PHASE ONE

DraFt EnvironmEntal StatEmEnt Community Forum Area Report 22 | Whittington to Handsacre HS2 London-West Midlands May 2013

ENGINE FOR GROWTH DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Community Forum Area Report ENGINE FOR GROWTH 22 I Whittington to Handsacre High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2nd Floor, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU

Telephone 020 7944 4908

General email enquiries: [email protected]

Website: www.hs2.org.uk

© Crown copyright, 2013, except where otherwise stated

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

To order further copies contact: DfT Publications Tel: 0300 123 1102 Web: www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications

Product code: ES/30

Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre. CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Contents Contents

Draft Volume 2: Community Forum Area Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 5 Part A: Introduction 6 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Introduction to HS2 7 1.2 Purpose of this report 7 1.3 Structure of this report 9 Part B: Whittington to Handsacre – overview of the area and description of the Proposed Scheme 10 2 Whittington to Handsacre 11 2.1 Overview of the area 11 2.2 Description of the Proposed Scheme 16 2.3 Construction of the Proposed Scheme 19 2.4 Operation of the Proposed Scheme 30 2.5 Community forum engagement 31 2.6 Route section main alternatives 32 2.7 Proposals for further consideration 36 Part C: Environmental topic assessments 38 3 Agriculture, forestry and soils 39 3.1 Introduction 39 3.2 Policy framework 39 3.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 39 3.4 Environmental baseline 39 3.5 Construction 42 3.6 Operation 45

1 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Contents

4 Air quality 47 4.1 Introduction 47 4.2 Policy framework 47 4.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 47 4.4 Environmental baseline 47 4.5 Construction 49 4.6 Operation 50 5 Community 52 5.1 Introduction 52 5.2 Policy framework 52 5.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 52 5.4 Environmental baseline 52 5.5 Construction 55 5.6 Operation 59 6 Cultural heritage 60 6.1 Introduction 60 6.2 Policy framework 60 6.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 60 6.4 Environmental baseline 61 6.5 Construction 62 6.6 Operation 65 7 Ecology 67 7.1 Introduction 67 7.2 Policy framework 67 7.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 67 7.4 Environmental baseline 68 7.5 Construction 71 7.6 Operation 75 8 Land quality 76 8.1 Introduction 76 8.2 Policy framework 76 8.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 76 8.4 Environmental baseline 77 8.5 Construction 79 8.6 Operation 81

2 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Contents

9 Landscape and visual assessment 82 9.1 Introduction 82 9.2 Policy framework 82 9.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 83 9.4 Environmental baseline 83 9.5 Construction 84 9.6 Operation 90 10 Socio-economics 98 10.1 Introduction 98 10.2 Policy framework 98 10.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 98 10.4 Environmental baseline 98 10.5 Construction 99 10.6 Operation 100 11 Sound, noise and vibration 101 11.1 Introduction 101 11.2 Policy framework 101 11.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 101 11.4 Environmental baseline 101 11.5 Construction 101 11.6 Operation 102 12 Traffic and transport 105 12.1 Introduction 105 12.2 Policy framework 105 12.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 105 12.4 Environmental baseline 106 12.5 Construction 108 12.6 Operation 110 13 Water resources and flood risk assessment 112 13.1 Introduction 112 13.2 Policy framework 112 13.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 112 13.4 Environmental baseline 113 13.5 Construction 115 13.6 Operation 117 14 References 119

2 3 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Contents

List of figures

Figure 1: HS2 Phase One route and community forum areas 8 Figure 2: Area context map 12 Figure 3: Indicative construction programme for the area 30 Figure 4: Business Sector Composition in Lichfield District and West Midlands 99

List of tables

Table 1: Location of construction site compounds 21 Table 2: Location of temporary worker accommodation sites 23 Table 3: Demolition works 24 Table 4: Watercourse diversions 25 Table 5: Highway and road diversions 26 Table 6: Footpath, cycleway and bridleway diversions 27 Table 7: Viaducts, underbridges and overbridges 28 Table 8: Holdings affected by the Proposed Scheme 41 Table 9: Preliminary evaluation of likely value of protected and/or notable species occurring within this section of the route 70 Table 10: Significant residual construction effects on ecological receptors within this section of the route 74 Table 11: Significant residual operational effects on ecological receptors within this section of the route 75 Table 12: Significant landscape effects during construction 85 Table 13: Significant visual effects during construction 86 Table 14: Significant landscape effects during operation year one (2026) 91 Table 15: Significant visual effects during operation year one (2026) 92 Table 16: Typical vehicle trip generation for site compounds in this area 108

4 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Contents Draft Volume 2: Community Forum Area Report Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 Structure of the HS2 draft Environmental Statement The draft ES documentation for the purpose of this consultation comprises: • A non-technical summary (NTS) – providing a summary of the Proposed Scheme, the likely significant effects of the Proposed Scheme, both beneficial and adverse, and the means to avoid or reduce the adverse effects; • A main report – consisting of two volumes: ȃȃ Volume 1: Introduction to the Environmental Statement and Proposed Scheme which provides an introduction to HS2, an overview of the hybrid bill process and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) methodology, an introduction to consultation and engagement, the main strategic and route-wide alternatives considered; and ȃȃ Volume 2: Includes 26 Community Forum Area (CFA) reports, each with a separate corresponding set of drawings, which together provide the assessment of local environmental effects. An assessment of the effects of the Proposed Scheme on a route-wide basis is presented in Report 27.

HS2 Ltd set up 26 community forums along the line of route of the Proposed Scheme, as a regular way of engaging with local communities1. Volume 2 of this draft ES supports this engagement strategy by providing a draft ES report for each CFA. This is a report for the Whittington to Handsacre area, CFA 22.

The draft ES has been written in a clear and accessible manner, however, on occasion it has been necessary to use technical terms. Given this, a glossary of terms and list of abbreviations for all draft ES documentation is provided.

1 Details of these community forums are provided on the HS2 Ltd website at http://www.hs2.org.uk/have-your-say/forums/community-forums.

5 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Contents Part A: Introduction

6 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Introduction 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction to HS2 1.1.1 HS2 is planned to be a Y-shaped rail network with stations in London, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, South Yorkshire and the East Midlands, linked by high speed trains running at speeds of up to 360 kilometres per hour (kph) (225 miles per hour (mph)).

1.1.2 HS2 is proposed to be built in two phases. Phase One (the Proposed Scheme), the subject of this draft ES, would involve the construction of a new railway line of approximately 230km (143 miles) between London and Birmingham that would become operational by 2026; with a connection to the West Coast Main Line (WCML) near Lichfield and to the existing HS1 line in London. The Phase One route and the 26 CFAs are shown in Figure 1.

1.1.3 On opening, Phase One would run up to 14 trains per hour (tph). HS2 trains would be up to 400 metres (m) long with 1,100 seats during peak hours. Beyond the dedicated high speed track, these high speed trains would connect with and run on the existing WCML to serve passengers beyond the HS2 network. A connection to HS1 would also allow some services to run to mainland Europe via the Channel Tunnel.

1.1.4 Phase Two would involve the construction of lines from Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester; with construction commencing around 2027, and planned to be operational by 2033. After Phase Two opens, it is expected that the frequency of train services on some parts of the Phase One route could increase up to 18tph.

1.1.5 The Government believes that the HS2 network should link to Heathrow and its preferred option is for this to be built as part of Phase Two. However, the Government has since taken the decision to pause work on the Heathrow link until after 2015 when it expects the Airports Commission to publish its final report on recommended options for maintaining the country’s status as an international aviation hub. 1.2 Purpose of this report 1.2.1 This report presents the likely significant environmental effects as a result of the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2 (the Proposed Scheme) that have been identified to date within the area of Whittington to Handsacre (CFA 22). It provides a summary of the likely environmental issues and proposed mitigation measures that are being addressed during the design development process within the Whittington to Handsacre area.

1.2.2 The final details of the Proposed Scheme and assessment of its environmental impacts and effects will be presented in the formal ES submitted in accordance with the requirements of Parliamentary Standing Order 27A (SO27A)2.

2 Standing Order 27A of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to private business (environmental assessment), House of Commons.

6 7 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Introduction

Figure 1: HS2 Phase One route and community forum areas

8 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Introduction

1.3 Structure of this report 1.3.1 This report is divided into three parts: • Part A – an introduction to HS2 and the purpose of this report; • Part B – overview of the area, description of the Proposed Scheme within Whittington to Handsacre and its construction, community forum engagement, and a description of the main local alternatives; and • Part C – environmental topic assessments – overview of the policy framework, the environmental baseline within the area, an assessment of construction and operational effects, the proposed mitigation measures, and significant residual effects for the following environmental topics: ȃȃ Agriculture, forestry and soils; ȃȃ Air quality; ȃȃ Community; ȃȃ Cultural heritage; ȃȃ Ecology; ȃȃ Land quality; ȃȃ Landscape and visual assessment; ȃȃ Socio-economics; ȃȃ Sound, noise and vibration; ȃȃ Traffic and transport; and ȃȃ Water resources and flood risk.

1.3.2 The maps relevant to Whittington to Handsacre are provided in a separate corresponding document entitled Volume 2: CFA 22 Whittington to Handsacre Map Book, which should be read in conjunction with this report.

1.3.3 In addition to the environmental topics covered in Part C of this report, Report 27 also addresses climate, electromagnetic interference and waste and material resources on a route‑wide basis.

9 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Introduction Part B: Whittington to Handsacre – overview of the area and description of the Proposed Scheme

10 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre 2 Whittington to Handsacre 2.1 Overview of the area 2.1.1 The Whittington to Handsacre Community Forum Area (CFA) is centred on the 11.9km section of the Proposed Scheme where it passes approximately 1km to the east of Lichfield to connect with the West Coast Main Line (WCML) at Handsacre. The area is situated in the District of Lichfield in Staffordshire. It includes all or part of the parishes of Whittington, Lichfield, Fradley and Streethay, Curborough and Elmhurst, Kings Bromley, Longdon, and Armitage with Handsacre.

2.1.2 As shown in Figure 2, the area is the most northerly section of the Proposed Scheme. The southern boundary is defined as the A51 Tamworth Road at Whittington Heath. For the purposes of the draft ES, properties fronting the A51 north of the junction with Jerry’s Lane and Common Lane at Whittington Heath are taken to fall within this area rather than the Drayton Bassett, Hints and Weeford CFA (CFA 21) to the south. Settlement, land use and topography

2.1.3 The area is predominantly rural and characterised by small villages, hamlets and isolated properties, but is also close to several major settlements. The predominant land use is arable agriculture; however, there are smaller pockets of land associated with grazing land including horse grazing, market gardening and also farming practices involving extensive use of polytunnels. The countryside close to Lichfield offers a range of outdoor recreational activities. Marinas and other recreational facilities are also associated with the Trent and Mersey Canal and Coventry Canal.

2.1.4 Lichfield is the largest settlement in the area. Streethay lies to the east of Lichfield and has almost merged with the outward expansion of Lichfield. Fradley is located to the north-east of Lichfield and the Proposed Scheme. The original village of Fradley lies more than 2km from the centre line of the Proposed Scheme, but a new residential area, Fradley South, and a large employment area, Fradley Park which is adjacent to the Proposed Scheme, has been developed more recently on the former RAF Lichfield Airfield site. Fradley Junction has few residential properties, but comprises a mix of tourism and visitor attractions associated with the Trent and Mersey Canal.

2.1.5 Whittington, in the south of the area, is a large village with a good range of day-to-day services and facilities. Handsacre, in the north, is an expanded village that has merged with the neighbouring village of Armitage in the west; this combined urban area is called Armitage with Handsacre.

2.1.6 The landform between Whittington and Handsacre is broadly defined by the raised heath plateau at Whittington sloping down towards Streethay and skirting the river valley basin of the River Trent. From the river, the river terraces create gentle and shallow slopes around the eastern edge of Lichfield that are characterised by some small pockets of steeper slopes around other brooks and streams. Overall the north-eastern fringes of Lichfield then begin to rise to meet the wider high plateau associated with Cannock Chase.

11 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Figure 2: Area context map

12 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Key transport infrastructure

2.1.7 The A38 is the main road in the area, connecting Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield in the south to Lichfield and Fradley before continuing north to Burton upon Trent and Derby. The A515 is another important road, linking Lichfield with Kings Bromley, acting as an arterial route through the surrounding countryside to the west of Alrewas and Burton on Trent. The M6 Toll is a major feature on the western edge of the study area. Other key routes include the A51 connecting Rugeley, Lichfield and Tamworth. The Proposed Route crosses the WCML and the South Staffordshire Line to the east of Lichfield and then connects with the WCML electrified railway before continuing on through Handsacre.

2.1.8 There is a well developed network of public rights of way (PRoW) in the area. In terms of promoted recreational routes, there are towpaths along the Coventry Canal and the Trent and Mersey Canal. The Coventry Canal passes through Whittington and Huddlesford and to the east of Streethay and Fradley. At its nearest point, the towpath comes within 150m of the Proposed Scheme. The Trent and Mersey Canal passes through Fradley Junction and sweeps in a wide arc north of Wood End Lane at Fradley, passing through Kings Bromley Marina and heading around the north-east edge of Handsacre. The Proposed Scheme crosses the Trent and Mersey Canal at three points on its bend to the north of Wood End Lane.

2.1.9 The Sustrans National Cycleway Route No. 54 passes through the area. The route connects Lichfield with Fradley and Alrewas to the north, and runs along the existing highways of Netherstowe Lane, east of Curborough and Gorse Lane at Fradley Park. The cycleway would be crossed by the route just west of the Wood End Lane/Gorse Lane junction.

2.1.10 In total the Proposed Scheme crosses seven public footpath/bridleways, one canal towpath and one cycleway in this area. Demographic profile

2.1.11 The Whittington to Handsacre CFA contains three Demographic Character Areas (DCAs) within proximity of the Proposed Scheme. A DCA represents an area of settlement concentration for which demographic data is collected and analysed. The Lichfield East and Whittington DCA includes the eastern suburbs of Lichfield city, the settlement of Streethay, and Whittington and its rural hinterland. The Fradley DCA mostly covers an area immediately to the east of the route including the industrial area and settlement of Fradley South. The Armitage with Handsacre DCA includes the area just north of the edge of the Proposed Scheme, extending just beyond the parish boundary; however, given its proximity to the route and concentration of settlement, this DCA has been included for contextual purposes.

2.1.12 According to 2011 Census data, the Lichfield East and Whittington DCA had a population of approximately 11,750, the Fradley DCA 2,800 and the Armitage with Handsacre DCA 3,450. The Fradley DCA has a younger than average demographic profile with approximately 23% of its population aged 14 or under. The Lichfield East and Whittington DCA has a higher than average proportion of people aged 60 and over (29%) while the age structure of the Armitage with Handsacre DCA is aligned to the national average3.

2.1.13 The study area has relatively low levels of ethnic diversity with white British residents accounting for at least 93% of the population in each of the three DCAs.

2.1.14 Home ownership levels across the study area are higher than the regional and national averages. The proportion of homes that are privately owned ranges from 78% in the Fradley DCA to 8o% in the Lichfield East and Whittington DCA. Levels of overcrowding in the study area are also lower than regional and national averages.

3 Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2011), Census.

13 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Notable community facilities

2.1.15 Of the communities that lie closest to the Proposed Scheme, Whittington and Handsacre have the greatest range of facilities and local services. Whittington, in the southern part of the area has a range of shops for day-to-day needs, including a pharmacy, a post office, a convenience food store, a coffee shop, hairdresser, and an estate agent. There is also a primary school, a branch GP surgery, a church, a hospice and a number of community halls in the village. The village centre is the catchment for some facilities, notably the primary school, including the southern part of the area as well as the Hints and Weeford areas, which fall within the adjoining Drayton Bassett, Hints and Weeford CFA to the south.

2.1.16 Also in the south, a small community has established around Whittington Barracks, a Ministry of Defence establishment. There is a children’s day care nursery at the barracks which is a public facility. Family living accommodation wraps around the eastern side of the barracks. There are also recreational playing fields to the north and east of the barracks, which at present are used regularly by a local football club. The Whittington Arms public house is situated on the west side of the A51 Tamworth Road to the north of the barracks, whilst the Whittington Heath Golf Club lies on the east side of the road.

2.1.17 The small village of Huddlesford has a public house which is situated on the banks of the Coventry Canal but has no other community facilities. The Lichfield Cruising Club is based at Huddlesford and has moorings along both the Coventry Canal and along the section of the Wyrley and Essington Canal at Cappers Lane Bridge. The Proposed Scheme crosses Cappers Lane at the Lichfield Cruising Club site.

2.1.18 Lichfield itself is the main centre for many of the communities within the area.With the exception of the Handsacre and Kings Bromley areas, all of the villages in the area fall within the catchment for secondary schools at Lichfield.

2.1.19 Fradley Park lies to the north-east of the Proposed Scheme which skirts across the southern edge of the business area. There are also a number of attractions and recreational facilities in the area, including the visitor centre on the Trent and Mersey Canal at Fradley Junction and the craft/antiques centre at Curborough. There are a number of facilities along or just off Wood End Lane, including Midland Karting and the Curborough Sprint Course, both of which lie immediately adjacent to the land take boundary for the Proposed Scheme. The area includes the Dragonara Miniature Horse Stud and the Delta Force Paint Ball facility, which uses land at Vicar’s Coppice, and is directly on the line of the route.

2.1.20 Handsacre, in the north of the area, merges with the adjoining settlement of Armitage and has a small number of shops, including a baker, butcher, pharmacy, newsagent and a greengrocer/convenience store. There is a primary school on the southern edge of Handsacre and a child care day nursery. The combined area of Handsacre and Armitage also has a number of community halls, churches, open spaces and public houses, as well as a local police station and a GP surgery. Recreation, leisure and open space

2.1.21 To the east of Streethay and the A38 there is an equestrian centre, which offers riding lessons to the general public. The facility is situated immediately adjacent to the land take areas for the Proposed Scheme. Land adjacent to the equestrian centre at Streethay Farm is also used as an airfield for recreational flying and a number of aircraft are based at the site.The runways lie directly in the line of the route of the Proposed Scheme. Streethay Wharf, on the Coventry Canal, lies approximately 220m north-east of the route and provides a range of services including boat hire, boat building and maintenance together with moorings (pontoon and linear) for 65 boats.

14 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.1.22 Mooring facilities are available at both Fradley Junction and at the Kings Bromley Marina. Fradley Junction moorings are located along the Trent and Mersey Canal to the north of the visitor centre and are approximately 850m from the Proposed Scheme. The Kings Bromley Marina has space for approximately 275 narrow boat berths. Planning context and key designations

2.1.23 Volume 1 sets out the national policies under which HS2 has been developed. Given that the Proposed Scheme has been developed on a national basis and to meet a national need it is not included or referred to in many local or regional plans. Nevertheless, in seeking to consider the Proposed Scheme in the local context, relevant local plan documents and policies have been taken into account in relation to environmental topics.

2.1.24 The development plan for the area comprises the saved policies of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (1996-2011)4 and the saved policies of the Lichfield District Local Plan (1998)5. Emerging planning policy is contained in the Lichfield District Local Plan – Our Strategy (July 2012) which Lichfield District Council submitted to the Secretary of State for examination on 22 March 2013 with a schedule of proposed modifications6.

2.1.25 Relevant policies from these documents have been taken into account in relation to the technical assessments reported in Sections 3 to 13.

2.1.26 Looking to the future, the Council envisages substantial development at both Streethay and Fradley. The emerging Local Plan, although not yet adopted, proposes two Strategic Development Allocations (SDAs) within this area. A site is identified for the phased delivery of housing at Fradley Park, supported by transport infrastructure, social and community facilities and green space. Land at Streethay is identified as suitable for the creation of a new community and a phased delivery of new homes, a new community hub (including a primary school, community hall and local convenience retail), open space, public transport provision and walking and cycling routes.

2.1.27 Much of the countryside in the area to the west of the existing WCML is designated as green belt.

2.1.28 The historic cores of Whittington and Longdon Green are designated as conservation areas and there is a linear conservation area designation that follows the line of the Trent and Mersey Canal and Coventry Canal around the edge of Armitage with Handsacre, extending south-east through Fradley Junction and beyond.

2.1.29 There are several parcels of designated ancient woodland within the area, predominantly between Fradley and Armitage with Handsacre as well as several listed buildings. Listed buildings are broadly concentrated around settlement centres and/or older farmsteads. There is a concentration of scheduled monuments to the south-east of Fradley. Other concentrations relate to the historic buildings in the centre of Lichfield. LichfieldCathedral and the Grade II registered park and garden Cathedral Close and Linear Park are located in the centre of Lichfield.

2.1.30 There are no internationally or nationally designated biodiversity sites in the area, but there are over 50 locally designated local wildlife sites (LWS), most of which are over 1km from the Proposed Scheme.

4 Staffordshire andStoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 -2011 – saved policies extended beyond 28 September 2007. 5 Lichfield District Council (1998), Lichfield District Local Plan 1998. 6 Lichfield District Council (2012),Lichfield District Local Plan Our Strategy July 2012 (Proposed Submission) and Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan: Strategy Proposed Submission March 2013.

15 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.2 Description of the Proposed Scheme 2.2.1 The general design of the Proposed Scheme is described in Volume 1. The following section describes the main features of the Proposed Scheme in the Whittington to Handsacre area, including environmental mitigation measures. For information on noise barriers within this CFA, please refer to Section 11 of this report and the SV-01 map series. Overview

2.2.2 The Proposed Scheme enters this area at the crossing of the A51Tamworth Road, and exits this area at the connection with the WCML at the southern limit of Handsacre. The length of the Proposed Scheme would be approximately 11.9km in this area.

2.2.3 The route would initially cross Whittington Heath Golf Course (map CT‑01-61, A4/5) proceeding in a northerly direction. It would then pass over Whittington Common Road and then under Darnford Lane just to the east of Hill Farm (map CT‑01-62, D4). With Lichfield to the west, the route would curve to the west passing over a minor watercourse, a disused canal, Cappers Lane, then over Park Lane, and the WCML. The route would continue to the east of Streethay on a horizontal curve, passing over the South Staffordshire Line and the A38 (map CT‑01-62, B4).

2.2.4 The rail line would pass to the west of the Fradley Business Park (map CT‑01-63, G8), crossing over Wood End Lane, whereupon the route would curve tighter towards the west, crossing over the Trent and Mersey Canal twice, Curborough Brook, and through Ravenshaw Wood (map CT‑01-64, H5 and I5). As the route crosses over Kings Bromley footpath 16, it would curve back toward the north, crossing over the existing A515, Bourne Brook, and the WCML. The Proposed Scheme would connect with the WCML to the south of Handsacre (map CT‑01‑65, E5 and F5).

2.2.5 The proposed stub provided in Phase One for the Phase Two spur for Manchester would commence alongside Fradley Park. The southbound rail line from Handsacre would pass over the future Manchester spur (map CT‑01-63, B8 and C8). It is currently envisaged that the construction of the Manchester spur would end just to the north of the Trent and Mersey Canal.

2.2.6 Since the January 2012 scheme was announced by the Secretary of State, route development work has continued, and the Proposed Scheme now differs in some respects. These changes are discussed in more detail in Section 2.6. The following represent the principal design changes in this area: • North of the A38 the route has been amended to include a grade separated junction to Manchester. To incorporate the junction, the Phase One southbound link from the connection with the WCML would pass over the future Phase Two tracks; • The route to the WCML has been amended to run approximately 75m west of the January2012 announced scheme, reducing the impact on existing and proposed developments in Fradley Park. This results in the link between the HS2 main line and the WCML being moved north by up to 200m; and • The junction at Handsacre has been developed to reduce the impact on the existing WCML services during construction. The HS2 works will where reasonably practicable be constructed away from the existing railway to the east and only two of the four WCML tracks will be diverted as a result.

