proposals constitute only a minor component of the wider view, which might be missed by the casual observer or receptor. Awareness of the proposals would not have Low a marked effect on the overall quality of views.
Typically only a very small part of the proposals is discernible and/or they are at such a distance that they are scarcely appreciated. The proposals would have very little effect on Negligible views that would typically be long range and/or oblique in nature.
LEVEL OF EFFECT
The descriptions relating to each category within the following scale are a function of the receptor sensitivity combined with the magnitude of change. The significance of an effect is not absolute and is identified in relation to each individual development and its unique location. The categories are indicative of the set of criteria used to determine the level of effect and the visual effects can either be beneficial and adverse depending on the Proposed Development and the existing view. It should be emphasised that whilst the methodology is designed to be robust and transparent, professional judgement is ultimately applied to determine the level of each effect. The table below assists with the evaluation effects on visual receptors / views.
Table 7.0: Evaluation of Effects for Visual Assessment
Magnitude Visual Sensitivity of Change Very High High Medium Low Very Low
Moderate / Very High Major Substantial Major Substantial Substantial Moderate Substantial
Moderate / High Major Substantial Substantial Moderate Slight/ Moderate Substantial
Moderate / Medium Substantial Moderate Moderate / Slight Slight Substantial
Moderate / Low Moderate Moderate / Slight Slight Negligible Substantial
Negligible Moderate Slight Slight / Negligible Negligible Negligible
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.16 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
Example visual assessment categories are listed below:
Major Substantial or Typically, proposed changes would cause a pronounced deterioration in the existing view from Substantial Adverse highly sensitive visual receptors
Substantial Moderate Typically, proposed changes would cause a noticeable deterioration in the existing view from or Moderate Adverse moderately sensitive visual receptors.
Moderate / Slight or Typically, proposed changes would cause a minor deterioration in the existing view from visual Slight Adverse receptors with a low sensitivity.
Slight Adverse or Typically, proposed changes would represent a barely discernible change to the existing view Negligible from visual receptors with a low sensitivity. Effects may be adverse or beneficial although either change would not be significant.
Neutral Typically, proposed changes would cause no discernible deterioration or improvement in the existing view.
Slight or Slight / Typically, proposed changes would cause a minor or barely discernible improvement in the Moderate Beneficial existing view.
Moderate or Moderate Typically, proposed changes would cause a noticeable improvement in the existing view. / Substantial Beneficial
Substantial or Major Typically, proposed changes would cause a pronounced improvement in the existing view. Substantial Beneficial
SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT
The significance of the level of effect has been assessed as follows:
Not significant – Neutral, Negligible, Slight, Moderate effects Significant – Moderate / Substantial, Substantial or Major Substantial effects (Areas toned grey above).
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.17 November 2020 Highsted Park – ES Chapter – Landscape Appendix TBC
METHODOLOGY FOR COMPUTER GENERATED ZONE OF VISUAL INFLUENCE (ZVI) STUDY
The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the Application Site will be produced by creating a 3D terrain model of the Application Site and its surroundings using Resoft Windfarm software.
Resoft Windfarm was originally design for windfarm visualisation, but it can also be used to create ZVI studies on any type of point or points.
The process of creating a ZTV begins with the creation of a “Project Model” that is a mathematical representation of the existing landform surrounding the Application Site. From this a “ZTV” model is produced which shows how many of the defined “Target Points” are visible from a particular point on the surface of the ground model.
The ground model is made by interpolating 3D levels data onto a 5m x 5m grid. This data is derived from OS Terrain 5 DTM data in the form of 3D point data with a planimetric accuracy of +/- 1.0m and a vertical accuracy of +/- 60cm.
The software produces a ZTV by drawing a series of sections radiating through a defined “Target Point or Points”. These targets can represent the existing ground level, existing features within the Application Site or proposed features. The sections are used to determine whether an observer with a given eye level (1.6 metres) above the surface of the model would be able to see the target, or how high above the surface the viewer would need to be in order to see the target point. By analysing a number of points together, a coherent model of the visibility of the Application Site can be constructed.
The software creates a further mathematical model of this data, referred to as a “Visibility Model”. This model is then drawn onto base mapping to produce the ZTV plans.
This output data is presented as follows:
Colour Bands:
The visibility model is mapped onto a grid whose size is determined by the resolution of the ZTV, this data can then be overlaid onto base mapping as a series of bands of colour representing different levels of visibility, i.e. number of points visible as different colour bands.
Target Points:
The way in which the target points are defined is dependent upon the level of detail available of the proposed development. Targets can be used to determine the visibility of a number of individual features or an area. Where detailed proposals are available such as on a small-scale housing development, the ZTV of individual buildings as a target points can be used to demonstrate the visibility of quite specific points, such as the point on the ridge of a roof. On large scale developments, this may not be practical and in many cases, it is not possible as the proposals are not defined to such a high level of detail. In these cases, a series of points are defined to create a “surface” that can lie at existing ground levels, to give a ZTV of the existing site, or can be used to represent ridge levels of an area of proposed development.
In line with best practice, Landscape and Visual Assessment Chapter of the ES describes the effects of the Proposed Development on both landscape receptors and visual receptors.
DWLC/0284/A4/L1A/HP/ESC/DHW Page No.18 November 2020