16 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Proposed Scheme – Section by section

2.2.7 The route would enter the area in the south (map CT‑06-123). Key features of this section (from map CT‑06-123, E6; to CT‑06-124, D6) would include: • Continuation of cutting from previous CFA for approximately 330m from where it crosses the A51 Tamworth Road, where it would reach a maximum depth of up to 7m; • An embankment for approximately 830m reaching a maximum height of approximately 10m at the Whittington Road underpass. Landscape mitigation earthworks with false cuttings and landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line to the north of Whittington Road; • A cutting for 350m to a maximum depth of approximately 3m. Landscape mitigation earthworks with false cuttings and landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line; and • An embankment 375m long (from map CT‑06-124, F6; to CT‑06-124, G6) up to Cappers Lane viaduct, with a maximum height of approximately 14.7m. Landscape mitigation earthworks with false cuttings and landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line.

2.2.8 In addition, as shown on maps CT‑06-123 and CT‑06-124, Whittington footpath 16 would be diverted along the east side of the route to the proposed underpass in Whittington Heath Golf Club. Whittington footpath 17 would be diverted along footpath 16 to Whittington Road. The route would cross Whittington Road on its existing alignment and an overbridge would be provided for Darnford lane to the north of its existing alignment. A drainage pond would be provided on the east side of the route just south of Mill Farm.

2.2.9 The next section of the route, as shown on maps CT‑06-124 to CT‑06-125, would have the following key features: • A viaduct over Cappers Lane and the disused Wyrley and Essington canal, approximately 250m long; Embankment approximately 350m long (map CT‑06-124, C5to CT‑06-124, A57) from Cappers Lane viaduct with a maximum height of over 13m. Landscape mitigation earthworks and landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line; • Fulfen Wood Rail bridge crossing over the WCML (map CT‑06-125, I6); • Embankment 900m long (map CT‑06-125, H6; to CT‑06-125, D5) and with a maximum height of approximately 16m. Landscape mitigation earthworks with landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line; and • A viaduct approximately 300m long over the South Staffordshire Line and the A38 (map CT‑06-125, C5).

2.2.10 In addition as shown on maps CT‑06-124 and CT‑06-125, a drainage pond and auto- transformer station would be provided to the west of the route north of Cappers Lane (map CT‑06-124, I6). An underpass for Park Lane on the line of the existing road (map CT‑06-125). An area of exchange land would be provided near Huddlesford (map CT‑06-125, I9) for the area of common land lost to the Proposed Scheme. A balancing pond to the west of the route north of the WCML (map CT‑06-125, G4/5) and a shared underpass for Streethay footpath 6 and access track for Hill Farm (map CT‑06-125, E5). A new diversion would be provided for the footpath to the north of its existing route.

17 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.2.11 The next section of the route, as shown on maps CT‑06-126 to CT‑06-127, would have the following key features: • An embankment of 450m (from map CT‑06-125, B4; to CT‑06-126, H5) with a maximum height of approximately 14m, from the A38 viaduct to a proposed culvert over Mare Brook (map CT‑06-126, H5). Landscape mitigation earthworks and landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line; • An embankment of 1.5km (from map CT‑06-126, H5; to CT‑06-127, D6) with a maximum height of 11m, from the proposed culvert over Mare Brook to Woodend Lane underpass. Landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the rail line. The two main line tracks would separate to four tracks on this embankment for the junction for Phase 2 to Manchester; • The embankment would continue for a further 900m and maximum height of 8m to form the stub of the proposed route for Phase 2 to Manchester. This would be followed by a 100m long bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal (CT‑06-127, C6); The extent of the Phase One works would stop to the north of the Trent and Mersey Canal (CT‑06-12, B7); • Returning to the Wood End lane crossing the western track would continue on raised embankment up to 14m high then on a structure to carry the track across the route to Manchester. Where the tracks are at different levels retaining walls would be provided between the tracks; • The two tracks to the WCML would continue on an embankment 150m long and up to 17m high to the Trent and Mersey Canal; • Separate bridges would take each track over a 80m long bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal (CT‑06-127, C5), 100m viaduct over Curborough Brook (map CT‑06-127, B5), and a 100m long bridge over the Trent and Mersey Canal to the north of Wood End Lock Cottage; and • Embankments would be provided between this series of viaducts, reaching a maximum height of approximately 14m above the ground. Where the tracks are at different levels retaining walls would be provided between the tracks.

2.2.12 In addition as shown on maps CT‑06-126 and CT‑06-127, a large area for ecological mitigation would be provided to the west of the route north of Mare Brook (map CT‑06-126, F5), a drainage pond would be provided to the north of this (CT‑06-126, E6). An underpass would be provided for the permanent diversion of Alrewas footpath 31 (CT‑06-126-C7). Wood End Lane would be permanently diverted under the route to the south of its existing alignment, a drainage pond would be provided to the north of the road (CT‑06-127, G4). A drainage pond and auto-transformer station would be located adjacent east of the Trent and Mersey canal (CT‑06-127, D5) and a further drainage pond to the west of the Trent and Mersey canal (CT‑06‑127, A4).

2.2.13 The next section of the route, as shown on maps CT‑06-128 to CT‑06-130, would have the following key features: • An embankment of 1.9km (from map CT‑06-128, H6; to map CT‑06-128, C4), varying in height from 3m to 12m at its northern end. Landscape planting would be provided on both sides of the route; • A viaduct approximately 200m long over Bourne Brook; • An embankment 550m long and approximately 14m high with a retaining wall on the south side as it approaches the diverted WCML tracks; • A 150m long structure carrying the HS2 tracks over two of the existing WCML tracks;

18 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

• A 400m long embankment with retaining walls along parts of the east side before the HS2 tracks connect to the inner WCML tracks; • Extension to the existing WCML embankments over approximately 2km from Bourne Brook to Handsacre and the diversion of two eastern most of the four existing tracks; • An overbridge for the A515 (map CT‑06-129, G4) would be constructed on embankment on the line of the existing road; • A balancing pond would be provided to the west of the A515 crossing (CT‑06-129, G4); • Areas of ecological mitigation would be provided to address the loss of ancient woodland to the west of the route adjacent to the A515 diversion (map CT‑06-129, H4); and • The existing WCML underpass for the Kings Bromley footpath 16, adjacent to Ashton Hayes Farm would be extended.

2.2.14 A drainage pond would be located to the south of Handsacre (CT‑06-130, E4).

2.2.15 Works to the existing railway infrastructure to the north of Handsacre will be reported in the formal ES. Land required for the Proposed Scheme

2.2.16 The Proposed Scheme would require land on both a temporary and permanent basis. The land required for construction is shown on the construction maps (map series CT05) and will be subject to review as the engineering design and formal ES is prepared. The final temporary and permanent land requirements will be set out in the formal ES. 2.3 Construction of the Proposed Scheme 2.3.1 This section sets out the key construction activities that are envisaged to build the Proposed Scheme in the Whittington to Handsacre area and the control measures that are proposed to manage the works. General descriptions of construction works that are relevant to the whole of the Proposed Scheme are provided in Volume 1. Environmental management and Code of Construction Practice

2.3.2 All contractors would be required to comply with the environmental management regime for the Proposed Scheme, which would include: • Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) 7; and • Local environmental management plans (LEMP), which would apply within each area.

2.3.3 The CoCP, in conjunction with associated LEMPs, would be the means of controlling the construction works associated with the Proposed Scheme, with the objective of ensuring that the effects of the works upon people and the natural environment are eptk to a practicable minimum. The CoCP will contain generic control measures and standards to be implemented throughout the construction process.

2.3.4 A draft CoCP has been prepared and is published alongside this document. It will be kept under review as the design of the Proposed Scheme develops and further engagement with stakeholders is undertaken.

7 Arup/URS (2013), Phase One: Draft Code of Construction Practice, HS2 Ltd, London.

19 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Construction site operation Working hours

2.3.5 Core working hours would be from 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays (excluding bank holidays) and from 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. While there would not normally be any construction activity on Sundays, some activities (e.g. weekend possessions, tunnelling and ventilation and intervention shafts (vent shafts) construction) would be undertaken. Site specific variations to core hours and/or additional hours likely to be required would be included within LEMPs following consultation with the relevant Local Planning Authority. To maximise productivity within the core hours, HS2 Ltd’s contractors would require a period of up to one hour before and up to one hour after the core working hours for start-up and close down of activities. These activities would be subject to controls set out in the draft CoCP.

2.3.6 Work within existing stations, track laying activities and work requiring possession of major transport infrastructure (e.g. highways) may be undertaken during night time, Saturday afternoon, Sunday and/or bank holidays for reasons of safety or operational necessity and would often involve work on consecutive nights, including over weekend possessions.

2.3.7 Certain activities (such as supply of materials by rail) may need to be undertaken outside these hours, with the consent of the relevant local authority. Construction site compounds

2.3.8 Two main construction site compounds and 20 satellite construction compounds would be located within the area. Plans showing the proposed location of construction compounds within the area are shown in maps CT‑05-123 to CT‑05-131.

2.3.9 Main site compounds would be used for core project management (engineering, planning and construction delivery), commercial and administrative staff.

2.3.10 A construction siding compound is being considered in this area. This would consist of a number of temporary railway sidings connected to the existing railway network. These sidings would be used for the delivery of bulk materials for the construction of earthworks. This will allow receipt and stacking of full construction trains. It would have the core project management (engineering, planning and construction delivery), commercial and administrative staff for earthworks handling.

2.3.11 Satellite site compounds would generally be smaller in size, providing office commodationac for limited numbers of staff. The satellite site compounds would provide local storage for plant and materials and limited car parking would be provided for staff and site operatives. Limited welfare facilities would be provided at each site.

2.3.12 The location of all site compounds along with their duration of use and a broad current estimate of the number of workers likely to work at the construction sites is set out in Table 1 and shown in maps CT‑05-123 t0 CT‑05-131. Construction site details and arrangements are continuing to be refined and will be confirmed in the formal ES. All construction staff would be required to comply with codes of behaviour set out by the CoCP.

20 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Compound type Location Typical use Estimated Estimated number of duration of use8 workers

Average Peak period work day work day

Main site Cappers Lane Main Main area administration and 60 months 100 150 Compound support. (map CT‑05-125, I1)

Main site Tewnals Lane Main Main area administration and 60 months 100 150 compound support. (map CT‑05-129, G5)

Construction of Bourne Brook 18 months 40 60 water course viaduct.

Construction Streethay Import of fill material. 72 months 100 150 sidings (map CT‑05-125, F4)

Satellite site Whittington Common Online road realignment 12 months 15 25 Road underbridge and construction of road (map CT‑05-123, B4) underbridge.

Construction of Whittington 18 months 15 25 footpath 16 PRoW underpass.

Satellite site Darnford Lane overbridge Offline road realignment 12 months 15 25 (map CT‑05-124, F6) and construction of road overbridge.

Satellite site Cappers Lane viaduct Construction of viaduct over 18 months 20 25 (north ) canal and road. (map CT‑05-124, C5)

Satellite site Cappers Lane viaduct Construction of viaduct over 18 months 20 25 (south) canal and road. (map CT‑05-124, D5)

Satellite site Cappers Lane viaduct Construction of viaduct over 18 months 20 25 (west) canal and road. (map CT‑05-124, C4)

Satellite site Park Lane underbridge Online road realignment 12 months 15 25 (map CT‑05-124, B5) and construction of road underbridge.

Satellite site Fulfen Wood rail Construction of new bridge 24 months 20 25 underbridge (north) over WCML. (map CT‑05-125, H6)

Satellite site Fulfen Wood rail Construction of new bridge 24 months 35 50 underbridge (south) over WCML. (map CT‑05-125, I6)

Satellite site Rail System Works Construction of sidings. 4 months 15 25 (map CT‑05-125, E5) Construction of Streethay 12 months 15 25 Footpath 6 PRoW underpass.

Satellite site Streethay viaduct Construction of viaduct over 36 months 20 25 (south-east) the South Staffordshire Line (map CT‑05-125, D6) and A38.

Satellite site Streethay viaduct Construction of viaduct over 24 months 20 25 (north‑east) the South Staffordshire Line (map CT‑05-125, C6) and A38.

21 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Compound type Location Typical use Estimated Estimated number of duration of use8 workers

Average Peak period work day work day

Satellite site Streethay viaduct Construction of viaduct over 24 months 20 25 (south-west) the South Staffordshire Line (map CT‑05-125, C5) and A38.

Satellite site Streethay viaduct Construction of viaduct over 24 months 20 25 (north-west) the South Staffordshire Line (map CT‑05-125, C4) and A38.

Satellite site Wood End Lane Offline road realignment 24 months 70 100 realignment and construction of road (map CT‑05-127, F4) underbridge.

Satellite site Curborough viaduct Construction of railway 12 months 70 100 (map CT‑05-127, D4) structures.

Satellite site Trent and Mersey Canal Construction of twin canal 18 months 70 100 East underbridges underbridges. (map CT‑05-127, D4)

Satellite site Trent and Mersey Canal Construction of two canal 18 months 20 25 West underbridge (north) underbridges. (map CT‑05-128, H6) Construction of twin Pyford 18 months 70 100 Brook water course viaducts.

Satellite site Trent and Mersey Canal Construction of two canal 18 months 20 25 West underbridge (south) underbridges. (map CT‑05-128, I5)

Satellite site A515 Tewnals Lane Online road realignment 18 months 40 60 overbridge and construction of road (map CT‑05-129, G2) overbridge.

Satellite site Harvey’s Rough Viaduct & Construction of West Coast 30 months 70 100 WCML Tie-in Main Line crossing and (map CT‑05-129, D6) Harvey’s Rough viaduct.

Extension of existing Kings 18 months 15 25 Bromley footpath 6 underpass.

Table 1: Location of construction site compounds8

2.3.13 All main site compounds would contain space for the storage of bulk materials (aggregates, structural steel, steel reinforcement), an area for the fabrication of temporary works equipment and finished goods, fuel storage, plant and equipment storage and necessary operational parking. Buildings would be generally temporary modular units and layout would maximise construction space and limit land required. Hardstanding areas would be installed at all site compounds.

2.3.14 The construction siding compound would contain space for the storage of bulk materials (aggregates, structural steel, steel reinforcement), an area for the fabrication of temporary works equipment and finished goods, fuel storage, plant and equipment storage and necessary operational vehicle parking and train unloading. Buildings would be generally temporary modular units and layout would maximise construction space and limit land required. Hardstanding areas would be installed at all site compounds.

2.3.15 The construction sidings compound would comprise up to eight sidings each being 400m in length.

8 The duration for each site compound is currently based on a draft programme, which will be refined for the formal ES.

22 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.3.16 During construction, the construction siding compound would be used to import bulk materials such as track material for embankments by train, via the South Staffordshire Line. Materials would be stockpiled within the footprint identified on the drawings.Construction plant such as large earth moving machinery would be used to transport materials from the sidings through the site. The rail sidings/office area on the site would be illuminated as would access roads with standard height columns of up to 12m. Stock pile areas would only be lit when in use with use controlled through the provisions of the CoCP. Further details will be provided in the formal ES.

2.3.17 The adjacent areas would be used for the temporary storage of any topsoil stripped as part of the works. Fencing and lighting

2.3.18 Security fencing would be provided on the perimeter of each site compound. Individual site compounds for offices, welfare and storage would generally be demarcated and secured with fences and gates. Fence type and construction would be appropriate to the level of security required, likelihood of intruders, level of danger and visual impact to the environment.

2.3.19 Lighting of site compounds during hours of darkness would seek to reduce light pollution to the surrounding area, in accordance with the requirements of the CoCP. Temporary worker accommodation sites

2.3.20 Three temporary worker accommodation sites would be located within this section of the Proposed Scheme as detailed in Table 2. Temporary worker accommodation sites will adhere to the requirements of the CoCP.

Location Site description Facilities provided Estimated Estimated Duration of use number of temporary plots

Cappers Lane temporary Modular temporary living Living accommodation, welfare 60 months 30 workers accommodation. accommodation. facilities, car parking.

Tewnals Lane temporary Modular temporary living Living accommodation, welfare 60 months 30 workers accommodation. accommodation. facilities, car parking.

Construction sidings Modular temporary living Living accommodation, welfare 72 months 30 temporary workers accommodation. facilities, car parking. accommodation.

Table 2: Location of temporary worker accommodation sites Construction traffic and access

2.3.21 The following lorry routes are currently proposed to access each of the site compounds: • The proposed lorry route for Cappers Lane construction site is A5192 Cappers Lane/A38; • The proposed lorry route for Tewnals Lane construction site is A515 Tewnals Lane; • Construction traffic would travel south on the A515 Tewnals Lane to its junction with the B5014 Lichfield Road. It would continue south passing through the A515/A51 roundabout, the A51/A5192 Eastern Avenue junction, to the A51/The Friary/Friary Road roundabout. It would continue south to the A51/A461/A5127 roundabout exiting onto the A5127 Birmingham Road. It would travel south on the A5127, passing through the A5127/A461 roundabout until reaching the A5127/A5/A5148 junction. It would then travel south-east joining the M6 at the M6 Toll/A38/A5;

23 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

• The proposed lorry route for the Darnford Lane overbridge construction site is Darnford Lane/Cappers Lane continuing onto A38; • The proposed lorry route for the Cappers Lane viaduct construction site is Cappers Lane, continuing onto A38; • The proposed lorry route for the Fulfen Wood rail underbridge (WCML) construction site is Park Lane/Cappers Lane, continuing onto A38; • The proposed lorry route for the Streethay viaduct construction site is A38; • The proposed lorry route for the Manchester spur viaduct and Trent and Mersey Canal underbridges construction site is Wood End Lane, continuing onto A515 Tewnals Lane; and • The proposed lorry route for the A515 Tewnals Lane underpass construction site is A515 Tewnals Lane.

2.3.22 The above list of satellite compounds is indicative based on the previous version of the Proposed Scheme; this information will be completed and updated in the formal ES. Preparatory and enabling works Demolition works

2.3.23 It is anticipated that the Proposed Scheme would require the demolition of 16 buildings in the area, with a further 20 buildings which may require demolition if temporary construction sidings are provided at this location. Demolition works are detailed in Table 3.

Description of structure Location

Whittington Heath Golf Club (total buildings: 3). Map CT‑05-123, E6, Whittington Heath Golf Club.

Ivy Cottage outbuildings (total buildings: 2). Map CT‑05, 124, I7, Broad Lane.

Ellfield House outbuilding (total building: 1). Map CT‑05-124, G5, Darnford Lane.

Streethay Cottage, Elverceter, and Field Cottage – three Map CT‑05-125, B4, approximately 400m north-east of dwellings (total buildings: 3). Streethay.

Rough Stockings, one dwelling and outbuilding Map CT‑05-126, H8, approximately 600m north of Streethay. (total buildings: 2).

Outbuildings (total buildings: 2). Map CT‑05-128, D5, Ravenshaw Wood.

Hanch Wood House, one dwelling (total buildings: 3). Map CT‑05-129, D5, Shaw Lane.

The following demolitions may be required if temporary construction sidings are provided at Streethay.

Hill Farm, one dwelling (total buildings: 12). Map CT‑05-125, F4, approximately 300m south-east of Streethay.

Airfield buildings (total buildings: 8). Map CT‑05-125, D5, approximately 400m north-east of Streethay.

Table 3: Demolition works Drainage and culverts

2.3.24 It is anticipated that drainage ponds would be required for both railway track and highway drainage. Indicative locations are shown on maps CT‑06-124 to CT‑06-130. Watercourse diversions

2.3.25 The route of the Proposed Scheme and associated highway works require six diversions of watercourses as detailed in Table 4.

24 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Location Watercourse (status) Reason for diversion Diversion length and map reference

North of WCML Unnamed watercourse To realign unnamed watercourse to new Fulfen 200m railway crossing east (ordinary) Wood culvert. (map CT‑05-125) of Lichfield.

South of Wood End Mare Brook watercourse To realign unnamed watercourse to HS2 2no. 1,150m diversions; Lane. (ordinary) peripheral drainage ditches/watercourses both total length 2,300m sides of proposed embankment. (map CT‑05-127)

WCML railway at Unnamed watercourse To realign unnamed watercourse to Handsacre 250m Handsacre. (ordinary) culvert (no.1). (map CT‑05-129)

WCML railway at Unnamed watercourse To realign unnamed watercourse to Handsacre 120m Handsacre. (ordinary) culvert (no.1). (map CT‑05-129)

WCML railway at Unnamed watercourse To realign unnamed watercourse to Handsacre 240m Handsacre. (ordinary) culvert (no.2). (map CT‑05-130)

Table 4: Watercourse diversions Utility diversions

2.3.26 There are a number of major items of utility infrastructure in proximity to the Proposed Scheme, including: high pressure gas mains; large diameter water mains; large diameter sewers; fibre optic/signal cabling; fuel pipeline and high and low voltage electricity lines. In summary, the main proposed utility diversions required in the area would be the diversion of major electricity and gas works. This is primarily to address those locations where overhead electricity clearance cannot be amended to accommodate the height of the Proposed Scheme works or where connection to gas infrastructure, for example, could be compromised.

2.3.27 The utility construction zones are included on maps CT‑05-123 to CT‑05-130 to provide an initial consideration of these diversions. Proposed diversions and an assessment of the effects of the major utility diversions will be provided in the formal ES.

2.3.28 Discussions with utility providers are underway to confirm whether plant and/or apparatus would need to be realigned away from the area of work; protected from the works by means of a concrete slab or similar; or have sufficient clearance from the work that they would not be affected.

2.3.29 Wherever practicable, temporary connections for construction site compounds would be made to local existing utility services (i.e. electricity, water, data, sewerage and surface water drainage) to reduce the need for generators, storage tanks and associated traffic movements for fuel tankers. Highway and road diversions

2.3.30 Proposed highway and road diversions are shown on maps CT‑06-124 to CT‑06-129 and shown in Table 5. The total duration of works does not necessarily indicate periods of actual closure. The closure of routes will be kept to as short a duration as possible. Diversions show indicative alternative routes available to maintain general access which will be subject to change as part of the development of the design and will be detailed in the formal ES.

25 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Name Location Diversion route Approximate Approximate Duration length of change in diversions length of route

Whittington Map CT‑05-124, Short temporary closures 0m 0m 12 months Common Road B6 for construction. New online underbridge.

Darnford Lane Map CT‑05-124, New overbridge. Permanent 440m 5m Permanent E6 realignment.

Park Lane Map CT‑05-125, I5 Temporary diversion (slight 0m 0m 12 months offline). New online underpass.

Wood End Lane Map CT‑05-127, F5 Permanent diversion. New offline 1km 220m Permanent underpass.

A515 Map CT‑05-129, Temporary diversion (slight 0m 0m 18 months G4 offline). New online overbridge.

Shaw Lane Map CT‑05-129, Closure. 2.3km 1.8km Permanent D5

Capper’s Lane Map CT‑05-124, No diversion; occasional half day 0m 12 months C5 or overnight closures as required.

A38 Map CT‑05-125, C5 No diversion; occasional half day 0m 12 months or overnight closures as required.

Table 5: Highway and road diversions Footpath, cycleway and bridleway diversions

2.3.31 Proposed footpath, cycleway and bridleway diversions are shown on map CT‑06-124 to CT‑06‑129 and shown in Table 6. The total duration of works does not necessarily indicate periods of actual closure. The closure of routes will be kept to as short a duration as reasonably practicable. Diversions show indicative alternative routes available to maintain general access which will be subject to change as part of the development of the design and will detailed in the formal ES.

26 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Name Location Diversion route Approximate Approximate Duration length of change in diversions length of route9

Whittington Map CT‑05-124, A6 New underpass. 235m 65m 4 months footpath 16 PRoW

Whittington Map CT‑05-124, B6, Closure. Divert to 195m -35m Permanent footpath 17 PRoW east of the track Whittington Common Road Underpass.

Streethay footpath 6 Map CT‑05-125, F6 New underpass. 360m 40m Permanent PRoW Temporary closure.

Alrewas footpath 31 Map CT‑05-126, D5 New underpass. 1.9km 1.4km 4 months PRoW

Kings Bromley Map CT‑05-128, C3, Closure. Diverted to new 900m 540m Permanent footpath 0.392 south-west of the underpass. track

Kings Bromley Map CT‑05-130, New underpass. Potential 410m 5m 24 months footpath 6 G5, 100m north- extension of existing west of the existing structure. pedestrian underpass

Alrewas footpath 44 Map CT‑05-127, C5 New Trent & Mersey 2.4km 1.6km Half day/ Canal Manchester and overnight Trent & Mersey Canal East closures underbridges.

Table 6: Footpath, cycleway and bridleway diversions Restricted accesses

2.3.32 There would be no restricted accesses in the local area. Main construction works – earthworks Earthworks

2.3.33 Major earthworks in the area would include: • Streethay embankment; • Fulfen Farm embankment; • Ravenshaw Wood embankment; • Huddlesford embankment; and • Whittington Heath embankment.

2.3.34 Works would be carried out in a sequence, designed to reduce where reasonably practicable road and footpath closures, control flows within watercourses; and reduce vehicle movements by road.

2.3.35 During design development, consideration has been given to the movement of materials. Wherever possible excavated material would be moved directly from the area of excavation to areas of the works where fill material is required. Some processing and temporary stockpiling of fill material may be necessary if direct placement into the permanent works is not possible. Some material may require crushing and/or screening to render it acceptable for use elsewhere.

9 Where net change is negative the diversion route is shorter than the existing route.

27 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Main construction works – structures

2.3.36 The construction methodology for all structures is subject to further design and development, and will therefore be finalised nearer to the time construction commences. However, based on the current design detail, simplified construction sequences for the various structures in the Whittington to Handsacre area are described in the following section. Bridges and viaducts

2.3.37 Viaducts and road bridges under and over the route of the Proposed Scheme would generally be of concrete construction. Structures over the Proposed Scheme would provide a minimum clearance of 7.15m. Structures under the railway would allow for the clearances required by other modes (e.g. typically 5.7m for highways).

2.3.38 A simplified construction sequence for a typical viaduct is provided inVolume 1.

2.3.39 Viaducts, underbridges and overbridges are detailed in Table 7.

Location Element description Length (m)

Whittington footpath 16 (map CT‑06-123, G6) Underbridge 30

Whittington Common Road (map CT‑06-124, B6) Underbridge 30

Darnford Lane (map CT‑06-124, E6) Overbridge 20

Cappers Lane (map CT‑06-124, G6) Viaduct 2

Broad Lane (map CT‑06-124, I7) Underbridge 45

Fulfen Wood rail viaduct, South Staffordshire Line (map CT‑06-125, H5) Viaduct 100

Streethay footpath 6 underpass (map CT‑06-125, E5) Underbridge 45

Streethay viaduct (map CT‑06-125, C5) Viaduct 270

Wood End Lane (map CT‑06-127, G5) Underbridge 60

Curborough viaduct (map CT‑06-127, F5) Viaduct 170

Trent and Mersey Canal Manchester (map CT‑06-127, C7) Underbridge 90

Trent and Mersey Canal East (map CT‑06-127, C5) Underbridge 60

Pyford Brook (map CT‑06-127, B5) Viaduct 100

Trent and Mersey Canal West (map CT‑06-128, H5) Underbridge 110

Alrewas footpath 31 (map CT‑06-129, I5) Underbridge 45

Kings Bromley footpath 0.392 (map CT‑06-129, I5) Underbridge 30

A515 (map CT‑06-129, G4) Overbridge 20

Bourne Brook (map CT‑06-129, I5) Viaduct 150

Harvey’s Rough viaduct (map CT‑06-129, I5) Viaduct 130

Kings Bromley footpath 6 (map CT‑06-130, H5) Underbridge 70

Table 7: Viaducts, underbridges and overbridges Rail infrastructure fit out

2.3.40 The principal elements of rail infrastructure to be constructed are track, overhead line equipment, communications equipment and power supply. The installation of track in open areas would be of standard ballasted track configuration, comprising principally of ballast, rail and sleepers. Further details are set out in Volume 1.

28 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Power supply

2.3.41 HS2 trains would draw power from overhead line equipment, requiring feeder stations and connections to the 400kV National Grid network. There are no feeder stations within the local area. In addition to feeder stations, smaller auto-transformer stations would be required at more frequent intervals. The anticipated locations of proposed auto-transformer stations are: • To the west of the route, adjacent to Cappers Lane, (map CT‑05-124, I7); and • To the west of the route, adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal east viaduct, (map CT‑05‑127, D5). Landscaping and permanent fencing

2.3.42 Landscaping (i.e. earthworks and seeding and planting) would be provided to address visual and noise impacts, as well as to provide screening for intrinsically important ecological habitats and heritage features. Where appropriate, the engineering embankments and/or cuttings would be reshaped to integrate the alignment sympathetically into the character of the surrounding landscape. The planting would reflect tree and shrub species native to the landscape. Opportunities for ecological habitat creation would be considered.

2.3.43 Permanent fencing would be erected and will be shown on plans to accompany the formal ES. Construction programme

2.3.44 A construction programme that illustrates indicative periods for each core construction activity in this area is provided in Figure 3.

29 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Figure 3: Indicative construction programme for the area Commissioning

2.3.45 Commissioning is the process of testing the infrastructure to ensure that it operates as expected. This would take place in the period prior to opening. Further details are provided in Volume 1. 2.4 Operation of the Proposed Scheme 2.4.1 The operation of the Proposed Scheme is described in Volume 1. In this area, HS2 trains would run at speeds up to 360kph. During Phase One of HS2, up to 11 trains per hour (tph) would pass in each direction.

2.4.2 Should Phase Two also become fully operational, the number of trains that would pass in each direction in this area would be as follows: • Up to 12tph south of the junction for Phase Two; • Up to 11tph on the Manchester Phase Two spur; and • 1tph on the section of track between the junction for Phase Two and the connection with the WCML near Handsacre.

30 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.4.3 The trains would be either 200m (one-unit train) or 400m (two-unit trains) long. They would run between the hours of 05:00 and 24:00 (Monday to Saturday) and between 08:00 and 24:00 (Sunday). When required, maintenance would be conducted outside those operating hours. 2.5 Community forum engagement 2.5.1 HS2 Ltd’s approach to engagement on the Proposed Scheme is set out in Volume 1.

2.5.2 A series of community forum meetings and discussions with individual landowners, organisations and action groups were undertaken. Community forum meetings were held on: • 11 April 2012 at Armitage Village Hall; • 28 June 2012 at Armitage Village Hall; • 25 September 2012 at Armitage Village Hall; • 8 November 2012 at Kings Bromley Village Hall; and • 28 February 2013 at Kings Bromley Village Hall.

2.5.3 In addition to HS2 Ltd representatives, attendees at these community forum meetings typically included local residents and residents groups, public representatives, representatives of local authorities and parish and district councils, action groups, affected landowners and other interested stakeholders.

2.5.4 The main themes to emerge from these meetings were: • Impacts to community; • Impacts on ecology/wildlife; • Impacts to farming and associated farming businesses; • Use, size and location of works sites, impacts, construction traffic and use of local roadways, haul routes; • Visual impacts and blighting; • Mitigation measures; • Listed buildings; • Potential for route changes at the Trent and Mersey Canal, and Cappers Lane, tunnel between Whittington and Curborough, and junction for Manchester extension; • Impacts to Handsacre and the mitigation proposed at that junction; • Cumulative impacts with WCML in Armitage; • Impact to previously committed development at Fradley Park; • Noise/vibration effects, analysis of maximum noise rather than average levels; • Impacts on Highways, traffic, traffic counts and public perception,cess ac to Sandy Lane; • Total number of trains running through this area; • Connection to the existing Lichfield Trent Valley and Rugeley Trent Valley train service, WCML; and • Need for imported materials for embankment construction.

31 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.6 Route section main alternatives 2.6.1 The main strategic alternatives to the Proposed Scheme are presented in Volume 1. The main local alternatives considered for the Proposed Scheme within the local area are set out within this section.

2.6.2 Since April 2012, as part of the design development process, a series of local alternatives have been reviewed within workshops attended by engineering, planning and environmental specialists. During these workshops, the likely significant environmental effects of each design option have been reviewed. The purpose of these reviews has been to ensure that the Proposed Scheme draws the right balance between engineering requirements, cost and potential environmental impacts. Configuration of Connection to West Coast Main Line at Handsacre

2.6.3 The January 2012 announced route included the connection of HS2 to the inner pair (fast) of four lines of the WCML at Handsacre. In order to implement this scheme, all the existing four tracks of the WCML would need to be relocated to provide adequate space for the HS2 connections. This would cause significant operational disruption to the WCML, as the majority of the junction construction works are adjacent to or within the WCML operating area.

2.6.4 Alternative options have been investigated to reduce overall impact of the Handsacre connection, reduce disruption to the WCML and if possible provide a more cost effective solution.

2.6.5 The following options were considered: • Option A (January 2012 announced route) – HS2 would connect to the centre WCML (fast) tracks. It would be necessary to move all four WCML tracks outwards to create sufficient space for the HS2 ramp and for construction. The relocated WCML lines would be lowered by approximately 1.5 m in the area of the HS2 crossing; • Option B – HS2 would connect to the central (fast) tracks of the WCML using an underpass. The WCML would be realigned asymmetrically so only the two eastern tracks of the WCML would be moved horizontally by approximately 30m and raised. The majority of the relocated WCML lines and the HS2 crossing can be constructed away from the operational railway before the tracks are diverted. In order to climb above the HS2 tracks the new gradient for the WCML would prevent its use by freight; • Option C– HS2 would connect to the central (fast) tracks of the WCML in a similar fashion to Option A. In this case the WCML would be realigned asymmetrically so only the two eastern up tracks of the WCML would be moved similar to Option B; • Option D – HS2 would connect to the outer WCML (slow) tracks. No realignment of the WCML would be required. To achieve this, the northbound HS2 line would be required to cross all four WCML tracks. The skew crossing will necessitate the construction of a bridge structure spanning the four tracks for a length of approximately 300m. This structure would be constructed within the existing railway corridor during closures of the railway. This junction arrangement would require the link between HS2 Phase Two to Manchester and the WCML at Handsacre to be constructed on two separate embankments rather than a pair of tracks on a single embankment as in the announced route; and • Option E – The layout of Option E would have direct HS2 connections to all four WCML tracks. This would allow the HS2 trains to join the slow and fast lines at 200kph without affecting the adjacent lines. The length of the structures over the WCML to achieve this would be approximately 350m. The WCML tracks would be relocated to allow construction

32 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

of the structure which would have a major effect on WCML operations. The land take requirement would also be significantly greater than the other options.

2.6.6 Option A requires the diversion of all four WCML tracks and would offer no other significant benefits over options which have less impact on the WCML. Option B is not a viable option as it would restrict freight use on the WCML.

2.6.7 Option C can be constructed with the least impact on the WCML. It would however require greater land take on the east side of the route at the junction.

2.6.8 Option D would require a large structure to be constructed over the WCML and would require more railway night-time and weekend closures than Option C. The separation of the link between the main HS2 route and the WCML onto two separate viaducts increases the environmental impacts on woodland affected by the scheme.

2.6.9 Option E provides the most flexibility for train routing, but it has the largest land take and most disruption to WCML services and highest cost of all options.

2.6.10 Therefore Option C, with HS2 connecting to the inner (fast) tracks of the WCML and only the eastern WCML tracks being relocated, was taken forward for further development within the Proposed Scheme for the connection to the WCML at Handsacre. Curdworth to Lichfield alignment Provision of Grade Separated Junction for Phase Two to Manchester

2.6.11 The connection from London and Birmingham to Manchester and the North West requires a crossing over or under the HS2 main line to provide the required junction capacity and journey times. The January 2012 announced route for Phase One did not include details of the junction to Manchester. Phase Two work has developed the alignment for the Manchester Spur.

2.6.12 The location is constrained by the line to the WCML at Handsacre, the proposed line of the Manchester Spur, Fradley Park, the Trent and Mersey Canal and the grade separated A38 Streethay junction.

2.6.13 The following options were considered for the horizontal alignment: • Option A – The January 2012 announced route. This design does not include a fully coordinated grade separated junction for Phase Two to Manchester. This option was developed with a junction at Handsacre connecting to the central lines of the WCML; • Option H – This option provides a grade separated junction for Manchester as close as possible to the January 2012 announced route. The design requires two separate embankments for the tracks between the Phase 2 Junction and the connection to the WCML; and • Option L – Providing a horizontal alignment providing a grade separated junction for Manchester using a single embankment on the link to the WCML requires only a single embankment the horizontal alignment was moved away from the January 2012 announced scheme by a maximum of about 200m.

2.6.14 Option A did not provide a fully coordinated grade separated junction and was therefore discounted.

2.6.15 The twin embankments required for Option H would result in increased environmental impacts due to the increased width of the construction corridor.

2.6.16 Option L would provide the required grade separated junction and has less environmental impact than Option H.

33 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.6.17 Option L, using a single embankment on the link to the WCML has a lower capital cost, together with a lesser impact on woodland, conservation areas and listed than the other options. Therefore Option L was taken forward for further development within the Proposed Scheme for the grade separated junction for Manchester (Phase Two). Options to increase speed

2.6.18 The January 2012 announced scheme included approximately 12km of alignment with a running speed of 350kph. There is an opportunity to reduce journey times between London and Manchester by increasing the running speed in this section. Other potential benefits were investigated within these options including reducing the impact on businesses throughout the affected section.

2.6.19 A number of alternatives were considered by varying the horizontal alignment between the M42 crossing south of Middleton and the connection to the WCML. None of these options have been taken forward on the basis of marginal benefits for increased environmental, stakeholder/community impact and increased costs. Options to mitigate Fradley Business Park impact

2.6.20 The aim of these options is to reduce environmental impacts and soci0-economic effects on the existing and proposed commercial developments at Fradley Park. This family of options preserve the original January 2012 announced route until approximately Rookery Lane at Hints, and varies thereafter.

• Option F – This option would realign the route away from Fradley Park, moving the alignment towards Streethay and requiring a raised crossing over the A38 and the demolition of Streethay Manor; • Option G – This option would maintain the position of the crossing of the A38 but would continue to curve away from the Fradley Park. This option required a twin embankment between the junction for Phase 2r and the WCML; • Option M – Similar to Option G, with the alignment between the junction to Manchester and Handsacre Junction being modified to use a single embankment, in combination with a reduction in running speed for the link between the HS2 main line and the WCML; and • Option N – A realignment avoiding the Fradley Park existing and proposed developments while maintaining the location of the crossing of the A38 at the low point. This would require an eastward realignment of the route south of the A38.

2.6.21 Options F and G, which mitigate the business impacts at Fradley Park, were discounted due to their adverse impacts on Streethay community and the listed buildings at Streethay Manor.

2.6.22 Option N was discounted due to impacts and stakeholder concerns south of the A38.

2.6.23 Option M was subsequently compared against Option L. Option M provided reduced impacts on woodland, listed structures and jobs compared to Option L and was less expensive. These benefits outweighed the reduction in line speed on the link between HS2 and the main line. Therefore Option M, which maintains the position of the crossing of the A38 but would continue to curve away from the Fradley Park with the alignment between the junction to Manchester and Handsacre Junction being modified to use a single embankment, in combination with a reduction in running speed for the link between the HS2 main line and the WCML, was taken forward for further development within the Proposed Scheme for the alignment between Curdworth and Lichfield.

34 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

Options responding to Community Forum proposals

2.6.24 Five community Proposals comprising long bored tunnels as well as tunnels or bridges under the A38 and WCML were assessed. These options were developed in combination with the options to mitigate Fradley Business Park Impact: • Option I – This option would include a green tunnel from the A51 through Whittington Heath Golf Course, followed by a bored tunnel beneath the WCML, South Staffordshire Line and the A38 dual carriageway before resurfacing to provide the junction for Phase Two to Manchester; • Options J, K, O & S – This family of options would pass beneath the WCML, South Staffordshire Line and A38 using overbridges and cuttings. Each option followed a different horizontal alignment; and • Option P – This option considered the shortest bored tunnel viable under the WCML, South Staffordshire Line andA38. This was similar to Option I, but with the green tunnel approaches removed.

2.6.25 Option I provides substantial environmental benefits and reduces the potential disruption to the existing roads and railways crossed by the route. However this was outweighed by the very high cost of providing a tunnel.

2.6.26 Options J, K & O provide a significant proportion of the benefits associated with Option I, but at a significantly reduced cost. The horizontal alignment of option O had the least environmental impact and cost of these options.

2.6.27 Although Option P offered reduced costs over Option I it remained significantly more expensive than Option O.

2.6.28 The most cost effective lowered option was Option O. This mitigates much of the visual and noise impacts during operation. Option O was compared against Option M in greater detail. Option O is more expensive than Option M. Although both options require a level of disruption to the existing transport infrastructure, investigation into the nature of the geology and hydrology indicates that it is difficult to construct the crossings of theA38, South Staffordshire Line and WCML for Option O. The construction of Option O would lead to an unacceptable level of disruption to these important railways and highway. Whilst the lowered options provide an overall reduction in environmental impacts, they would come at a significant disruption to existing transport infrastructure and at increase in construction costs.

2.6.29 Therefore none of these options have been taken forward. Arrangement of Junction for Phase Two to Manchester

2.6.30 The output from the route optioneering process described above resulted in Option M, being taken forward for the development of the grade separated junction work for Manchester. This option maintains the January 2012 announced route alignment for the crossing of the A38 but would continue to curve away from the Fradley Park. The alignment between the junction to Manchester and Handsacre Junction was modified to use a single embankment, in combination with a reduction in running speed for the link between the HS2 main line and the WCML.

2.6.31 The following sub-options were considered for the vertical profile of the junction: • Sub-option (i) – Handsacre link over HS2 main line to Manchester. For this option the main line to Manchester has been lowered as much as practical to achieve minimum clearance over the Trent and Mersey canal.

35 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

• Sub-option (ii) – Handsacre link under the HS2 main line to Manchester. The line from Handsacre has been lowered as much as practicable to achieve minimum clearance over the Trent and Mersey canal. The main line to Manchester would be raised to pass over the link to Handsacre at a higher alignment.

2.6.32 Sup-option (i) is less expensive and provides environmental benefits overSub option (ii) due to the reduced height of the high speed lines and was included into the design. Therefore Sub‑Option (i), Handsacre link over HS2 main line to Manchester, was taken forward for further development within the Proposed Scheme for the grade separated junction for Manchester (Phase Two). Extent of the stub for the Manchester Spur

2.6.33 It would be very expensive and disruptive to make connections for Phase Two to the HS2 Phase One route after the railway becomes operational because the works would have to be undertaken in a combination of short night time periods and more extensive line closures. An interface point between the two phases has been investigated along the spur to Manchester.

2.6.34 The general principle behind the interface point is for it to be located in order to enable Phase 2 to be constructed without adversely affecting the operation of PhaseOne.

2.6.35 In addition to the grade separated bridge and lines through the junction, the junction spur would comprise an elevated railway which would extend to a point around 150 metres north of the Trent and Mersey Canal crossing. Around 200 metres of embankment would be built between the Phase One line and the canal, because access to this area for construction would be difficult near the operational Phase One railway. The canal crossing would also be constructed, as the Phase One main line already involves two crossings of the canal nearby and it would avoid repeated disruption if the third crossing in the area for Phase Two was completed at the same time. Finally, around a further 150 metres of the route would be constructed north of the canal to avoid repeated impacts to adjacent woodlands by both HS2 Phase One and Two.

2.6.36 Therefore an interface point for the stub for the Manchester Spur, which would extend to a point around 150 metres north of the Trent and Mersey Canal crossing, has been taken forward for further development within the Proposed Scheme for the grade separated junction for Manchester (Phase Two). 2.7 Proposals for further consideration 2.7.1 The following proposals are to be considered for inclusion within the Proposed Scheme pending further assessment prior to release of the formal ES.

2.7.2 A number of further engineering developments to the Proposed Scheme are being investigated including: • The provision of construction railway sidings and material stockpiling off of theSouth Staffordshire Line to the south-east of the A38 at Streethay for the importation of material. Indicative areas which may be required for this are indicated within this CFA report and drawings; • Potential sidings for the construction of rail systems to the southeast of the A38 between Streethay and Fradley Park as an alternative to the proposed site at Hams Hall (refer to CFA 20 for further details); and • Alternative alignments for the permanent diversion of Tewnals Lane A515.

36 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre

2.7.3 Four proposals resulting from stakeholder engagement, are to be considered within the Whittington to Handsacre section of the route: • A lowered alignment and tunnel beneath the Trent and Mersey Canal; • Alternative horizontal alignment of the link to the WCML to avoid crossing the Trent and Mersey Canal; • A diversion of the Trent and Mersey Canal to the north of the link to the WCML to enable the route to be lowered; and • A cut and cover tunnel local to Whittington Heath Golf Course.

37 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Whittington to Handsacre Part C: Environmental topic assessments

38 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils 3 Agriculture, forestry and soils 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This section of the report provides a summary of the impacts and the likely significant effects to agriculture, soils and forestry arising from the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. The section covers soils, agricultural land quality, farm enterprises, forestry and agri‑environment schemes. 3.2 Policy framework 3.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to agriculture are set out in the following section.

3.2.2 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan includes a number of policies related to agriculture. Policy D6: Conserving Agricultural Land reinforces the presumption in favour of protecting the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a), also included in Policy D1, establishing a sequential process for considering proposals that would result in the loss of such land. Policy D4 relates more generally to the management of change in rural areas. The policy emphasises the need for diversification of the local economy, designed to underpin services and community facilities, provided that there is sufficient infrastructure in place to sustain the community.

3.2.3 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan policies comprise both general considerations and site specific policies, but none relate directly to agriculture.The emerging Local Plan does not contain any policies specifically related to agriculture, but introduces some relevant policy themes. Core Policy Three: Delivering Sustainable Development indicates that development should be directed to previously developed (brownfield) land in the most sustainable locations. Policy NR1: Countryside Management states that the countryside is valued as an asset in its own right and would be protected. Emerging policy provisions include assisting the delivery of diverse and sustainable farming enterprises and Policy NR4: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows stresses the importance of conserving these landscape features. 3.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 3.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the farm impacts and agricultural land quality assessments are set out in Volume 1.

3.3.2 There are no additional topic specific assumptions or limitations in this area. 3.4 Environmental baseline 3.4.1 The proposed route through the Whittington to Handsacre study area extends northwards from the A51 at Whittington Heath over sandstone, falling from 100m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) on the golf course to 65m AOD at the floodplain near Huddlesford. From there, the route proceeds north-westwards across lowlands between 65m and 75m AOD before rising slightly west of Bourne Brook.

3.4.2 Drainage is served by north-east trending brooks at Huddlesford and branches of the Mare Brook around Streethay flowing to the River Tame. Further west, the Curborough and Bourne Brooks, fed by numerous smaller brooks and drains, flow towards the RiverT rent.

3.4.3 Whittington Heath Golf Club is situated on the pebble conglomerates and reddish-brown sandstones of the Kidderminster Formation inlier, giving rise to sandy soils. Due north from here, as far as Streethay, there occurs the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation which gives rise

39 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

to sandy and sandy loam soils. Both formations are of Triassic age. North of Streethay, the lowlands are underlain by red mudstones of the Mercia Mudstone Group, also of Triassic age. The deeply weathered mudstones give rise to slowly permeable clayey subsoils.

3.4.4 Superficial drift deposits of clayey and loamy glacial material are restricted to a small area at Whittington Barracks. An extensive spread of glacial outwash sands and gravels obscures the mudstones north-east of a line from Hilliard’s Cross, Wood End Lane and Lichfield Road (Handsacre) and more limited spreads of river terrace deposits occur in the Mare Brook valley. The floodplains of the main brooks contain narrow ribbons of alluvium.

3.4.5 The National Soil Map shows seven principal groups, or associations of soil types within the study area, and more detailed published information is also available for part of the study area10,11.

• The Bromsgrove association is mapped on part of the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation between Darnford Lane, Whittington and the A38 at Streethay. The dominant soil type is a well-drained reddish light loam over sandstone, deep in places. There are some light loams with slowly permeable subsoils of siltstone and sandstone that experience slight seasonal waterlogging; • The Bridgnorth association, found on Whittington Heath, has free draining sandy and sandy loam soils over soft sandstone of the Kidderminster Formation; • Deep sandy and sandy loam soils of the Newport 1 association occur in glacial outwash sand and gravel deposits at the north-western end of the study area from Bourne Brook to Handsacre. The soils are described as well drained, but a soil survey for this project shows that there are some soils there with slowly permeable clayey and loamy layers in the subsoil that cause seasonal waterlogging; • Part of the study area contain soils of the similar Brockhurst 1 and Clifton associations; the former developed on mudstones with thin superficial drift west of Huddlesford and the latter west of Hilliard’s cross in deep reddish light and medium loamy drift. Topsoils and upper subsoils tend to be medium loamy or medium silty, but the slowly permeable clayey or loamy lower subsoils cause most soils to be seasonally waterlogged; • On the low ground between Fradley and Bourne Brook there are deep permeable sandy and light loamy soils of the Blackwood association. In their natural state these soils have high groundwater levels, but these are now largely controlled by ditches; and • Soils on the river terrace deposits in the Mare Brook catchment north and east of Streethay include deep permeable sandy and light loamy soils of the Wigton Moor association. They are variably affected by groundwater.

3.4.6 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has produced predictive assessments of the occurrence of the occurrence of BMV agricultural land. These show that there is a high (greater than 60%) likelihood of there being BMV land within the study area.

3.4.7 The assessment of agricultural land quality in the study area indicates that there is a high proportion of agricultural land in the BMV category (88%), with the majority in Subgrade 3a (57%) and a smaller proportion in Grade 2 (31%). Grade 2 mainly occurs south of Streethay and south-east of Handsacre, where drained, on sandy loam soils of the Bromsgrove and Blackwood associations. This is consistent with the predictive mapping prepared by Defra, which shows this local area has a high proportion of higher quality land. Given there is a high likelihood of BMV land for this local area, the loss of such land is considered to be of low sensitivity.

10 CranfieldUniversity (2001), The National Soil Map of England and Wales 1:250,000 scale, Cranfield University, National Soil Resources Institute. 11 Hollis, J. (2001), Soils in Staffordshire IV Sheet SK00/10 (Lichfield), Rothamsted Experimental Station.

40 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

3.4.8 The remaining 12% of agricultural land is lower quality Subgrade 3b, found on the heavier, more clayey land (Clifton and Brockhurst 1 associations) west of Huddlesford and just west of Hilliard’s Cross.

3.4.9 Agricultural land use in this area is a mixture of arable crops (such as wheat, barley and oil seed rape) and grassland, but dominated by arable. There is one fruit growing enterprise. Livestock include sheep, beef and dairy cattle. Stands of woodland are common, including low ground affected by high groundwater (Blackwood association).

3.4.10 The agricultural surveys to date have identified 29 holdings that could be affected in the study area, as set out in Table 8. Nine are mainly arable, nine are mixed arable and livestock, four are mainly livestock farms and one is a specialist fruit grower in irrigated polytunnels in the far north (New Farm Produce Ltd). One small holding is used mainly for horses. There are five parcels of woodland called Slaish Wood, Ravenshaw Wood, Brokendown Wood, Vicar’s Coppice and woodland north of Wood Lane in the north and Fulfen Wood in the south. The holdings lie within the size range of 7ha to 143ha. From interviews, five land holdings are known to comprise diversified enterprises. These include letting uses of farm buildings and yards, a tea shop, fishing and moorings, and commercial shoots. There is an airstrip for light aircraft on grassland at Streethay Farm.

Holding Primary farming activities

Fulfen Farm Mainly arable

Land off Cappers Lane Mainly arable

Huddlesford House Farm Mixed arable and livestock (including dairy)

Hill Farm Mixed arable and livestock

Streethay Farm Mixed arable and livestock

Streethay House Farm Mainly arable

Curborough House Mainly arable

Curborough Farm Mixed arable and livestock (sheep and cattle)

Woodland off Wood End Lane Woodland

Land around Fradley Wood Mixed arable and livestock and some woodland

Woodend Farm Mainly arable

Ravenshaw Wood East Woodland

Black Slough Farm Mainly livestock (dairy)

Ravenshaw Wood West Woodland

Haunchwood Mainly livestock (dairy heifers)

Brownfields Farm Mixed arable and livestock (including dairy)

Hunts Farm Mixed arable and livestock

New Farm, Elmhurst Horticulture/fruit grower

Ashton Hayes Mainly arable

Tuppenhurst Field Mainly arable

Tuppenhurst Farm Mainly arable and livestock

Shaw House Equine (not commercial)

Shaw Lane Farm Mainly arable

Brokendown Wood Woodland

41 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

Holding Primary farming activities

Thatchmoor Farm Mainly arable

Land south of Thatchmoor Farm Mainly livestock (sheep or cattle)

Land north-east of Marsh Lane Mainly livestock (sheep or cattle)

Hill Farm Mainly livestock (sheep or cattle)

Vicar’s Coppice Woodland

Table 8: Holdings affected by the Proposed Scheme

3.4.11 Much of the land along the Proposed Scheme has been voluntarily entered into Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) Schemes. Two holdings (Fulfen Farm and Hunts Farm) are also participating in Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) Schemes. ELS schemes are principally concerned with field corner and hedgerow management and the creation of buffer strips and uncultivated field margins. HLS aims to provide more intensive environmental management, such as hedgerow planting and the creation of floristically-rich field margins.

3.4.12 The whole area is a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone where nitrate pollution is a potential problem and measures have been introduced to reduce nitrogen losses from agricultural sources to water.

3.4.13 In assessing the impact of the Proposed Scheme on farms it is important to recognise that the ability of the farms to adapt to change depends, in part, upon the size of the holding, their layout and fragmentation (both before and after the Proposed Scheme) and the enterprises operated. Intensive smaller farms and enterprises such as irrigated farms which are dependent upon the spatial relationship between land and key infrastructure (e.g. buildings and water supplies) generally have less ability to change. In the study area, there are three dairy herds (Huddlesford House Farm, Brownfields Farm and Black Slough Farm) and a fruit grower (New Farm Produce Ltd) which are considered to be the most sensitive to change. 3.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

3.5.1 HS2 Ltd would require all of its contractors to comply with the CoCP, which would include the following measures: • Measures to maintain farm access and avoid traffic over land which is used temporarily during construction; • Ensuring that each affected farm holding would receive specific and relevant liaison regarding the construction activities that would affect the holding; • Ensuring that agricultural land and corresponding soil quality can be reinstated post construction where this is the agreed end use; • Ensuring that the impacts on infrastructure and livestock for individual farm holdings would be minimised; • Ensuring that there is appropriate access provided to areas of severed land during and post-construction; and • Ensuring the appropriate handling and conservation of soil stockpiles to allow them to be reused without any substantive reduction in long term productive capability.

3.5.2 Soil resources would be stripped at the outset of the construction phase and stored. Where land is required temporarily for construction of the Proposed Scheme, stored soils would be used to reinstate those sites to a pre-construction agricultural condition. Soils removed from the area of permanent works would be utilised, where reasonably practicable, in the

42 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

construction of the Proposed Scheme. The soil associations affected most extensively by temporary works are the light and well drained Bromsgrove, Bridgnorth and Newport 1, the more slowly permeable Brockhurst 1 and Clifton soils, and Blackwood and Wigton Moor that are affected by groundwater. They differ in their sensitivity to disturbance and would require separate handling and storage. In particular, the clayey Brockhurst and Clifton soils would require more careful handling in wet seasons.

3.5.3 Aspects of the Proposed Scheme that would assist to reduce effects on agricultural resources include: • Highway overbridges at Darnford Lane, the A515, Highway underpasses at Whittington Road, Park Lane and Wood End Lane; • The Hs2 crossings over the Trent and Mersey Canal East and West; and • Viaducts at Cappers Lane, Fulfen Wood, Streethay, Curborough Brook, Bourne Brook and Harvey’s Rough.

3.5.4 Agricultural land would be acquired temporarily during the construction phase, including land for access and working areas; this is in addition to the land which is required permanently as part of the Proposed Scheme. Any loss of this BMV land during construction is considered to be significant but temporary in nature, until such time that the soil and land returned to the land owner has been restored to its former quality.

3.5.5 The Proposed Scheme would result in the permanent loss of some agricultural and wooded land from the affected holdings. A high proportion (approximately 88%) of the agricultural land permanently lost is BMV; mainly Subgrade 3a and some Grade 2. The remainder is Subgrade 3b. As Defra predict there is a high likelihood of encountering BMV in this area, the sensitivity of this resource is low. Due to the scale of land take, the permanent loss of a high proportion of BMV land along the Proposed Scheme in the study area is considered to be significant.

3.5.6 The amount of agricultural land required for the Proposed Scheme is not only an effect on the land resource, but also on the farming interests utilising that resource. Of the 29 holdings that could be affected in the study area, 22 would be affected significantly on a temporary basis during the construction phase would experience a significant loss of land and/or severance as follows: • Fulfen Farm; • Land off Cappers Lane; • Hill Farm; • Streethay Farm; • Streethay House Farm; • Curborough House; • Curborough Farm; • Woodend Farm; • Ravenshaw Wood East; • Ravenshaw Wood West; • Haunchwood; • Brownfields; • Hunts Farm; and

43 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

• Brokendown Wood.

3.5.7 Eight holdings would experience a significant temporary loss of land: • Black Slough Farm; • New Farm; • Ashton Hayes; • Tuppenhurst Field; • Thatchmoor Farm; • Land south of Thatchmoor Farm; • Hill Farm; and • Vicar’s Coppice.

3.5.8 The holdings at Ravenshaw Wood West, Haunchwood and Hill Farm would also lose agricultural buildings during the construction of the Proposed Scheme. A number of buildings associated with the airstrip at Streethay Farm would also be demolished.

3.5.9 The specialist fruit grower has an irrigation system that would be significantly disrupted by the Proposed Scheme and would require relocation and reconnection to the water supply.

3.5.10 The fruit growing enterprise would be particularly sensitive to dust during construction. The three dairy farms would be sensitive to dust, noise and vibration. Dust can also adversely affect growing crops and the quality of grazing and conserved feed. Dust, noise and vibration might also adversely affect some diversified farm businesses, such as the letting of farm buildings and yards, a tea shop, fishing and moorings, and a commercial shoot.The emission of dust, noise and vibration during the construction phase would be controlled by implementing best practice set out in the CoCP.

3.5.11 Many fields along the route contain drains. Drainage systems significantly affected during construction would be restored, where practicable.

3.5.12 Loss of forestry land, including that at Fulfen Wood, Slaish Wood, Ravenshaw Wood, Brokendown Wood, Vicar’s Coppice and woodland north of Wood Lane, would be mitigated by replanting in nearby locations. Such locations would include areas of agricultural land that are inaccessible as a result of severance caused by the Proposed Scheme. The loss of forestry land would remain a significant effect during the construction phase, but would not be significant once planting matures.

3.5.13 Forestry and woodland soils and resources are required by both the temporary and permanent works necessary to implement the Proposed Scheme. The loss and disruption of these soils is considered to be a significant effect.

3.5.14 The construction process could lead to transportation of weed seeds and plants along the route. Since the land affected is largely in agricultural use there is the potential for the spread of existing weeds; particularly invasive and damaging weeds as listed in the Weeds Act 195912. Defra has powers to require occupiers of land on which they are growing to take action to prevent their spreading. Application of control measures within the CoCP would regulate this potential effect.

12 Weeds Act 1959 (7 and 8 Eliz II c. 54). London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

44 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

Likely residual significant effects

3.5.15 The main residual effect would be the permanent loss of agricultural and wooded land. Due to the scale of land take, the residual loss of a high proportion of BMV land along the Proposed Scheme in the study area is considered to be significant.

3.5.16 The mitigation outlined would reduce the effects of severance, and land not required for the permanent alignment would be restored back to agriculture following construction. However, at present there would be residual impacts for 22 holdings listed below. This is due to the area of permanent land take and/or some residual severance effects: • Fulfen Farm; • Land off Cappers Lane; • Hill Farm; • Streethay Farm; • Streethay House Farm; • Curborough House; • Curborough Farm; • Woodend Farm; • Ravenshaw Wood East; • Black Slough Farm; • Ravenshaw Wood West; • Haunchwood; • Brownfields; • Hunts Farm; • New Farm; • Ashton Hayes; • Tuppenhurst Field; • Brokendown Wood; • Thatchmoor Farm; • Land south of Thatchmoor Farm; and • Hill Farm. Further mitigation

3.5.17 No further mitigation is currently proposed. 3.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

3.6.1 All run-off from the operational area would be captured in designated drainage arrangements capable of control prior to discharge to watercourses.

45 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Agriculture, forestry and soils

3.6.2 Issues of noise could relate to the startle effect on livestock and to a deterioration of amenity conditions for some diversified activities including the letting of farm buildings and yards, a tea shop, fishing and moorings, and a commercial shoot. However, this is considered to be not significant.

3.6.3 Dust generation will be controlled by measures set out in the draft CoCP and is unlikely to be of a sufficient intensity as to lead to significant levels of deposition on neighbouring farmland, including the irrigated land.

3.6.4 Comparison with other railway and highway land indicates that all corridors of transport infrastructure have the potential to support weed growth which may prejudice agricultural interests where weeds can spread to adjoining land. The potential for the establishment and spread of weeds from the operational area is capable of being effectively addressed through the adoption of an appropriate land management regime by the network operator which identifies and remedies areas of weed growth which might threaten adjoining agricultural interests. Likely residual significant effects

3.6.5 There are not considered to be any significant residual effects associated with the operation of the Proposed Scheme.

46 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Air quality 4 Air quality 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This section of the report provides an assessment of the impacts and likely significant effects on air quality arising from the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme, covering nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and dust13. Emissions of these pollutants are typically associated with construction activities and equipment and road traffic. 4.2 Policy framework 4.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to air quality are set out in the following section.

4.2.2 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan does not contain a policy that directly addresses air quality; however the policies within the plan generally seek to resist development that could result in adverse effects on the natural and historic environment.The emerging Local Plan does not include policy specific to air quality. However some more general policies contain relevant provisions, particularly Core Policy 3: Delivering Sustainable Development, which highlights several issues that all new development should address in order to deliver sustainable development. Of particular relevance to air quality, the policy states that all development should protect the amenity of local residents, and minimise levels of pollution or contamination to air, land, soil or water. The council also commits to the monitoring and maintenance of air quality below National Air Quality Strategy objectives across the Lichfield District. 4.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 4.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the air quality assessment are set out in Volume 1.

4.3.2 No local assumptions have been made for the air quality assessment in this area. 4.4 Environmental baseline 4.4.1 The environmental baseline reported in this section represents the environmental conditions identified within the study area. The main source of existing air pollutants in the Whittington to Handsacre area is road traffic on the A38 trunk road, as well as the A51 and the A515 which the Proposed Scheme would cross. The area is generally predominantly rural with no industrial emissions.

4.4.2 Estimates of background air quality have been obtained by Defra for 2011 and future years (2017 and 2026). These data are estimated for 1km grid squares for nitrogen oxides (NOx), NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. All average pollutant concentrations are less than the relevant national air quality objectives.

4.4.3 There are currently no permanent continuous air quality monitoring stations in operation within the Lichfield District and therefore none within the study area.Continuous monitoring has however been carried out for two periods, one of nine months in 2007 and the other of eight months in 2009, at Muckley Corner, a roundabout on the A5, approximately 6.6km west of the route. Reported concentrations of NO2 were above the annual mean national air quality

13 PM10 is any particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10µm. Particulate matter of this size is respirable. PM2.5 is any particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5µm. This size fraction of particulate matter is respirable and has been linked to adverse effects on human health.

47 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Air quality

objective value in 2007, but were below the annual mean national air quality objective value in 2009. Concentrations of PM10 were below the national air quality objectives.

4.4.4 Lichfield District Council measures annual mean NO2 concentrations using passive diffusion tubes at 22 locations across its administrative area. Only one diffusion tube monitoring site is located within the study area. This site is roadside to the A38 at Fradley and lies 3.1km north- east of the route. Reported concentrations of NO2 at this site were above the annual mean national air quality objective value in 2010, but were below the annual mean national air quality objective value in all other years in the period 2007-2011. Monitoring results for this location are representative of concentrations where the route would cross the A38.

4.4.5 The continuous monitoring and diffusion tube sites are not considered to be representative of the predominantly rural area through which the route would pass because they are located adjacent to roads. The background air quality maps produced by Defra are considered to be a more suitable source for determining background pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the route within the study area. On this basis pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the route are predicted to be less than the relevant national air quality objectives.

4.4.6 Lichfield District Council has designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) at Muckley Corner which includes a roundabout on the A5 and some of the surrounding properties. The AQMA is approximately 6.6km west of the route. An Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) has been developed by Lichfield District Council to address and improve local air quality in and around the designated AQMA, mostly through transport related policies and measures14.

4.4.7 Several locations have been identified in the study area, which are considered to be susceptible to changes in air quality and are close to construction activities or roads that would be subject to realignments or used by construction traffic.These are: • Properties along Darnford Lane, west of Whittington, owing to proximity to dust generation from earthworks and construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas and also permanent realignment of Darnford Lane associated with the Proposed Scheme; • Fulfen Cottages, Cappers Lane, east of Streethay, owing to proximity to dust generation from earthworks and construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas associated with the Proposed Scheme; • Properties on Ash Tree Lane, Streethay, owing to proximity to dust generation from earthworks and construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas associated with the Streethay construction sidings and the rest of the Proposed Scheme; • Streethay Farm, Burton Road, north-east of Streethay, owing to proximity to dust generation from demolition, earthworks and construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas associated with the Streethay construction sidings and the rest of the Proposed Scheme; • The Manor, Burton Road, north-east of Streethay, owing to proximity to dust generation from demolition, earthworks and construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas associated with the Proposed Scheme;

14 Lichfield District Council (2010), Local Air Quality Management 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Further Assessment and Air Quality Action Plan for Muckley Corner.

48 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Air quality

• Wood End Lock Cottage, Wood End Lane, owing to proximity to dust generation from earthworks and construction associated with the Proposed Scheme; • Properties around Wood End Farm, Wood End Lane, Curborough, owing to proximity to dust generation from construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas associated with the Proposed Scheme; • Ravenshaw Cottage, Wood End Lane, Curborough, owing to proximity to dust generation from earthworks and construction activities associated with the Proposed Scheme; and • Properties along Shaw Lane, Hanch, owing to proximity to dust generation from earthworks and construction and dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas associated with the Proposed Scheme.

4.4.8 No statutory designated ecological receptors have been identified within the study area. 4.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

4.5.1 Air quality would be controlled and managed during construction through the route-wide implementation of the CoCP, where appropriate. Specific measures would include: • Contractors being required to control dust, air pollution, odour and exhaust emissions during construction works; • Inspecting and monitoring undertaken after consultation with Lichfield District Council to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken to prevent dust and air pollutant emissions; • Cleaning (including watering) of haul routes and designated vehicle waiting areas to suppress dust; • Keeping soil stockpiles away from sensitive receptors (including historical features), watercourses and surface drains where reasonably practicable, also taking into account the prevailing wind direction relative to sensitive receptors; • Using enclosures to contain dust emitted from construction activities; and • Undertaking soil spreading, seeding and planting of completed earthworks following completion of earthworks.

4.5.2 Impacts from the construction of the Proposed Scheme could arise from dust generating activities and emissions from construction traffic. As such, the assessment of construction impacts has been undertaken for human receptors sensitive to dust and exposure to NO2 and PM10, as well as ecological receptors sensitive to dust and nitrogen deposition.

4.5.3 In the Whittington to Handsacre area dust generating activities would comprise the demolition of buildings on Tamworth Road, Whittington Heath; and on Burton Road, north‑east of Streethay; and the construction of new structures and earthworks, as well as dust and mud from vehicles deposited onto the public highways when departing from construction areas.

4.5.4 A construction dust assessment was undertaken for sensitive receptors at the nine worst case locations owing to their close proximity to the dust generating activities. These included residential properties along Darnford Lane, west of Whittington; on Cappers Lane, east of Streethay; on Ash Tree Lane, Streethay; at Streethay Farm, Burton Road, north-east of Streethay; at The Manor, Burton Road, north-east of Streethay; at Wood End Lock Cottage, Wood End Lane; at Wood End Farm, Wood End Lane, Curborough; at Ravenshaw Cottage, Wood End Lane, Curborough and on Shaw Lane, Hanch.

49 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Air quality

4.5.5 Based on the application of the measures contained within the draft CoCP, the construction dust assessment determined that of the nine sensitive locations identified in the study area, which are considered to be susceptible to changes where residential properties were present, the impact at Darnford Lane, west of Whittington; Cappers Lane, east of Streethay; Wood End Lock Cottage, Wood End Lane; Wood End Farm, Wood End Lane, Curborough and Shaw Lane, Hanch would be slight adverse due to the presence of residential properties within 20m of the dust generating construction activities. The impact would be negligible at the other identified locations. Overall, the construction dust assessment determined that the air quality effects at the receptors at the identified nine sensitive locations would not be significant.

4.5.6 Traffic data for the study area have been screened to identify roads that required further assessment and to confirm the likely effect of the change in emissions from vehicles using those roads during the construction phase. In addition the locations of temporary road realignments for the Whittington to Handsacre area have been screened to identify roads that required further assessment owing to alignment changes.

4.5.7 No locations were subsequently identified as requiring further assessment of construction traffic emissions owing to traffic changes or temporary road realignments.Therefore the effects of construction traffic emissions owing to the Proposed Scheme would not be significant.

4.5.8 Construction of the Proposed Scheme is not expected to have an effect on the AQMA or the implementation of the actions listed in the AQAP. Likely residual significant effects

4.5.9 The methods outlined within the draft CoCP to control and manage potential air quality effects are considered effective in this location. Hence, no significant residual effects are considered likely. Further mitigation

4.5.10 No further mitigation is identified for air quality in this area at this stage. 4.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

4.6.1 Impacts from the operation of the Proposed Scheme relate mainly to changes in the nature of traffic. There are no direct atmospheric emissions from the operation of trains that would cause an impact on air quality; these have therefore not been assessed.

4.6.2 Traffic data in the study area have been screened to identify roads that required further assessment and to confirm the likely effect of the change in emissions from vehicles using those roads in 2026. In the study area, one road was identified as requiring further assessment, this was: Darnford Lane, west of Whittington.

4.6.3 Changes in concentrations owing to the permanent realignment of Darnford Lane, west of Whittington were determined at human receptors adjacent to the lane. The assessment found that annual mean concentrations of both NO2 and PM10 would be below the relevant national air quality objectives for identified human receptors in this location.There would be a negligible change in concentrations of NO2 and PM10 at all the identified human receptors and therefore the air quality effects at all receptors would not be significant.

4.6.4 Operation of the Proposed Scheme is not expected to have an effect on the AQMA or the implementation of the actions listed in the AQAP.

50 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Air quality

Likely residual significant effects

4.6.5 No significant residual effects are anticipated for air quality in this area during operation of the Proposed Scheme.

51 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community 5 Community 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This section of the report provides a summary of impacts and likely significant effects on local communities resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. 5.2 Policy framework 5.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to CFA 22 are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to community are set out below.

5.2.2 Saved policies of the adopted Lichfield District Local Plan generally seek to resist the loss of existing community facilities, open space and formal sports and recreation provision except where they are shown to be surplus to requirements and/or would be re-provided to at least equivalent quality and quantity as part of development proposals.

5.2.3 Policy themes of the adopted Lichfield District Local Plan carry through into the emerging Local Plan. There are also new policy themes which relate to Strategic Development Allocations at Streethay and Fradley (refer to Section 2.1), indicating that the two settlements would extend closer to the Proposed Scheme. Modest growth is also proposed across the rural settlements of the district, with the emerging Local Plan envisaging in the order of 320 new dwellings in six village locations, including Armitage with Handsacre. 5.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 5.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the community assessment are set out in Volume 1.

5.3.2 As the boundary for this area follows the line of the A51 Tamworth Road, the effects on properties and facilities located to the west of the road are presented in the report for the Drayton Bassett, Hints and Weeford CFA (CFA21) and are not repeated within this document. 5.4 Environmental baseline 5.4.1 The study area includes the area of land within the construction boundary (comprising the temporary and permanent land take), as well as a suitable additional area as relevant to inform the respective environmental topics upon which the assessment is based.

5.4.2 The baseline study area and baseline data will be further refined in light of on-going assessment work as part of the formal ES process.

5.4.3 The study area includes the settlements of Whittington and Huddlesford in the south and Fradley and Handsacre in the north. The edge of Lichfield, at Streethay, lies to the west of the Proposed Scheme, in the centre of the study area. Whittington

5.4.4 Whittington is one of the larger villages in the study area. It has a range of shops for everyday needs, together with a primary school, a branch GP surgery, a church, a hospice, a recreation ground and a number of community halls. The village centre is 1.3km from the route of the Proposed Scheme and the catchment for some facilities, notably the primary school and the GP surgery, encompasses much of the southern part of the area as well as the Hints and Weeford areas, which fall within the adjoining Drayton Bassett, Hints and Weeford CFA (CFA21) to the south.

52 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

Whittington Barracks

5.4.5 Whittington Barracks is situated approximately 1km south of Whittington village and lies to the east of the Proposed Scheme beyond the temporary and permanent land take area. The barracks serve as the Army’s headquarters for medical services. A new medical training facility together with associated accommodation is currently being built on the site. There is a children’s day care nursery at the barracks which is open to the general public. Family living accommodation wraps around the northern and eastern side of the barracks. There are also recreational playing fields to the north and east of the barracks, which are used regularly by a local football club. Whittington Heath

5.4.6 A small community, known as Whittington Heath, has established close to the site of the Whittington Barracks with a scattering of dwellings on either side of the A51 Tamworth Road. Facilities in this area, over and above what exists at the barracks, are very limited. The Whittington Arms public house is situated on the west side of the A51 Tamworth Road to the north of the barracks, whilst the Whittington Heath Golf Club lies on the east side of the road. The Proposed Scheme would cross through the centre of the golf course at Whittington Heath.

5.4.7 The Staffordshire Regiment Museum, is situated immediately north of the barracks and to the east of the route of the Proposed Scheme. The museum is open to the public from 1 April to Remembrance Sunday in November and has an educational resources room with the capacity to accommodate groups of up to 60 visitors at a time. The museum holds a number of events throughout the year, including military re-enactments, some of which can attract large numbers of visitors. Huddlesford

5.4.8 The small village of Huddlesford lies approximately 500m to the east of the Proposed Scheme. The village has a public house which is situated on the banks of the Coventry Canal and falls within the catchment area for the primary school and GP branch surgery at Whittington.

5.4.9 The Lichfield Cruising Club is based at Huddlesford and has moorings along both the Coventry Canal and along the section of the Wyrley and Essington Canal north of Cappers Lane. The club is a recreational club for boat owners and has approximately 70 moorings in total. There is a clubhouse for members close to the Coventry Canal and there is a slipway and an area for boat maintenance at the Cappers Lane Bridge. The Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust is promoting a project to re-open the abandoned section of the Wyrley and Essington Canal from Huddlesford to Ogley Hay near Brownhills, a project which is supported by policies of the adopted Lichfield District Local Plan. The Proposed Scheme crosses Cappers Lane at the Lichfield Cruising Club site.

5.4.10 The towpath along the Coventry Canal which runs through Huddlesford is a key recreational route in the area, running from Fradley Junction south through Streethay, Huddlesford and Whittington. The towpath would not be crossed by the Proposed Scheme.

5.4.11 There is also a small strip of registered common land to the west of Huddlesford, which runs along the south side of Broad Lane. This comprises primarily a highway verge with mature trees and hedges, but does not appear to have any public recreational value. This land would be crossed by the Proposed Scheme.

53 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

Streethay

5.4.12 The urban edge of Lichfield extends to within approximately 270m of the Proposed Scheme at Streethay. There is a public house and a small play park at Streethay, both to the west of the Proposed Scheme. Streethay is also being considered as a location for further housing growth, in the period up to 2028.

5.4.13 The centre of Lichfield is a key destination for services and facilities for many of the communities within the study area. With the exception of the Handsacre and Kings Bromley areas, all of the villages in the study area fall within the catchment for secondary schools at Lichfield. Most of the villages also fall within the catchment area forGP surgeries at Lichfield.

5.4.14 To the east of Streethay and the A38 there is an equestrian centre, which offers riding lessons to the general public. The facility is situated partly within the temporary land take for the Proposed Scheme. Land adjacent to the equestrian centre at Streethay Farm is also used as a private airfield for recreational flying and a number of aircraft are based at the site.The runways lie directly in the line of the route of the Proposed Scheme.

5.4.15 Streethay Wharf, on the Coventry Canal lies to the north-east of the Proposed Scheme and provides a range of services including boat hire, boat building and maintenance together with moorings (pontoon and linear) for 65 boats. The towpath along the banks of the Coventry Canal is a key recreational route in the area but would not be crossed by the Proposed Scheme. Fradley

5.4.16 Fradley is situated in the centre of the area to the north-east of the Proposed Scheme. There has been considerable expansion of Fradley in recent years extending to just within 1km of the Proposed Scheme. The area now has a range of facilities including a church, a community hall, a primary school and some convenience shops. Fradley lies within the catchment for secondary schools and GP surgeries at Lichfield and the Proposed Scheme would cross some of the routes used to access these facilities.

5.4.17 There are a number of recreational and visitor attractions in the Fradley area. Those closest to the Proposed Scheme are located on or just off Wood End Lane, including the go-kart track at Midland Karting and the Curborough Sprint Course, both of which lie just within or immediately adjacent to the land take boundary for the Proposed Scheme. The Dragonara Miniature Horse Stud, which holds children’s parties, is situated to the south of Wood End Lane, whilst Delta Force Paint Ball, which uses land at Vicar’s Coppice, is directly on the line of the route.

5.4.18 There are a number of mooring facilities within this part of the study area, including on the Trent and Mersey Canal at Fradley Junction, to the north of the Proposed Scheme and at the Kings Bromley Marina, which is located midway between Fradley and Handsacre and lies to the north of the route. The Kings Bromley Marina has space for approximately 275 narrow boat berths. There are also moorings on the Trent and Mersey Canal at Wood End Lock, which would be crossed by the Proposed Scheme.

5.4.19 The towpath along the Trent and Mersey Canal is a key recreational route through the area. The Trent and Mersey Canal passes through Fradley Junction and sweeps in a wide arc north of Wood End Lane at Fradley, passing through Kings Bromley Marina before heading north towards Handsacre. The Proposed Scheme, including the proposed Manchester spur, crosses the Trent and Mersey Canal at three points where it swings round to the north of Wood End Lane.

54 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

5.4.20 The Sustrans National Cycleway Route No. 54 passes through this part of the study area. The route connects Lichfield with Fradley and Alrewas to the north, and runs along the existing highways of Netherstowe Lane, east of Curborough and Gorse Lane at Fradley Park. The route would be crossed by the Proposed Scheme just west of the Wood End Lane/Gorse Lane junction. Handsacre

5.4.21 Handsacre, which merges with the adjoining settlement of Armitage, has a small number of shops, halls, churches, open spaces and public houses, together with a local police station office, GP surgery and primary school. These are all located approximately 1km or more from the northern limit of construction works for the Proposed Scheme. The catchment for the primary school at Handsacre extends approximately 1km south along Tuppenhurst Lane and Lichfield Road. 5.5 Construction 5.5.1 The draft CoCP includes a range of scheme wide provisions which would help mitigate community effects associated with construction, including: appointment of community relations personnel; a Community Helpline to handle enquiries from the public, staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week; sensitive layout of construction sites to minimise nuisance and avoid site accommodation overlooking residential property; and, maintenance of public roads, cycle ways and PRoW around construction sites to avoid their deterioration due to construction traffic. Specific measures in relation to air quality and noise would serve to minimise amenity impacts on the neighbouring communities. Assessment of impacts and mitigation Residential property

5.5.2 A total of five residential properties would need to be demolished in the area to facilitate construction of the Proposed Scheme. Given the small number of properties affected, the loss of these dwellings would not have a significant effect on the community overall.The properties that would need to be demolished are: • Three dwellings north-east of Streethay, just off the A38: Streethay Cottage, Field Cottage and Elverceter; • Rough Stockings, north of Streethay; and • Hanch Wood House, Shaw Lane.

5.5.3 An additional dwelling at Hill Farm, which is situated in an isolated rural position on land to the east of the A38 at Streethay, may also need to be demolished if temporary construction sidings are provided at this location for the duration of the construction period. Again, the loss of an additional single dwelling would not be significant in the context of the local community.

5.5.4 Four residential properties lie wholly or partly within the temporary land take for the construction of the Proposed Scheme and close to substantial engineering works. It is possible that the occupiers of these properties may need to be re-housed temporarily for the duration of construction activities likely to cause noise and disturbance, but could then return to their homes upon completion of these activities. The temporary displacement of this small number of households would not have a significant effect on the overall community of the area. The properties affected are: • Nos. 1 and 2 Fulfen Cottages, Cappers Lane, Huddlesford; • Canal Cottage, Cappers Lane, Huddlesford; and

55 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

• Wood End Lock Cottage, off Wood End Lane, Fradley.

5.5.5 A further six properties would be affected by land take for the Proposed Scheme. These properties are scattered along the route and the effects of these impacts on the wider community would not be significant. The properties that would be affected are: • Ellfield House, which is located north of Whittington Common Road, to the west of Huddlesford. The Proposed Scheme would require the demolition of one outbuilding from the grounds of the house and the permanent loss of land from the western part of the garden; • High View and the dwelling at Hill Farm, both located on Darnford Lane, would be affected by temporary land take for works to realign Darnford Lane and undertake necessary utility diversions; • Ivy Cottage, in Broad Lane, Huddlesford would lose part of the garden to land take and two outbuildings would have to be demolished; • Ravenshaw House, north of Wood End Lane, Fradley, would lose a part of its garden permanently to the Proposed Scheme; and • One dwelling at Ashton Hayes Farm, Tuppenhurst Lane, Handsacre, which would lose some garden land temporarily during construction of the connection of the Proposed Scheme with the existing WCML.

5.5.6 The Proposed Scheme requires some modification to access arrangements to a number of properties along the route. In total, three properties in this area would be affected by modifications to their existing access arrangements, which would not give rise to any significant effects on the overall community. The properties that would be affected are: • Hill Farm at Darnford Lane, where some minor repositioning of the access might be necessary to suit the realignment of the road over the Proposed Scheme; • The Manor House at Streethay, where the Proposed Scheme diverts the existing access to a point further south on Burton Road; and • Ravenshaw House which lies to the north of Wood End Lane, where the Proposed Scheme requires the access track from Wood End Lane to be stopped up, leaving the track from the north as the only access to the property. The Proposed Scheme makes provision to improve the remaining access track to a suitable standard. This property would also be affected by land take as described at paragraph 5.5.5 above.

5.5.7 The villages of Whittington, Huddlesford and Fradley all fall within the catchment for secondary schools at Lichfield. Whilst works to bridge existing highways over the new railway would disrupt journeys, as no long term road closures are anticipated, the effects on communities accessing such services would not be significant. These assessments will be updated in the formal ES, in the light of further transport studies currently being undertaken. Community and recreation infrastructure

5.5.8 A number of recreational facilities would be affected by construction of the ProposedScheme, either temporarily or permanently by the land take.

5.5.9 There would be temporary and permanent loss of land from the LichfieldCruising Club site at Cappers Lane, Huddlesford due to construction of the Proposed Scheme and the siting of viaduct piers on the area of land currently used for parking and boat maintenance. In addition, vehicular access to the site would have to be diverted permanently beneath the viaduct structure from a point about 100m west of its current position on Cappers Lane. This loss of land from the Cruising Club could significantly compromise the ability of the club to carry out

56 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

boat maintenance operations at the slipway site and would therefore have a significant adverse effect on the community.

5.5.10 During construction of the viaduct at Cappers Lane, which could last in the order of 18 months, some of the recreational moorings from the Lichfield Cruising Club on the Wyrley and Essington Canal to the north of Cappers Lane would also need to be relocated. It is estimated that this could affect at least 10% of the recreational moorings.Given the high demand for moorings and the limited availability of alternative mooring positions, both within the Cruising Club site itself and in the wider area, this temporary loss of moorings may have a significant adverse effect on the club and its members.

5.5.11 The Proposed Scheme would also require the permanent loss of land adjacent to the intersection of the Coventry Canal and Wyrley and Essington Canal at Huddlesford. This land is included within the Proposed Scheme to replace common land lost permanently at Broad Lane, Huddlesford. Whilst the land lies within Lichfield Cruising Club’s site, it is currently left to pasture and its loss would be unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the club and its recreational members.

5.5.12 Construction of the viaduct structures over the Trent and Mersey Canal at Fradley would also require the temporary displacement of moorings on the canal, directly beneath the viaduct construction area which is north of Wood End Lock Cottage. Works at this location are expected to last in the order of 18 months and on this basis, the loss of moorings for this period of time would have a significant adverse effect on recreational users.

5.5.13 The Proposed Scheme would require the temporary and permanent loss of land from the boundary of the Kings Bromley Marina due to works to realign the A515. As no moorings or other facilities would be affected and given the small area of land involved, this land take would not give rise to a significant adverse effect on the marina or its recreational users.

5.5.14 At Streethay, the temporary land take required to construct the Proposed Scheme would require a small area of grazing land from the Equestrian Centre at Streethay Farm. The area affected lies immediately adjacent to the South Staffordshire Line and represents a small part of the entire holding associated with Streethay Farm and is unlikely to preclude continued equestrian activities on the site. None of the buildings or the outdoor training area would be affected. Whilst this land could be required for up to two years, given the potential for alternative grazing at the farm, the effects of this loss on equestrian users would not be significant. In the event that a decision is taken to establish construction sidings temporarily at Streethay, it is likely that the entire facility would be lost to the Proposed Scheme, giving rise to a significant adverse effect on equestrian users.

5.5.15 The diversion of Wood End Lane to the south of its current alignment at Fradley and the construction of a new junction with Netherstowe Lane would require slight temporary and permanent loss of land at the entrance to the Curborough Sprint Course and modification of the sprint course access. Events are held regularly at the course throughout the year and the construction works at this location could disrupt access to the site for participants and spectators. If the works could be phased to suit the schedule of events, the effects of these works may not be significant.

5.5.16 Land at Vicar’s Coppice, at Wood End Lane, is currently used as a paintballing site. The Proposed Scheme would require a small area of land permanently from the western and southern edge of the woodland, for works to realign the A515 and its junction with Wood End Lane. Given that the majority of the woodland would be unaffected, this land take would not give rise to a significant adverse effect on users and would not preclude continued paint balling activities at this location. However, as part of the design development of the Proposed Scheme, consideration is also being given to the suitability of Vicar’s Coppice as a location for

57 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

ecological habitat improvement or for translocation of species. This would be likely to preclude continued use of the woodland for paintballing activities, which would have a significant adverse effect on recreational users.

5.5.17 Further work is being undertaken to consider the implications of the Proposed Scheme for access to community facilities in the area, such as the primary school at Whittington, which has a catchment covering the southern part of the study area. Whilst significant isolation effects are considered unlikely, this aspect of the assessment will be reported in full as part of the formal ES. Public Rights of Way and open space

5.5.18 The Proposed Scheme crosses directly through the centre of the Whittington Heath Golf Club and would require the demolition of the club house and the loss of the adjacent car park. Approximately half of the 18 holes would be affected by virtue of the layout and configuration of the course and the alignment of the Proposed Scheme. In view of these demolition and land take impacts the club’s operations would be significantly impacted during the construction period. As a well-used and valued facility, which hosts a number of tournaments throughout the year and has a large number of playing members. A temporary closure of the course would have a significant adverse effect on users during this period.Construction work on the golf course could last for over a year and further time would be required for reinstatement and re-establishment of planting and greens. If the facility cannot be reinstated to a similar playing standard as the existing course there would be a significant adverse effect, having regard to the deterioration in the quality of the resource and the limited number of alternative courses available to golfers, which are of comparable playing standard.

5.5.19 The Proposed Scheme would also result in the permanent loss of registered common land at Park Lane, Huddlesford. As the Proposed Scheme makes provision for replacement land adjacent to the Coventry Canal and given that the area affected does not appear to have any current recreational or community use value, the effects of this loss are assessed as not significant. The provision of replacement common land adjacent to the canal close to the centre of Huddlesford village offers potential to benefit the local community overall, although this land is currently within the site belonging to the LichfieldCruising Club.

5.5.20 The Proposed Scheme would not result in the temporary or permanent loss of any promoted recreational routes through the area. It is expected that the Sustrans Cycleway Route No. 54 route would be accommodated in the phasing of works for the diversion of Wood End Lane and equally that the towpath along the east bank of the Trent and Mersey Canal would also be maintained during construction of the viaducts.

5.5.21 In the event that a decision is taken to establish temporary construction sidings at Streethay, then a section of the Coventry Canal, between Huddlesford and Streethay Wharf would fall entirely within the temporary land take area that would be required. However the towpath and canal routes would be maintained throughout the operation of this facility. Amenity

5.5.22 The incidence of significant effects, including in-combination effects, on community amenity will be reported in the formal ES.

58 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Community

Likely residual significant effects

5.5.23 The significant residual effects of the scheme during construction would be as follows: • The adverse effect on the Lichfield Cruising Club at Huddlesford, due to the temporary and permanent loss of land north of Cappers Lane and the temporary loss of some moorings during the construction period; • Adverse effects due to the temporary loss of moorings on the Trent and Mersey Canal at Wood End Lock, Fradley, during construction of the viaduct structures; and • Adverse effects on the Whittington Heath Golf Club due to the permanent severance of the course by the Proposed Scheme, the loss of land from the course and car park area and the demolition of the club house building.

5.5.24 Multiple (in-combination) community effects will be considered and where significant reported in the formal ES. Further mitigation

5.5.25 Consultation will inform the development of specific mitigation measures where required, which could include improvement or provision of community resources as appropriate. These mitigation measures will be reported in the formal ES.

5.5.26 No further mitigation has been identified at this stage. 5.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

5.6.1 Within this study area, effects on the community resulting from the operation of the Proposed Scheme could potentially arise from changes to amenity.

5.6.2 The formal ES will report on the incidence of significant effects, including in-combination effects on community amenity.

5.6.3 The assessment of effects on amenity will draw upon other technical disciplines e.g.( air quality, noise and vibration, visual, transport and traffic) findings to inform the amenity assessment. The presence of in-combination impacts from these other disciplines could result in significant amenity effects on a number of community facilities and resources in the area. This will be reported in the formal ES. Likely residual significant effects

5.6.4 Residual effects, if present, will be reported as part of the formal ES. Multiple (in-combination) community effects will be considered and where significant reported in the formal ES. Further mitigation

5.6.5 The development of specific mitigation measures where required, which could include improvement or provision of community resources as appropriate, will be reported in the formal ES.

5.6.6 No further mitigation measures have been identified at this stage.

59 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage 6 Cultural heritage 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This section of the report presents a summary of the impacts and likely significant effects on heritage assets and the historic environment as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. Heritage assets comprise: • Archaeological and palaeoenvironmental remains; • Historic landscapes; and • Historic buildings and the built environment. 6.2 Policy framework 6.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to cultural heritage are set out in the following section.

6.2.2 Objective Three of the West Midlands Sustainable Development Framework encourages local authorities in their plan making to value, protect, enhance and restore the region’s environmental assets, including the natural, built and historic environment and landscape15.

6.2.3 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan seeks to protect and conserve the countryside (Policy NC1); landscape character, including historic elements (Policy NC2); trees, hedgerows and woodlands (Policy NC13); registered historic battlefields (Policy NC16); historic parks and gardens (Policy NC17A); listed buildings (Policy NC18) and conservation areas (Policy NC19). Two policies address sites of archaeological importance in the context of development, which includes the requirement for provision for excavation and recording of remains not sufficiently important to warrant preservation and that velopmentde which would adversely affect assets of national importance would only be allowed in the most exceptional circumstances (Policies NC14 and NC15).

6.2.4 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan contains policies regarding the protection of listed buildings (Policy C1), conservation areas (Policies C2 and C3); and sites of recognised importance (Policy DC14). Policy DC15 requires an archaeological assessment to be provided prior to consideration of planning applications. Policy DC17 requires the integration of existing trees and hedgerows within new development. Lichfield District Council is also preparing a Supplementary Planning Document relating to the historic environment which was due for publication in draft in February 2013, with a target adoption date of July 2013.

6.2.5 The emerging Local Plan proposes Strategic Priorities 14: Built Environment and 15: High Quality Development, which includes the aim to protect the district’s heritage assets and character. Core Policy 14: Our Built and Historic Environment contains special regard to local distinctiveness and the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, significant heritage assets and their settings, supported by Policy BE1: High Quality Development, which reinforces the need for development to have a positive impact on the historic environment. 6.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 6.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the cultural heritage assessment are set out in Volume 1.

15 West Midlands Regional Assembly (2006), A Sustainable Future for the West Midlands: Regional Sustainable Development Framework (Version 2).

60 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage

6.4 Environmental baseline 6.4.1 The Proposed Scheme would pass through a predominantly rural area, crossing agricultural land and 18th century historic field patterns, dispersed settlement consisting of farmsteads and rural buildings, as well as the remains of the estates and grounds of houses such as Freeford Manor, Hanch Hall, and the Manor House at Streethay. There are ancient hedgerows and woodland, as well as particular areas of distinctive historic character at Whittington Heath, Fradley Airfield, and Ravenshaw Wood/John’s Gorse and around the historic canal network.

6.4.2 The study area includes evidence of human occupation and activity from a range of periods, including cropmark evidence of settlement and farming from the later prehistoric to Roman periods; early medieval and medieval moated sites, mills and deserted villages; estates and farmsteads of the 18th and 19th centuries; and notable military sites of the 19th and 20th centuries. There are a number of streams and tributaries of the Rivers Tame and Trent. These alluvial channels, including the Bourne Brook, Curborough Brook, Mare Brook and Fulfen Brook, contain the greatest archaeological potential in the study area. In the medieval period, activity focussed on centres at Lichfield, Streethay, Whittington and Handsacre. Most historic buildings lie within dispersed farmsteads along and near to the route with larger historic settlements lying at some distance away.

6.4.3 Within the area of study only the following designated and non-designated assets are recorded. Designated assets

6.4.4 Three scheduled monuments at: Streethay Manor moated site; Handsacre Hall moated site; and Causewayed Enclosure at Mavesyn Ridware are located within the draft Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) (see section 9.3 of this document).

6.4.5 There are 111 listed buildings within the ZTV. Only one is within the area of temporary and permanent land take, being the Coventry Canal milepost south of King’s Orchard Bridge.

6.4.6 Six conservation areas are located within the study area. They are Whittington Conservation Area; Lichfield City Conservation Area; two parts of the Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area; Longdon Green Conservation Area; and Mavesyn Ridware Conservation Area. The Trent and Mersey Canal Conservation Area, part 2b from Handsacre through Kings Bromley Wharf (and Woodend), lies within the area of temporary and permanent land take.

6.4.7 One registered park lies within the ZTV. This is Cathedral Close and Linear Park in Lichfield which is a Grade II registered park.

6.4.8 One area of registered common land, Huddlesford (in four parts), is located around the junction of Park Lane and Huddlesford Lane.

6.4.9 Six areas of ancient woodland lie within the study area. They are: Big Lyntus; Ravenshaw Wood; Slaish; Tomhay Wood; Vicar’s Coppice; and John’s Gorse. Ravenshaw Wood, Vicar’s Coppice and John’s Gorse are partially within the area of temporary and permanent land take.

6.4.10 Four lengths of important hedgerow (as defined by The Hedgerow Regulations 199716) lie within the area of temporary and permanent land take.

16 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (No. 1160). London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

61 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage

Non‐designated assets

6.4.11 There are 13 non-designated known archaeological assets within the area of temporary and permanent land take. Six are of negligible or low heritage value but seven are of high or moderate heritage value: Neolithic and Roman landscape features at Streethay; medieval moated site and prehistoric features at Fulfen Wood; prehistoric ring ditch at Thatchmoor Farm; prehistoric features at Pyford Brook; enclosure at Thatchmoor Farm; prehistoric and medieval features at Ravenshaw Wood; and prehistoric landscape features at Bourne Brook.

6.4.12 The following non-designated buildings of historic interest lie within the area of temporary and permanent land take: Whittington Golf Course Club House; Coventry Canal and associated structures; the Lichfield Canal; The Trent and Mersey Canal and associated structures; Hill Farm, Rough Stockings, Elverceter; Streethay Cottage; Field Cottage; and Hanch Wood House. Whittington Heath Golf Club is one of the earliest golf courses in England and is designed landscape and therefore a non-designated heritage asset. It is located within the area of temporary and permanent land take. 6.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

6.5.1 The construction works have the potential to affect heritage assets. Impacts would occur to assets within the construction boundary, as well as the settings of heritage assets within the ZTV.

6.5.2 The draft CoCP sets out the provisions that would be adopted to control effects on cultural heritage assets. The provisions include: • Management measures to control damage to assets that are to be retained within the area of temporary land take and the preparation of project wide principles, standards and techniques for works affecting heritage assets; • A programme of archaeological investigation and recording to be undertaken prior to construction works affecting the assets; and • A programme of historic building investigation and recording to be undertaken prior to modification or demolition of the assets.

6.5.3 In addition the following measures have been included as part of the design of the Proposed Scheme and to avoid or reduce impacts on heritage assets: • The proposed cutting and embankment through Whittington Heath Golf Course are narrow to reduce the impact on the asset; • The alignment avoids surviving hangars at former RAF Lichfield; • Planting blocks in the vicinity of the Trent and Mersey Canal would reduce impacts on the setting of the conservation area that encompasses this stretch of the canal; • Planting blocks in the vicinity of Trent and Mersey Canal would reduce impacts on setting of the listed Wood End Lock Cottage and Locks; • The HS2 alignment has been modified to reduce the impact on the character of the canal, of the bridge crossing the Trent and Mersey Canal; • The form of the temporary land take has been altered in the vicinity of Kings Bromley Wharf, to avoid concentrations of known archaeological assets; and • In common with other CFAs, landscape earthworks and planting mitigation reduces impacts on the settings of designated assets within the ZTV.

62 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage

6.5.4 Assets that would experience a significant physical effect in this area are: • Portions of three ancient woodlands, all assets of high heritage value, would be removed. Ravenshaw Wood (CT‑01-63, B2) would be partially removed as one fifth of the asset lies within the area of permanent land take; a large portion of John’s Gorse would be removed and the edges of Vicar’s Coppice (CT‑01-64, E3-F3) would be removed to accommodate the Tewnals Lane diversion; • Small portions of four lengths of important hedgerow, all assets of moderate heritage value, would be removed: at Tamworth Road (CT‑01-61, B5-C5) a portion would be removed to accommodate a cutting and road realignment; at the Streethay parish boundary (CT‑01-63, H6) a portion would be removed to accommodate earthworks and other landscaping; at Pyford Brook (CT‑01-63, B4-C4) a portion would be removed to accommodate earthworks, planting and ponds; and at Tewnals Lane (CT‑01-64, E4) a portion would be removed to accommodate road realignment and earthworks; • Part of Whittington Heath golf course (CT‑01-61, A5) would be removed and the Proposed Scheme would cross the asset within a steep cutting, disrupting the historic landscape form of the asset; • Archaeological remains associated with the moated and possible prehistoric site west of Fulfen (CT‑01-62 (E4), a prehistoric ring ditch (CT‑01-62, C8) west of Thatchmoor Farm, prehistoric or medieval features west of Ravenshaw Wood (CT‑01-64, H5), and prehistoric features around the Pyford Brook (CT‑01-63, C3), all assets of moderate heritage value, would be recorded and removed; • Archaeological remains associated with the mill site at Mill Farm (CT‑01-62, G6); the outskirts of a medieval settlement at Streethay (CT‑01-62, B4, outlying the medieval settlement around Curborough (CT‑01-63, F4), and RAF Lichfield (WHA316), all assets of low heritage value, would be recorded and removed; • Whittington Golf Club House (CT‑01-61,C5), an asset of moderate heritage value, would be recorded and demolished; • A milepost on the Tamworth Road near Whittington Barracks (CT‑01-61, D7), an asset of low heritage value, would be recorded and demolished to accommodate a road diversion; • Hill Farm (CT‑01-62, D4), an asset of low heritage value would be recorded and demolished to accommodate Streethay sidings; • Three buildings of possible medieval origin within medieval Streethay (CT‑01-62, B4)- Field Cottage, Streethay Cottage, Elverceter, all assets of low heritage value, would be recorded and demolished to accommodate the Streethay viaduct; • Rough Stockings (CT‑01-62, A4), an asset of low heritage value, would be recorded and demolished to accommodate scheme earthworks; and • Hanch Wood House (CT‑01-64, C4), an asset of low heritage value, would be recorded and demolished to accommodate the scheme earthworks.

6.5.5 The settings of the following specific heritage assets would experience significant effects: • A group of designated buildings and features of the Trent and Mersey Canal (CT‑01-63, B3, C4-5, C6) – the bridge and lock, lock keepers cottage, and a listed milepost in a conservation area at Woodend Lock (CT‑01-63, B3, C4), all assets of moderate heritage value – through the introduction of the Proposed Scheme which would be less than 100m from the assets and changes to the historic views by the proposed landscaping and proposed canal underbridge to the north-west;

63 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage

• Listed buildings at Streethay Manor (CT‑01-62, B4), assets of high heritage value, through the construction of the proposed viaduct less than 100m from the asset and because the asset would enclosed by the A38 and the Proposed Scheme on two sides; • The scheduled monument at Streethay Manor (CT‑01-62, B4), an asset of high heritage value, through the introduction of the Proposed Scheme less than 100m north and west of the asset, disturbing the current setting which is a garden and fields; • Ellfield House and Lodge (CT‑01-62, I7, H6), an asset of low heritage value, – through the introduction of earthworks and realignment of Darnford Lane which would be less than 100m from the asset; • The Coventry Canal and structures (CT‑01-61, C6-D6), assets of moderate heritage value, where it would pass through the temporary construction sidings and materials storage area. One listed canal milestone is located between Stoney Step Bridge and King’s Orchard Bridge; • Whittington Hill House and Hill Farm (CT‑01-62, H5), an asset of low heritage value, through the introduction of the cutting earthworks for the Proposed Scheme; • Ravenshaw Cottage (CT‑01-64, G5), an asset of low heritage value, through the introduction of the Proposed Scheme which would be less than 50m from the asset where currently there are woodland views; and • Shaw House (CT‑01-64, C4), an asset of low heritage value, there would be direct views of the scheme on embankment less than 50m away.

6.5.6 The construction of the Proposed Scheme would not have an impact on any other identified heritage asset within the temporary and permanent land take and would not have an impact on the setting of any other designated asset identified with theZTV . Likely residual significant effects

6.5.7 Although a programme of archaeological and historic building investigation and recording contributes to knowledge gain, such works would not fully mitigate the effect or reduce the impact on heritage assets. The following specific heritage assets would be likely to experience residual significant effects: • Ravenshaw Wood and Vicar’s Coppice ancient woodland: a medium impact rating on assets of high value gives rise to a major effect; • John’s Gorse ancient woodland: a high impact rating on an asset of high heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • Portions of the lengths of important hedgerow at Tamworth Road, the Streethay parish boundary, at Tewnals Lane, and at Pyford Brook: a medium impact on assets of moderate value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Part of Whittington Heath Golf Course; a medium impact on an asset of moderate value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Archaeological remains associated with the moated and possible prehistoric site west of Fulfen, a prehistoric ring ditch west of Thatchmoor Farm, prehistoric or medieval features west of Ravenshaw Wood, and prehistoric features around the Pyford Brook; a high impact rating on assets of moderate heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • Archaeological remains associated with the mill site at Mill Farm, the outskirts of a medieval settlement at Streethay, the medieval settlement around Curborough, and RAF Lichfield; a high impact rating on assets of low heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect;

64 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage

• Whittington Heath Golf Club House: a high impact rating on an asset of moderate heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • A milepost on the Tamworth Road near Whittington Barracks: a high impact rating on an asset of low heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Hill Farm; a high impact rating on an asset of low heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Three buildings of possible medieval origin within medieval Streethay: Field Cottage, Streethay Cottage, Elverceter; a high impact rating on an asset of low heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Rough Stockings: a high impact rating on an asset of low heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect; and • Hanch Wood House: a high impact rating on an asset of low heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect.

6.5.8 Some construction phase impacts on heritage assets through changes to settings are temporary, and would not result in residual significant effects. However, the following specific heritage assets would be likely to experience residual significant effects through changes to their setting: • A group of designated buildings and features of the Trent and Mersey Canal: a medium impact rating on assets of moderate heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • Listed buildings at Streethay Manor: a high impact rating on assets of high heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • The scheduled monument at Streethay: a high impact rating on asset of high heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • Ellfield House and Lodge: a high impact rating on an asset of low value gives rise to a moderate effect; • The Coventry Canal and structures: a medium impact on an asset of low value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Whittington Hill House and Hill Farm: a high impact on an asset of low value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Ravenshaw Cottage: a high impact on an asset of low value gives rise to a moderate effect; and • Shaw House: a high impact on an asset of low value gives rise to a moderate effect. Further mitigation

6.5.9 No further mitigation measures have been identified at this time. 6.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

6.6.1 There would be no effects on buried archaeological remains arising from operation.

6.6.2 The introduction of the Proposed Scheme has the potential to introduce impacts on the setting of heritage assets. The specific assets that would be significantly affected are: • Ancient woodland at Ravenshaw Wood (CT‑01-63, B2), Vicar’s Coppice (CT‑01-64, E3, F3) and John’s Gorse (CT‑01-64, D3-4), all assets of high heritage value;

65 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Cultural heritage

• Whittington Heath Golf Course (CT‑01-61, A5), an asset of moderate value, through the loss of historic landscape context; • Listed buildings at Streethay Manor (CT‑01-62, B4), assets of moderate heritage value. The Proposed Scheme would pass on viaduct less than 100m from the house through historically open fields and the house would be enclosed by the A38 and the Proposed Scheme on two sides; • The scheduled monument at Streethay Manor (CT‑01-62, B4), an asset of high heritage value. The site is presently in a garden setting, surrounded by fields on three sides. The Proposed Scheme would pass less than 100m to the north and west on raised embankment; and • A group of designated buildings and features of the Trent and Mersey Canal (CT‑01-62, B3, C4) – the bridge and lock, lock keepers cottage, and a listed milepost in a conservation area at Woodend Lock CT‑01-63, B3), all assets of high heritage value, The Proposed Scheme is less than 100m away from these assets on embankment, with landscape earthworks and new planting and ponds between them and the Proposed Scheme. The historic views will be curtailed by landscaping and the bridge over the canal visible to the north-west.

6.6.3 The provision of earthworks and planting would provide an effective means of mitigation to reduce the effects of the Proposed Scheme on the historic landscape and specific heritage assets within it. However, mitigation would not be fully effective until planting has matured. Likely residual significant effects

6.6.4 Despite the implementation of mitigation measures, there would remain significant residual effects on the setting of the following assets: • Ancient woodland at Ravenshaw Wood, Vicar’s Coppice and John’s Gorse: a medium impact on assets of high heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • Whittington Heath Golf Course: a medium impact rating on an asset of moderate value gives rise to a moderate effect; • Listed buildings at Streethay Manor: a high impact rating on assets of moderate heritage value gives rise to a major effect; • The scheduled monument at Streethay Manor: a medium impact rating on asset of high heritage value gives rise to a major effect; and • A group of designated buildings and features of the Trent and Mersey: a medium impact on assets of high heritage value gives rise to a moderate effect. Further mitigation

6.6.5 No further mitigation measures have been identified at this time.

66 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology 7 Ecology 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 This section of the report provides a summary of the predicted impacts and significant effects upon species and habitats as a consequence of the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. This includes effects upon sites recognised or designated on the basis of their importance for nature conservation. 7.2 Policy framework 7.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to ecology are set out in the following section.

7.2.2 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan contains a number of policies relevant to ecology: • Policy NC1 seeks strict controls to safeguard the countryside for its own sake and to mitigate adverse effects arising from development; • Policies NC6, NC7, NC7A and NC7B make specific provision in relation to habitat protection and sites designated for their nature conservation value; and • Policy NC13 seeks to improve the management and conservation of existing woodland and important trees and hedgerows.

7.2.3 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan contains three policies that are relevant to ecology: • Policy E.18A controls developments in or likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); • Policy E.18B specifies that no development should adversely affect local nature reserve (LNR), Grade I County Site of Biological Importance (SBI), or important habitats, unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so; and • Policy E.3 promotes the preservation and management of trees, woodland and hedgerows in the interests of nature conservation, biodiversity and visual amenity.

7.2.4 The emerging Lichfield District Local Plan generally follows the policy direction of the adopted Local Plan in terms of environmental protection and maintains the requirement for mitigation to be provided where development would have unavoidable adverse effects on sites of ecological, natural and historic interest. Core Policy 13 particularly emphasises nature conservation management in accordance with the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan.

7.2.5 In addition, the following local and regional guidance is relevant to the assessment: • Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan (SBAP)17; and • SBAP associated Ecosystem Action Plans (EAP)18. 7.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 7.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the ecological assessment are set out in Volume 1.

7.3.2 The current assessment draws on existing information gathered from national organisations and from regional and local sources including Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (SWT), the Environment Agency (EA) (Midlands Central Area Office) and Staffordshire County Council.

17 Staffordshire BiodiversityAction Plan; http://sbap.org.uk/index.php. 18 Staffordshire BiodiversityAction Plan; http://sbap.org.uk/actionplan/index.php.

67 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

7.3.3 Field surveys undertaken to date have been limited to locations where landowner permission has been obtained or areas accessible to the public. They include (but are not limited to): initial botanical survey in 20 areas of woodland, hedgerow, river corridors and ponds. Bat surveys have been undertaken for five buildings and over 250 trees. Amphibian surveys have been undertaken at 14 water bodies. A small number of sites were subject to dormouse, otter, reptile and terrestrial invertebrate survey.

7.3.4 There have been no deviations from standard ecological survey methodologies.

7.3.5 Surveys will continue during 2013 and will include (but are not limited to) the following, subject to access: • Bat activity surveys within the areas of Ravenshaw, Black Slough and Slaish Wood together with roost surveys of trees/buildings at risk of felling/demolition; • Dormouse surveys at Ravenshaw Wood, Whittington Heath Golf Course, Black Slough, Fradley Wood, and Brokendown Wood; • Amphibian surveys of approximately 90 ponds and 50 ditches plus canals; and • Otter, water vole and white clawed crayfish surveys on watercourses including the local canal system (Coventry and Trent and Mersey), a tributary of the Mare Brook, the Curborough Brook and the Bourne Brook. 7.4 Environmental baseline 7.4.1 This section presents the environmental baseline that is relevant to the consideration of impacts and effects reported in Sections 7.5 and 7.6.

7.4.2 Land within or adjacent to the Proposed Scheme in this area consists mainly of arable land, bounded by open hedgerows and tree lines. Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland and mainly improved grassland make up the majority of the remaining land use types.

7.4.3 Statutory and non-statutory designated sites are shown on maps CT‑01-61 to CT‑01-65.

7.4.4 There are no statutory designated sites within 500m of the Proposed Scheme.

7.4.5 Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) are referred to as Sites of Biological Importance (SBI) and Biodiversity Alert Sites (BAS) in Staffordshire. LWSs which are located within the extent of or adjacent to the Proposed Scheme or are considered potentially subject to significant effects are relevant to the assessment. There are eight LWS which meet these criteria, each of which is considered to be of county/metropolitan value: • Vicar’s Coppice BAS lies within the Proposed Scheme and consists of 7ha of ancient semi- natural broadleaved woodland. However, ground flora has become degraded through its use as a venue for paintballing; • Whittington Heath Golf Course SBI is within the Proposed Scheme and was formerly a single block of heathland known as Whittington Heath. Much of the unmanaged areas of the site support immature woodland of common oak or mixed oak/silver birch with some understorey of holly and rowan developing, along with bracken. There are some patches dominated by heather, but much of the remainder is a mosaic of remnant heath, heather dominating only in the less managed areas. Damp acid and drier acid grassland patches are also present and the site supports breeding birds and terrestrial invertebrates including a nationally scarce species (dead-wood habitat hoverfly) found during HS2 surveys in 2012; • Fradley Wood BAS, including Fradley Gorse and Brokendown Wood, lies partially within the Proposed Scheme. It is a large area comprising woodland blocks of both conifer and

68 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

broadleaved plantation. Large areas of woodland have been felled and the land returned to an agricultural setting; • King Bromley Wharf to Fradley Junction, Coventry Canal SBI, is crossed by the Proposed Scheme, and comprises two lengths of canal supporting diverse marginal and emergent vegetation; • John’s Gorse, Hanch Wood SBI, is located entirely within the Proposed Scheme, and consists of ancient and semi-natural broad-leaved woodland, with a canopy of sycamore, hazel and rowan; • Ravenshaw Wood, Black Slough and Slaish SBI, is bisected by the Proposed Scheme, and consists of part ancient semi-natural woodland with even aged canopy of pedunculate oak; • Big Lyntus SBI, which lies adjacent to the Proposed Scheme, is ancient and semi-natural woodland and ancient replanted woodland with a diverse ground flora including bluebell and yellow archangel; • Woodend Lock (near) SBI, which lies adjacent to the Proposed Scheme, is a small deciduous wood, beside the Trent and Mersey Canal, that is bordered by Curborough Brook and containing a steep-sided pond. The woodland canopy is of mature English oak with alders and there is a well -developed shrub layer and a number of herbs indicative of ancient woodland; and • Curborough House Hedgerow SBI, which lies immediately adjacent to a road diversion associated with the Proposed Scheme.

7.4.6 Other habitats located outside of the designated sites and which are relevant to the assessment include the following: • Watercourses – the Wyrley and Essington Canal (disused); Mare Brook (tributary of the River Tame) and three minor tributaries; Curborough Brook and Bourne Brook are crossed by the Proposed Route. The Coventry Canal is not crossed but is adjacent to the Proposed Scheme. Each watercourse is considered unlikely to be more than district/borough value; • Water bodies – There are 25 ponds and 30 ditches within the extent of the Proposed Scheme, which collectively could be of up to district/borough value; • Woodland – there are areas of lowland mixed deciduous woodland within or immediately adjacent to the Proposed Scheme at Fulfen Wood, Whittington Barracks, Harvey’s Rough and Little Lyntus, which are each considered to be of local/parish value; • Hedgerows – SCC data shows the majority of hedgerows as species poor intact units. Of the 87 hedgerows surveyed in 2012, none were considered to be ecologically important under the wildlife criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The hedgerow network is therefore considered to be of no more than local/parish value; and • Grassland – no notable grassland has been surveyed and based upon the available desk study data, it is unlikely that there are any large areas of notable grassland. Most is improved or semi-improved and each area is of no more than local/parish value.

7.4.7 A summary of the likely value of species covered by the assessment (excluding any features of species interest for which the sites described above are designated) is provided in Table 9.

69 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

Resource/Receptor Value Rationale

Leisler’s bat Up to county/ Leisler’s recorded during activity surveys within the vicinity of the route, metropolitan but further survey required to confirm status. Leisler’s bat is rare within the adjacent Warwickshire but its status is unknown in Staffordshire.

Hazel dormouse Up to county/ Rare in Staffordshire. Has yet to be identified in the vicinity of the route, metropolitan but suitable habitat is present.

Water vole Up to county/ Limited extent of remaining populations, restricted to suitable metropolitan watercourses and vulnerable to a range of factors, scarce in the county. Possible signs of old feeding sites on tributary of Mare Brook and skeletal remains found in otter spraint on Bourne Brook. Some desk study records for the Coventry Canal (2002) with most recent being on Shropshire Brook (2009) but 700m from the Proposed Scheme.

White clawed crayfish Up to county/ Limited data but no confirmed observations and signal crayfish found in metropolitan the Trent and Mersey Canal. Considered unlikely to be present.

Amphibians Up to county/ Limited data available on ponds within the extent of the Proposed metropolitan Scheme. One pond (of seven surveyed) within the land take area supports a medium population of great crested newts. Other amphibian populations small in size (smooth newts and common toad found during survey).

Tree sparrow Up to county/ A population of tree sparrow was recorded during the winter surveys metropolitan which could be up to county/metropolitan value. This is thought to be a resident population, therefore present during the breeding and wintering season.

Bats (except Leisler’s) Up to district/borough Limited survey undertaken to date but several trees likely to support roosts and two buildings within the area of land take identified as summer roosts.

Otter Up to district/borough Species with large home range. Restricted to certain habitat types but which have increasing populations. With frequent records of their presence along the Trent and Mersey Canal, Coventry Canal, Mare Brook and River Swarbourn which has connectivity with Curborough Brook. Survey evidence from the Trent and Mersey Canal and Bourne Brook.

Wintering birds (excluding Unlikely to be more Bird surveys carried out show limited value of habitats for wintering tree sparrow) than local/parish birds.

Terrestrial invertebrates Unlikely to be more Notable populations centred on locally designated sites (and therefore than local/parish valued together with the designated sites above) and pockets of non- arable habitat. The majority of the habitat within the Proposed Scheme is unlikely to support valuable invertebrate populations.

Badger Unlikely to be more Common and widespread in the UK. than local/parish

Reptiles Unlikely to be more Only common reptile species are likely to be present in low numbers, than local/parish limited habitat suitability.

Breeding birds (excluding Unlikely to be more Nine records of barn owl. The majority of the land within the Proposed tree sparrow) than local/parish Scheme is arable and grass farmland which is considered to be widespread in the surrounding area.

Aquatic Unlikely to be more No historical EA Community Conservation Index (CCI) data exist with macro‑invertebrates than local/parish which to characterise the watercourses. Awaiting detailed survey data.

Fish Unlikely to be more No historical EA Fisheries data exist with which to characterise the than local/parish watercourses. Awaiting detailed survey data.

Table 9: Preliminary evaluation of likely value of protected and/or notable species occurring within this section of the route

70 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

7.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

7.5.1 The following section considers the impacts and effects on ecological receptors as a consequence of construction of the Proposed Scheme. All assessments made are provisional, based on the preliminary assessment of the baseline value as presented in Section 7.4 of this report.

7.5.2 The following measures have been included as part of the design of the Proposed Scheme and avoid or reduce impacts on features of ecological value: • Reducing the land take to a minimum within Whittington Heath Golf Course SBI to reduce habitat loss within the SBI and providing an underpass for golfer use which would also provide connectivity for animals under the route; • Heathland/acid grassland creation area near the A51 to replace and translocate habitat otherwise lost within Whittington Heath Golf Course SBI (which is in the Drayton Bassett, Hints and Weeford area (CFA21)). This would include translocation of turves and/or topsoil of affected heathland and grassland. Habitat creation in the form of ponds and habitat features as a receptor site for amphibians and reptiles would also be provided within the same area as well as features beneficial to terrestrial invertebrates; • Redesign of the road realignments near Fradley Park thus reducing land take and so avoiding some loss of ponds, in an area known to support amphibians and reptiles; • Realignment of the Manchester spur closer to the main line which has reduced the land take requirement within Fradley Wood BAS; • An area has been identified for proposals to address the direct impact on woodlands, including Ravenshaw Wood, Black Slough and Slaish SBI and John’s Gorse, Hanch Wood SBI. This mitigation is likely to include: ȃȃ Translocation of woodland soil and associated seed bank to new woodland creation areas along with suitable coppice stools to allow natural regeneration of woodland habitat; ȃȃ Additional planting on existing soils adjacent to retained blocks of woodland to increase woodland size and reduce edge effects; ȃȃ Collection of seeds from existing woodland where possible, to ensure local provenance and trialling of seed material; and ȃȃ Long term management for newly created woodland; • An ecological mitigation area near Fradley Business Park to provide a range of habitats including species rich grassland, scrub, water bodies and bunded areas to create beetle banks and basking areas for reptiles. This area would primarily act as a receptor area for amphibians and reptiles which are known to be present in the area.

7.5.3 The assessment assumes implementation of the measures set out within the CoCP, which includes translocation of protected species where appropriate. Effective application of the CoCP at Whittington Heath Golf Course SBI would be particularly important to restrict temporary construction activity so as to prevent short and long term habitat degradation, notably from vehicle tracking, incursion, noise, spillages and drainage effects.

7.5.4 There would be permanent habitat loss of approximately 3.7ha from Whittington Heath Golf Course SBI, consisting of a mixture of acid grassland, heather and semi-mature oak/birch woodland, which is over 11% of the 65ha SBI. The remaining habitat would be severed by the Proposed Scheme. These areas would be smaller in size and more vulnerable to long term

71 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

degradation through edge effects. Due to the local lack of broad-leaved woodland with good habitat for invertebrates, the reduction in habitat resource could result in an adverse impact on invertebrate assemblages within the SBI. The overall result would be a permanent adverse effect on site integrity that could be significant at up to the county/metropolitan vel.le

7.5.5 Mitigation measures outlined in Section 7.5.2 would be applied to permit translocation of heath and facilitate its longer-term rehabilitation and management. Whilst this would not alleviate the impacts within the SBI boundary it would create approximately 19ha of habitat, including heathland and acid grassland mosaic. Following establishment and appropriate management this habitat could result in a permanent beneficial effect that would be significant at up to a county/metropolitan level.

7.5.6 The Proposed Scheme would result in direct habitat loss from, and severance within Ravenshaw Wood, Black Slough and Slaish SBI of almost 6ha. This would amount to approximately 20% of the designated site. The habitat within Ravenshaw Wood is ancient woodland, which is an irreplaceable resource and some of the woodland is wet woodland on peat which cannot be recreated. The remaining habitat either side of the Proposed Scheme would be smaller in size and more vulnerable to long term degradation through edge effects. These impacts would lead to adverse effects on site integrity that would be significant at a county/metropolitan level.

7.5.7 John’s Gorse, Hanch Wood SBI and ancient woodland lies within the extent of the Proposed Scheme and would be permanently lost in its entirety (approximately 0.85ha). This would result in a permanent adverse effect on site integrity that would be significant at the county/ metropolitan level.

7.5.8 The wintering bird surveys have identified a population of the county rare tree sparrow. Present survey information is insufficient to clearly assess the possible effect of the Proposed Scheme on this population so there is the potential for an adverse effect of county/ metropolitan level. Further surveys will be conducted during 2013 and the need for potential mitigation measures investigated. The implications will be considered and reported within the formal ES.

7.5.9 A strip on the southern and western edge of Vicar’s Coppice BAS (just over 1ha, which would be around 14% of the BAS) would be permanently lost to the Proposed Scheme due to the realignment of Wood End Lane and works on the A515, although there would be no severance of the BAS. The BAS is known to be degraded, and there is abundant rhododendron on the roadside edges to be lost. Although the woodland appears as semi-natural ancient woodland on the ancient woodland inventory, the citation indicates that the woodland was clear felled in 1914-18 and selectively cleared in the 1970’s. Therefore, although there would be a permanent loss from the BAS, it is considered unlikely that the adverse effects would be significant. The Proposed Scheme also includes a large area of woodland planting (approximately 4ha) contiguous with Vicar’s Coppice. This is likely to benefit woodland habitat and once established could result in a beneficial effect on conservation status of undesignated secondary woodland which would be significant at up to a district/borough level (also see paragraph 7.5.10).

7.5.10 There would be approximately 1.7ha of permanent habitat loss within Fradley Wood BAS, which is less than 6% of the BAS. The woodland comprises blocks of both conifer and broad- leaved plantation, some of which has recently been cleared and none of which are ancient. The habitat loss is on the edge of the woodland and would not cause severance of habitat. Although there would be permanent loss of habitat, it is considered unlikely that the impacts would result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the BAS.

72 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

7.5.11 Although mitigation planting cannot replace ancient woodland or reduce the effects on the integrity of the woodland SBIs and BASs, translocation of woodland soils, planting and long term management, as proposed in section 7.5.2, could result in a permanent beneficial effect on secondary woodland habitats that would be significant up to a district/borough level.

7.5.12 Although King Bromley Wharf to Fradley Junction, Coventry Canal SBI, would be crossed by the Proposed Scheme, there would be no habitat loss and no loss of the functioning of the canal as a wildlife corridor. No significant impacts are predicted.

7.5.13 There are 25 ponds and 30 ditches within the extent of the Proposed Scheme which together are considered to be of value at up to a district/borough level. Loss of these water bodies could adversely affect the conservation status of these habitats. However, there is currently provision for replacement of some ponds within the Proposed Scheme (mentioned in the following section for amphibians) and the residual effect is considered unlikely to be significant at more than the local/parish level.

7.5.14 There are known populations of great crested newt and other amphibians within ponds to be lost. The current mitigation included within the Proposed Scheme is considered sufficient to mitigate effects on known amphibian populations, there is currently no significant effect anticipated and the mitigation could benefit some amphibian populations which are in poorly managed ponds within arable habitats. Depending on the results of amphibian surveys in 2013, further mitigation could be required.

7.5.15 The main construction impact on bats is anticipated to be the severance of commuting and foraging routes and potential loss of roosts. Most of these are likely to be used by pipistrelle bats. However, Leisler’s bat has been detected during surveys, which could be up to county/ metropolitan value due to its rarity. Pipistrelle species, brown long-eared and an as yet unidentified Myotid species, are known to have roosts which would be affected by the Proposed Scheme. Further surveys are required to effectively assess the potential implications of the Proposed Scheme, but the application of the CoCP for issues such as lighting direction and, hours of working, would seek to reduce disturbance effects.

7.5.16 Impacts on Leisler’s bat could potentially result in a permanent adverse effect on conservation status which would be significant at up to a county/metropolitan level. Impacts on other bat species could result in a permanent adverse effect on the conservation status of the species concerned which would be significant at up to the district/borough level.

7.5.17 Hazel dormouse, water vole and white clawed crayfish has have not yet been recorded within the study area. It is considered unlikely that they would to be present; therefore no effects on these species are anticipated.

7.5.18 A summary of likely residual significant effects is provided in Table 10. Local/parish effects, which in combination may be significant, will be described in the formal ES. Likely residual significant effects

7.5.19 Taking into account mitigation included in the design of the Proposed Scheme, anticipated significant residual ecological effects during construction are detailed inT able 10.

73 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

Resource/Receptor Residual effect Level of significance

Ravenshaw, Black Slough and Permanent adverse effect on site integrity due to loss of County/metropolitan Slaish SBI approximately 6ha woodland some of which is ancient semi-natural and ancient replanted woodland.

John’s Gorse, Hanch Wood SBI. Permanent adverse effect due to loss of approximately County/metropolitan 0.85ha of ancient and semi-natural woodland.

Whittington Heath Golf Course SBI Permanent adverse effect on site integrity due to loss of Up to county/metropolitan approximately 3.7ha of immature woodland with acid grassland and heathland mosaic from within the SBI boundary and severance of habitat.

Tree sparrow Potential permanent adverse effects due to habitat loss. Up to county/metropolitan

Undesignated secondary woodland Permanent beneficial effect on conservation status Beneficial effects up to following establishment (approximately 20 years) due to district/borough mitigation planting to address woodland impacts, together with long term management.

Heathland Permanent beneficial effect on conservation status due Up to district/borough to creation and long term management of approximately 19ha of heathland and acid grassland mosaic with ponds, including translocation of existing heath and additional planting.

Leisler’s bat Potential permanent adverse effect on conservation status Up to county/metropolitan due to loss of roosts and loss/severance of commuting and foraging habitat.

Bats (all other species) Potential permanent adverse effect on conservation status Up to district/borough due to loss of roosts and loss/severance of commuting and foraging habitat.

Table 10: Significant residual construction effects on ecological receptors within this section of the route Further mitigation

7.5.20 Further measures currently being considered but which are not yet part of the design include: • Management of retained sections of woodland and further woodland planting to mitigate for woodland loss; • Provision of measures to facilitate the passage of species across the route where significant foraging or commuting routes would be disturbed; • The provision of alternative sites for roosting bats in suitable locations, as required based on further survey results; • Water course enhancement adjacent to culvert and viaduct crossing points to address loss of natural bank habitat and effects from shading; • Reducing impacts on aquatic invertebrate and fish communities through appropriate culvert design, in part to allow fish passage by maintaining adequate flow depth and velocity; • Provision of replacement ponds at suitable locations as required, based on further survey results; and • Creation of species-rich grassland on the cutting and embankment slopes of the Proposed Scheme which could benefit reptiles and invertebrates by providing foraging and basking habitat.

74 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Ecology

7.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

7.6.1 The following section considers the potential effects on ecological receptors during operation of the Proposed Scheme. Assessments made are provisional, based on the preliminary assessments of baseline value presented in Section 7.4 of this report.

7.6.2 The following measures have been included as part of the design of the Proposed Scheme and avoid or reduce impacts on features of ecological value: • Provision of pedestrian underpasses at Whittington golf course created under the Proposed Scheme which could also be used as corridors by any animals, to reduce severance of habitat; • Bats could be subject to impacts such as train strike, the risks of which could be increased by air turbulence from passing trains, disturbance from noise, vibration, lighting and visual cues. The risk to bats of train strike is likely to be higher for bats where the route passes through woodland habitat or linear features such as hedgerows which bats could use as commuting or foraging habitat. Disturbance could also lead to displacement (i.e. animals avoiding the area which receives high levels of disturbance and possibly abandoning roosts); and • Due to the presence of Leisler’s bat, if significant commuting or foraging routes are found to be disturbed then there is considered to be the potential for a permanent adverse effect on conservation status of Leisler’s populations that would be significant at up to the county/metropolitan level. For other species of bat, it is considered unlikely that permanent adverse effects on the species concerned would be significant at more than the district/borough level.

7.6.3 Further work to determine the effects on bats from operation of the ProposedScheme will be carried out and reported in the formal ES.

7.6.4 A summary of likely residual effects is provided in Table 11. Local/parish effects, which in combination may be significant, will be described in the formal ES. Likely residual significant effects

7.6.5 Taking into account mitigation included as part of the Proposed Scheme design, the anticipated significant residual ecological effects during operation are detailed inT able 11.

Resource/Receptor Residual effect Level of significance

Leisler’s bats Potential permanent adverse effect on conservation status Up to county/metropolitan due to mortality through train strike and disturbance.

Bats (all other species) Potential permanent adverse effect on conservation status Up to district/borough due to mortality through train strike and disturbance.

Table 11: Significant residual operational effects on ecological receptors within this section of the route Further mitigation

7.6.6 Further measures currently being considered but which are not yet part of the design include: • A programme of monitoring the movement of bats and birds would be considered further to monitor the operational effect of the Proposed Scheme; and • Provision of measures to facilitate the passage of species across the route where significant foraging or commuting routes would be disturbed.

75 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Land quality 8 Land quality 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 This section provides a summary of the likely impacts and significant effects to land quality and geology, as a result of the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme. Consideration is given to land that contains contamination and land that has special geological significance, either from a scientific, mining or mineral resources point of view, including: geological sites of special scientific interest (SSSI), local geological sites (LGS), areas of current underground or opencast mining, and areas of designated mineral resources.

8.1.2 Areas of land have been identified, both within and adjacent to construction areas, that could affect or be affected by the construction of the route because they are contaminated (for example contaminated soils may need to be removed or the construction may alter existing contamination pathways). Each of these areas has been studied in order to determine the scale of any potential impacts caused by existing contamination and what needs to be done to avoid significant consequences to people and the wider environment. In addition, a review has been undertaken to establish whether the operation of the Proposed Scheme would lead to contamination of its surroundings and what needs to be done to prevent such contamination. This process is known as a contamination risk assessment. 8.2 Policy framework 8.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to land quality are set out in the following section.

8.2.2 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan contains policies that encourage the efficient use and conservation of mineral resources (Policies MW3, MW4) and the management of important semi-natural habitats and sites of national nature conservation, including sites of geological value (Policy NC6). Policy NC7B states that development likely to have an adverse on such resources would only be permitted where the reasons for development outweigh the conservation value. The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan 1994-200619 contains policies that seek to safeguard mineral resources against sterilisation from development.

8.2.3 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan includes three policies of relevance to land quality matters: Policy E.17 relates to the need for remediation measures when developing contaminated land; Policies E.18A and E.18B address development affecting nature conservation sites, including sites designated for their geological conservation value.

8.2.4 Emerging Local Plan Core Policy Three: Sustainable Development requires developers to remediate contamination and to avoid the sterilisation of mineral resources; and Policy NR3 and Policy NR5 aim to protect and enhance geo-diversity and natural and historic landscapes across the district. 8.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 8.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the land quality assessment are set out in Volume 1.

8.3.2 The study area for the land quality assessment is defined as the temporary and permanent land take area, plus a 250m additional area from the edge of construction activities.

19 StaffordshireCounty Council and Stoke on Trent City Council (1999), Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Minerals Local Plan 1994-2006 – saved policies extended beyond 28 September 2007.

76 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Land quality

8.3.3 Engagement is ongoing with Lichfield District Council regarding contaminated land and with Staffordshire County Council regarding mineral resources. 8.4 Environmental baseline Geology

8.4.1 There are no areas of made ground shown on the geological mapping. However, there are likely to be areas of made ground associated with existing infrastructure that would be intersected by the Proposed Scheme such as the WCML and the South Staffordshire Line; the Wyrley and Essington Canal; the Trent and Mersey Canal and the A38 dual carriageway. There are also numerous infilled ponds and infilled pits within the study area.

8.4.2 Superficial deposits are present intermittently along the ProposedScheme. River alluvium (comprising clays, silts, and sands) is present around the channel of a surface watercourse adjacent to Mill Farm to the north-west of Whittington and around Pyford Brook to the north‑west of Fradley Park. River terrace deposits (sand and gravels) surround a surface watercourse to the north of Rough Stockings. Deposits originating from glacial rivers (comprising sand and gravel with lenses of clay, silt and organic material) underlie the Proposed Scheme almost continuously from Gorse Farm at Fradley to the northern end of the route section.

8.4.3 Bedrock of the Sherwood Sandstone Group (interbedded sandstone and conglomerate and gravelly sandstone) and the Mercia Mudstone Group underlies the Proposed Scheme. The Sherwood Sandstone Group is present from the southern end of the route section as far north as Hill Farm at Streethay. From Hill Farm northwards to the end of the route section, Mercia Mudstone underlies the Proposed Scheme. Groundwater and surface water

8.4.4 There are three categories of aquifer identified within the study area.The Sherwood Sandstone Group is classified as a Principal Aquifer and the Mercia Mudstone as a Secondary B Aquifer20,21. Where present, river alluvium, river terrace deposits and glacial river deposits are classified as Secondary A Aquifers22.

8.4.5 The Proposed Scheme would pass through a Total Catchment groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) Three from the southern end of the route section as far north as Hill Farm at Streethay. The study area would encroach on an Outer SPZ Two to the north of New Fulfen Cottage. The SPZ Three and SPZ Two relate to a groundwater abstraction point off Burton Old Road in the south-west of Streethay. The study area would also encroach on an Inner SPZ One and Outer SPZ Two between Tewnals Lane and Hanch Farm to the south-east of Handsacre. These SPZs relate to a groundwater abstraction at Seedy Mill Water Treatment Works.

8.4.6 There is one licensed groundwater abstraction located within 1km of the Proposed Scheme, at Seedy Mill Water Treatment Works. This is located outside of the study area.

8.4.7 The route would cross a number of water features in this route section, including Wyrley and Essington Canal, the Mare Brook and several of its tributaries, the Trent and Mersey Canal and Pyford Brook. There are also several other minor watercourses and ponds within the study area.

20 Layers of rock or drift deposits that have high intergranular and/or fracture permeability – meaning they usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. In most cases, principal aquifers are aquifers previously designated as major aquifers. 21 Predominantly lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. 22 Permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers.

77 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Land quality

8.4.8 Groundwater and surface water resources are discussed in more detail in Section 13 Water resources and flood risk assessment. Current and historic land use

8.4.9 Current potentially contaminative land uses within the study area include the existing WCML and the South Staffordshire Line, Britannia Enterprise Park (a light industrial estate adjacent to temporary construction sidings at Streethay),an airfield located to the east of Streethay and various depots at Fradley Park.

8.4.10 There are also farmsteads present within the study area, including Hill Farm directly to the east of the proposed Streethay sidings. Farmsteads have been included as a potential source of contamination because they may store and use fuels, oils, and pesticides.

8.4.11 Historical land uses with the potential to have caused contamination in the study area include an historical industrial landfill at Handsacre, a former tip to the south of theT rent and Mersey Canal, the former airfield and military base at Fradley, an infilled mill pond at Mill Farm, and a section of the Wyrley to Essington Canal at Capper’s Lane which appears to have been infilled.

8.4.12 There are also numerous infilled pits, ponds and domestic water wells scattered within the study area which may have been manually infilled with waste materials and are a potential source of landfill gas. The historical landfill is recorded to have accepted industrial waste, which can include any liquids and/or solids from a variety of industrial processes. These may include a wide range of chemical and solvent contaminants as well as metals, fuels and oils. In addition the landfill may emit landfill gas. Former areas of ad hoc infilling are a potential source of fuels, oils, metals, asbestos, ash and leachate. In addition, they may be emitting landfill gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

8.4.13 Potential contaminants associated with the former airfield/military land could include fuels, oils, metals, solvents and radiological contaminants.

8.4.14 The higher risk sites (both historic and current land uses) identified by the assessment comprise the following23: • Historical landfill at Handsacre (map CT‑03-65, G4/5); • Depots at Fradley Park (map CT‑03-63, D6); • Infilled section of the Wyrley and Essington Canal (map CT‑03-62, F6); and • Infilled mill pond (map CT‑03-62, G6). Mining/mineral resources

8.4.15 There are no active mining or mineral sites within the study area. The Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent specifies no Preferred Areas or Areas of Search within the study area.

8.4.16 There are three sand and gravel Minerals Consultation Areas (MCA) within the study area, two of which would be intersected by the Proposed Scheme. The first MCA, for sand and gravel derived from the bedrock covers Whittington Heath at the south of the route section. The second MCA, for superficial sand and gravel just encroaches on the temporary and permanent land take to the north of Streethay. The Proposed Scheme intersects an extensive MCA for superficial sand and gravel from Gorse Farm in Fradley to the northern end of the route section.

23 The definition of ‘higher risk’ sites in this instance relates to the contamination potential of the source, the type of construction works that are proposed close to or at that location (e.g. tunnel, cutting or embankment) and the proximity of receptors e.g. people, groundwater bodies etc.

78 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Land quality

8.4.17 The temporary construction sidings at Streethay are not currently proposed to be located within any designated minerals sites. Geo-conservation resources

8.4.18 There are no geological conservation resources identified within the study area. Receptors

8.4.19 Land contamination can affect people living or working on, or adjacent, to the route of the Proposed Scheme, surface waters and groundwater in the vicinity, the nearby farmland or ecological resources and the built environment. 8.5 Construction Land contamination Assessment of impacts and mitigation

8.5.1 This section of the route is largely set in a rural area to the east and north of Lichfield.The southern extent of this section is marked by Whittington Heath and the northern extent by Handsacre village.

8.5.2 Construction of the Proposed Scheme through this section of the route would involve crossing under the A51 into the southern section of Whittington Heath in cutting. It would pass over the remainder of Whittington Heath on embankment before cutting through Whittington Common. The remainder of the Proposed Scheme would be on embankment with viaducts over the watercourses and infrastructure such as the WCML and South Staffordshire Line as well as the A38 and A515 dual carriageways.

8.5.3 The works would include earthworks, utility diversions, deep foundations, and temporary dewatering. Within the area, sidings would also be constructed at Streethay with associated bunds, balancing ponds and concrete aprons in areas to be used for unloading. The sidings would be located parallel to the A38 dual carriageway and bound to the south by the WCML. Material storage areas would be located to the east of the Coventry Canal.

8.5.4 The CoCP sets out the measures and standards of work that would be applied to the construction of the Proposed Scheme. Its requirements would ensure the effective management and control of contaminated land issues by contractors including: • Methods to control waste, dust and vapours; • Methods to control spillage and prevent contamination of adjacent areas; and • Management of unexpected contamination through identification, disposal methods or potential for reuse.

8.5.5 The CoCP requires that a programme of ground investigation would take place prior to construction in order to confirm areas of contamination and a risk assessment undertaken to determine what, if any, site specific remediation measures would be required to allow the Proposed Scheme to be constructed safely and to prevent harmful future migration of contaminants. Any remediation scheme would be agreed with the regulatory authorities.

8.5.6 The Proposed Scheme would generally be on embankment as it passes over, or close to, the identified sources of potential contamination. Localised mobilisation of contaminants during construction may increase the potential for migration of contaminants to groundwater. This may occur where infilled pits or ponds are encountered and if the infilled mill pond (map CT‑03-62, G6) and the infilled section of the Wyrley and Essington Canal (map CT‑03-62, F6) are disturbed.

79 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Land quality

8.5.7 The potential mobilisation of contamination is assessed as not significant.The probability of the remobilised contamination reaching the groundwater is considered higher during construction but the consequence would be minor because of the nature and localised scale of potential contamination and the sensitivity of the aquifers.

8.5.8 There is potential for landfill gas to impact upon the Proposed Scheme where it passes close to areas that have been filled with waste, such as the historical industrial landfill at Handsacre. The results of the ground investigation and subsequent monitoring would determine if and where gas mitigation measures are required to be incorporated into the detailed design of the Proposed Scheme.

8.5.9 There are not anticipated to be any significant construction effects regarding land quality and contamination within the study area.

8.5.10 Contaminated soils excavated from the site, wherever feasible, would be treated as necessary to remove or render any contamination inactive, and reused within the Proposed Scheme where needed and suitable for use. Techniques are likely to include stabilisation methods, soil washing and bio-remediation to remove oil contaminants. Contaminated soil disposed off-site would be taken to a soil treatment facility, another construction site (for treatment, as necessary, and reuse) or an appropriately permitted landfill site.

8.5.11 Site compounds would be located at various locations long the Proposed Scheme. The compounds would include staff welfare facilities, maintenance facilities for plant and machinery and fuel storage in bunded tanks. The locations and uses of construction compounds in this area are listed in Table 1.

8.5.12 Whilst the construction compounds would store and use potentially contaminative materials such as fuels, oils and solvents, they would be managed in accordance with the CoCP, thus minimising the impacts of contamination from these sources.

8.5.13 It is considered unlikely that additional remediation works would be required over and above the mitigation measures contained as standard within the CoCP. Likely residual significant effects

8.5.14 There would be a local beneficial effect after construction in areas where contaminated soils may be disturbed and excavated. However, these effects are not considered to be significant.

8.5.15 No residual adverse effects are anticipated. Mining/mineral resources Assessment of impacts and mitigation

8.5.16 Construction of the Proposed Scheme would affect the sand and gravel mineral resource within two MCAs.

8.5.17 There is a potential minor adverse impact on the two sand and gravel MCAs intersected by the Proposed Scheme. The effect is assessed as not significant because there would only be a slight severance or sterilisation of a large local resource. Likely residual significant effects

8.5.18 Residual effects are not considered to be significant.

80 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Land quality

Geo-conservation resources Assessment of impacts and mitigation

8.5.19 There are no geological conservation resources identified within the study area. Likely residual significant effects

8.5.20 No residual effects have been identified at this time. 8.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

8.6.1 Maintenance and operation of the railway would be in accordance with environmental legislation and best practice. Spillage and pollution response procedures similar to those outlined in the draft CoCP would be established for all high risk activities and employees would be trained in responding to such incidents.

8.6.2 Whittington auto-transformer station would be located to the north of Cappers Lane where it would be intersected by the Proposed Scheme. An auto-transformer station can, in principle, be a source of contamination through accidental discharge or leaks of coolants. However the proposed substation, in common with other modern substations, would use secondary containment appropriate to the level of risk.

8.6.3 There exists the potential of minor leakage of hydraulic or lubricating oils from the trains. However, such leakage or spillage is expected to be very small and would not lead to any significant contamination. Likely residual significant effects

8.6.4 Residual pollution associated with the operation of the Proposed Scheme is not considered to be significant.

81 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment 9 Landscape and visual assessment 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 This section of the report presents the assessment of the likely significant landscape and visual effects. It starts by describing the current conditions found within and around the route of the Proposed Scheme, the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the rural and urban environment. A summary of the significant effects that would arise from the construction and operation on landscape character areas and visual receptors is provided. 9.2 Policy framework 9.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to landscape and visual assessment are set out in the following section.

9.2.2 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan Policy D2 seeks high quality design in all development, including an appropriate response to surrounding context and integration of existing landscape features. Structure Plan Policy NC1. Protection of the Countryside: General Considerations applies strict controls to safeguard the countryside for its own sake. The policy also includes a requirement for mitigation of adverse effects arising from development, supplemented by the specific provisions of Policies NC6, NC7, NC7A and NC7B in relation to particular habitats and sites designated for their nature conservation value. Policy NC13 seeks to improve the management and conservation of existing woodlands and important trees and hedgerows, particularly where they contribute to landscape character and quality.

9.2.3 Policy NC13 seeks to improve the management and conservation of existing woodlands and important trees and hedgerows, particularly where they contribute to landscape character and quality; and Policies QE5 and QE6 require development proposals to respect local landscape character and distinctiveness. Policy QE3: Creating a High Quality Built Environment for All sets out a series of criteria including the promotion of public art in design; assessing and minimising the impacts of light pollution; and creating safe environments that discourage crime. Land within the green belt is protected from development that would adversely affect the purpose of the designation (Policy D5A) or be considered inappropriate (Policy D5B) – the railway does not fall into the categories of development that would normally be considered within the green belt.

9.2.4 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan policies most relevant for this assessment include: • The presumption against inappropriate development in the designated green belt (Policy E.4), which covers the Whittington to Handsacre area, including the settlements of Hints and Weeford but excluding the defined village envelope of Drayton Bassett (Policy E.6); • High quality design in new development (Policy DC.1), including the retention of important landscape, archaeological features and areas of nature conservation interest within proposals; • The preservation of listed buildings (Policy C.1) and the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area in Hints (Policies C.2 and C.3); and • The preservation and management of trees, woodlands and hedgerows in the interests of nature conservation, biodiversity and visual amenity (Policies E.3, DC.17 and DC.18).

82 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

9.2.5 The emerging Local Plan generally follows the policy direction of the adopted Local Plan, particularly in terms of environmental protection and promoting a high quality of design for the built environment. It maintains the requirement for suitable mitigation to be provided where development would have unavoidable adverse effects on sites of ecological, natural and historic interest (draft Core Policy 13, Policy NR1, Policy NR2, Policy NR3, Policy NR5 and Policy NR6), to develop multifunctional green infrastructure across the District (Policy NR6) and to mitigate for any loss of trees. In the case of ancient woodland, draft Policy NR4: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows introduces the statement that any loss of veteran trees would also be resisted.

9.2.6 Core Policy 13: Our Natural Resources particularly emphasises the importance of the district’s ecological networks and promotes restoration and creation of new habitats, veteran trees, tree and woodland planting and local nature reserves as part of development proposals. Policy BE.1 promotes high quality development across the district and includes reference to protecting and enhancing the character and distinctiveness of the district and its settlements, using natural resources prudently and maximising opportunities to protect and enhance biodiversity, geodiversity and green infrastructure.

9.2.7 There are also new policy themes which relate to the promotion of limited development at Fazeley on the edge of Tamworth (Policies FAZ2 and FAZ3), chiefly within the existing built-up area; and the protection of the existing retail function of Mile Oak (also on the edge of Tamworth), which is located approximately 2km north of the route. Existing tourist attractions, including the Central Rivers Initiative (which is crossed by the Proposed Scheme) and Drayton Manor Park continue to be supported and promoted by draft Core Policy 9: Tourism. 9.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 9.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the landscape and visual assessment are set out in Volume 1. The extent of the landscape and visual study area, the distribution of visual receptor viewpoints and the location of verifiable photomontages have been discussed with Staffordshire County Council, Lichfield District Council and Tamworth Borough Council. Landscape characterisation for the study area has been discussed with Natural England. Field surveys were undertaken from March 2012 to April 2013, including photographic studies of Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and visual assessment of viewpoints. Further surveys will be undertaken during 2013 and reported in the formal ES.

9.3.2 The study area has been informed by early drafts of the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV), which is being prepared for inclusion in the formal ES. LCAs and visual receptors within approximately 2km of the Proposed Scheme have been assessed. The study area extends beyond all land required for the Proposed Scheme. 9.4 Environmental baseline 9.4.1 The following section sets out the baseline conditions for the landscape and visual assessment in the study area. Figures LV-11-61 to LV-11-65 show the location of landscape character areas and visual receptor viewpoints. Photomontages have been produced for viewpoints 347-4-007 (figure LV-12-64), 352-2-001 (figure LV-12-65) and 353-2-007 (figure LV-12-66) as representative of the area.

9.4.2 This area includes the gently sloping terraces of the River Trent around the eastern edge of Lichfield, rising to the plateau of the Cannock Chase and Cank Hills. The area is predominantly arable agriculture, with dense hedgerows, tree belts and a network of woodland blocks to the north-east of Fradley. Settlement includes small villages and isolated properties as well as larger settlements of Tamworth, east Lichfield and Whittington and the extensive industrial/

83 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

business area at Fradley. Lichfield Cathedral and the Grade II registered park and garden Cathedral Close and Linear Park are located in the centre of Lichfield. There is a concentration of scheduled monuments to the south-east of Fradley. Key transport routes include the A38, M6 Toll, A5, A51, A515 and the WCML. The Coventry Canal and Trent and Mersey Canal also pass through this area. Landscape character assessment

9.4.3 LCAs are defined as areas with broadly homogenous characteristics and are influenced by national and district published character assessments. The Proposed Scheme in this area is located within two national character areas (NCA), NCA 67: Cannock Chase and NCA 69: Trent Valley Washlands, as defined by the Character of England mapping and Natural England24. For the purposes of this assessment the study area has been sub-divided into five discrete LCAs, four of which are most likely to be affected. Sandstone Estatelands LCA, a rolling lowland landscape of woodlands, parklands and heathlands; Settled Farmlands LCA, a mixed agricultural landscape of undulating lowlands; Settled Heathlands LCA, a broadly flat former heathland landscape with a shallow ridgeline, all have a medium sensitivity to change. Sandstone Terraced Estatelands LCA, a well wooded river terrace landscape, has a low sensitivity to change. Visual baseline

9.4.4 Viewpoints, split into residential, recreational and transport have been selected, in liaison with Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council, to represent groups of receptors within this area. Residential receptors (i.e. residents) have a high sensitivity to change and include properties along transport routes such as the A51, A38, Tamworth Road and Sandy Lane, properties at the edges of Lichfield, Whittington, South Fradley, Handsacre and Streethay, scattered hamlets and properties such as farmhouses, manor houses and cottages. Recreational receptors also have a high sensitivity to change, and include users of several PRoW including the Heart of England Way, users of sports facilities and the Coventry Canal and Trent and Mersey Canal. Transport receptors (i.e. users of private or public transport) have a medium sensitivity and are located on roads throughout the study area. Employment and active sports receptors have low sensitivity to change. There are no known protected views located within the study area. 9.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

9.5.1 Due to the scale of the construction activities, works would be highly visible in many locations and would have the potential to give rise to significant effects which cannot be mitigated.This is commonplace with construction of major infrastructure projects, but it should be noted that these effects are temporary in nature and relate to the peak construction phase. Effects during other phases of works are likely to be less due to less construction equipment being required at the time and a reduced intensity of construction activity.

9.5.2 Measures that have been incorporated into the draft CoCP to avoid or reduce landscape and visual effects during construction include: • Maximising the retention and protection of existing trees and vegetation where reasonably practicable; • Use of well-maintained hoardings and fencing;

24 Natural England (1996); The Character of England 1996; http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/nca/default.aspx; Accessed: 8 January 2013.

84 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

• Replacement of any trees intended to be retained which may be accidentally felled or die as a consequence of construction works; • Early implementation of planting and other landscape measures where there is no conflict with construction activities or other requirements of the Proposed Scheme; and • Appropriate maintenance of planting and seeding works and implementation of management measures, to continue through the construction period as landscape works are completed.

9.5.3 These measures have been taken account of in the assessment of the construction effects in this section. Landscape assessment

9.5.4 The potential significant effects on the landscape during construction would relate to the presence of construction plant, development of worksites and compounds; temporary construction features such as road and utility diversions and stockpiles, construction of embankments, excavation work for cuttings and balancing ponds, and the removal of existing landscape elements.

9.5.5 Changes would be most notable where works are required to realign existing transport routes such as Darnford Lane; where a temporary construction sidings is currently being considered; where extensive earthworks are required (e.g. where the grade separated junction is provided for the stub to the Manchester spur of Phase Two); and for the construction of new built elements such as Darnford Lane overbridge, Cappers Lane and Streethay viaducts and the viaduct across the disused Wyrley and Essington Canal.

9.5.6 Table 12 summarises the LCAs that would be significantly affected during construction of the Proposed Scheme.

LCA Sensitivity of Magnitude of Level of effect LCA change to LCA

Sandstone Estatelands LCA Medium High Moderate Presence of construction activities and earthworks; permanent loss of trees adverse and hedgerows.

Settled Farmlands LCA Medium High Major adverse Presence of construction activities and earthworks; permanent loss of woodland at Fulfen Wood.

Sandstone Terrace Estatelands LCA Low High Moderate Presence of construction activities and earthworks; loss of vegetation adverse along canal; extensive clearance of streams, drainage and vegetation for storage of materials; permanent loss of hedgerows and field pattern; changes in landform.

Settled Heathlands LCA Medium High Major adverse Presence of construction activities and earthworks and more extensive influence of worksites; impacts on Trent and Mersey Canal; distinctive landform changes around Rileyhill, Curborough and Fradley; permanent loss of trees, woodlands and hedgerows.

Table 12: Significant landscape effects during construction

85 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Visual assessment

9.5.7 The most apparent changes to views during construction would relate to the presence of construction plant, construction activity, development of worksites and compounds, temporary construction features such as road and utility diversions and stockpiles, construction of embankments, excavation work for cuttings and balancing ponds, and the removal of existing landscape elements.

9.5.8 Changes would be most notable where works are required to existing transport routes such as the A515, Darnford Lane and Wood End Lane; where there would be works for the extensive embankments and cuttings across the landscape, in particular the major earthworks and embankments between Lichfield and Fradley; and for the construction of new built elements such as Darnford Lane overbridge, Cappers Lane viaduct, Fulfen Wood viaduct, Bourne Brook viaduct and Harvey’s Rough viaduct; changes to the existing WCML at Handsacre; and vegetation loss and loss of property. The height of the construction plant and the viaducts and the proximity of construction activities to viewpoints, coupled with the absence of intervening screening (apart from the site hoardings) would result in significant visual effects during construction. In addition, temporary or permanent realignment of footpaths would affect views for users of these facilities.

9.5.9 An assessment of effects arising from lighting during construction where( required) will be prepared and included as part of the formal ES.

9.5.10 Table 13 summarises the views which would be significantly affected by the construction of the Proposed Scheme. The numbers in brackets identify the viewpoint locations which are shown on figures LV-11-61 to LV-11-65. The assessed level of effect is considered as the maximum level at the height of construction activity in the view at each location. The duration of this effect would in most instances be less than the entire construction period and will be considered in the formal ES. An indicative construction programme is set out in Section 2.3 of this report.

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors25

Residential receptors

View north-east from Marsh Farm (349.2.004) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities, partially obscured by existing landform, breaking rural continuity of middle and distant views.

View east from Whittingham Hill Farm and Whittington Hill House, off High High Major adverse Darnford Lane (349.2.005) Visibility of construction activities from considerable regrading of landform and close proximity to receptors; construction of Darnford Lane overbridge and ramps would curtail views.

View from Ellfield House, off Whittington Common Road (350.2.001) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities at Darnford Lane overbridge and associated embankments; marked alteration of landscape.

View north-west from Brook House and Mill Farm on Capper’s Lane High High Major adverse (352.2.001) Visibility of construction of Capper’s Lane viaduct, Park Lane overbridge worksites and general earthworks for embankments; potential background views of Streethay temporary construction sidings.

86 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors25

View north-west from Huddlesford junction near canal side residential High High Major adverse property (352.2.002) Visibility of construction works for Capper’s Lane viaduct, screened at a lower level by intervening vegetation alongside Wyrley and Essington Canal.

View east from Manor House adjoining the A38 (353.2.005) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities at Streethay viaduct, partially filtered at ground level.

View east from Hill Farm (353.2.007) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities at Streethay viaduct.

View west from Streethay Farm adjacent to the A38, Streethay High High Major adverse (354.2.001) Visibility of construction activities at Streethay viaduct.

View west from Orchard Farm (situated to the north of the A38) High High Major adverse (356.2.007) Visibility of construction activities and earthworks of the Streethay viaduct and overhead line equipment gantries in distance and middle ground views.

View west from Highfields Bungalow (357.2.001) High Medium Moderate Visibility of construction activities, screened intermittently by existing adverse distant woodland at Little Lyntus and Big Lyntus.

View north-east from Curborough Farm (357.2.003) High Medium Moderate Visibility of construction activities in the middle distance, including adverse embankments, track construction and overhead line equipment gantries, partially screened by continuous conifer hedging obscuring views from lower storeys.

View north-east from Wood End Farm/The Cottage, Wood End Lane High High Major adverse (360.2.002) Visibility of construction in the middle ground of Trent and Mersey Canal underbridge, with limited screening for lower storey windows and partial screening from retained woodland to the east of the receptors.

View south from Cranberry residential property near Fradley junction High High Major adverse (361.2.002) Visibility of construction activities for Manchester spur and Proposed Scheme on raised embankments and elevated viaduct to cross Trent and Mersey Canal; views of overhead line equipment gantries.

View north from Black Slough Farm on Wood End Lane (362.2.001) High Medium Moderate Visibility of construction activities in the middle ground, partially screened adverse by Ravenshaw and Black Slough Woods, with substantial length in direct view.

View north-east from residential property (Birch Ridings) on Wood End High Medium Moderate Lane near Vicar’s Coppice (362.2.003) adverse Visibility of construction of track and associated engineering overhead line equipment gantries and fencing, largely screened by woodland on the north and west; to the east, visibility of construction activities from upper storey windows.

View south-east from Wood End Common Barn (363.2.001) High Medium Moderate Middle ground views of construction activities of the Trent and Mersey adverse Canal viaduct and Manchester spur, partially screened by woodland.

87 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors25

View north-west from ”The Elms” on Shaw Lane, close to the junction High High Major adverse with the B5014 Lichfield Road (364.2.002) Visibility of construction activities in the middle ground of Harvey’s Rough viaduct, retaining walls and overhead line equipment gantries.

View north-east from residential properties on the B5014, Lichfield High Medium Moderate Road (364.2.003) adverse Visibility of construction activities for the A515 overbridge in the middle ground and an additional element of Bourne Brook viaduct partially screened from lower storeys by mature hedgerows.

View south-east from Wharf Farm off the A515 (365.2.001) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities for the A515 overbridge and overhead line equipment gantries visible from upper storey windows.

View south-west from Tuppenhurst Lane near Show Lane Farm and High High Major adverse Shaw House (365.2.004) High visibility of construction activities at Harvey’s Rough viaduct, with receptor within 100m of embankment earthworks and overhead line equipment gantries and direct views from upper storeys.

View north-east from “Newtown” located on the Lichfield Road (B5014) High Medium Moderate (366.2.001) adverse Visibility of construction activities for the route on extended viaduct at Shaw Lane and above-track overhead line equipment gantries, screened from lower storeys by reasonably dense intervening hedgerows and occasional blocks of woodland.

View north-east from residential properties adjoining Hanch Hall, High Medium Moderate Lichfield Road (366.2.007) adverse Visibility of construction activities approximately 500m distant of junction between the existing WCML and Proposed Scheme with elevated viaduct and associated overhead line equipment gantries.

View south-west from Westview Cottages, Tuppenhurst Lane (367.2.002) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities 200m distant for an elevated junction, with some screening of views from blocks of woodland planting and the farm at Ashton Hayes.

View south-east from residential properties located along Chestnut High Medium Moderate Close, Handsacre adverse (368.2.001) Visibility of construction of Harvey’s Rough viaduct and associated overhead line equipment gantries at line division opposite Shaw Lane, in the context of existing WCML and National Grid overhead power lines and overall distance to the Proposed Scheme.

View south from Bridge Road, Handsacre High Medium Moderate (369.2.001) adverse Visibility of construction activities at Harvey’s Rough viaduct, partially screened by limited low level vegetation.

Recreational receptors

View north from the playing course of Whittington Heath Golf Club High Medium Moderate (Whittington footpath 16) (348.3.007) adverse Visibility of construction activities, earthworks and overhead line equipment gantries despite existing vegetation.

88 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors25

View north-west from PRoW (Whittington footpath 7) between High High Major adverse Capper’s Lane and Darnford Lane (350.3.005) Visibility of construction activities and worksites for Capper’s Lane viaduct, Park Lane overbridge, Fulfen Wood viaduct, and Streethay temporary construction sidings.

View north-west from PRoW (Whittington footpath 7) as it crosses High High Major adverse Capper’s Lane (350.3.007) Visibility of construction activities for Capper’s Lane viaduct and Fulfen Wood rail underbridge; full extent of embankments visible from Darnford Lane to Fradley.

View west from Coventry Canal near Huddlesford Bridge (352.3.006) High Medium Moderate Visibility of construction activities for Fulfen Wood rail underbridge and adverse Capper’s Lane viaduct, partially screened by Fulfen Wood.

View north-east from the PRoW (junction between footpath references High High Major adverse Streethay 3 and Streethay 2) near Streethay House Farm (353.3.001) Visibility of construction activities and worksites for Streethay viaduct, embankment north of the A38, Wood End Lane realignment, earthworks arisings treatment/transfer, and potential background views of Streethay temporary construction sidings.

View north-east from the PRoW (Streethay footpath 1) near to the High High Major adverse existing West Coast Main Line railway (353.3.003) Visibility of construction activities for Streethay viaduct and Curborough viaduct for the Manchester spur.

View east from the PRoW (Streethay footpath 7), to the east of High High Major adverse Curborough House (355.3.003) Visibility of construction activities in the middle ground of the junction for the Manchester spur with a viaduct crossing and a permanent road diversion to Wood Lane and associated balancing ponds and access roads.

View east from Wood End Lane (356.3.006) High High Major adverse Visibility of construction activities in the foreground views within 300m, obscuring middle ground and background views from this receptor by extensive embankment from Streethay to Woods Lane; views of a high level viaduct junction for the Manchester spur and associated overhead line equipment gantries, track, and fencing. Middle ground views obscured.

View south-west from the PRoW (Alrewas footpath 0.256) near Fradley High Medium Moderate Wood (359.3.001) adverse Visibility of construction activities for Manchester spur junction and Curborough viaduct, including overhead line equipment gantries, partially screened by existing hedgerow.

View north-east from the Trent and Mersey Canal, close to Wood End High High Major adverse Lock Cottage (360.3.001) Visibility of construction activities of embankments and Trent and Mersey Canal West underbridge, including a balancing pond and access road; all views to north and east curtailed.

89 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors25

View east from the PRoW (Alrewas footpath 44) on Wood End Lane High High Major adverse (360.3.007) Visibility of construction activities for the Manchester spur junction and Trent and Mersey Canal underbridge, with overhead line equipment gantries and balancing ponds.

View south from the PRoW (Alrewas footpath 44) adjoining Trent and High High Major adverse Mersey Canal (361.3.003) High visibility of construction activities in the foreground, including substantial elevated embankment with associated overhead line equipment gantries and Trent and Mersey Canal underbridge.

Transport receptors

View north-east from Whittington Common Road (347.4.007) Medium High Moderate Visibility of the construction of embankments and viaducts in a north/south adverse orientation from this view point.

Table 13: Significant visual effects during construction Likely residual significant effects

9.5.11 Due to the highly visible nature of the construction activities along the Proposed Scheme there would be significant residual effects, as described in Tables 12 and 13 above, although they would be temporary and reversible in nature lasting only for the duration of the construction works. Residual effects would generally arise from the foreground visibility of construction activity, demolitions and excavations for viaducts and associated earthworks. 9.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

9.6.1 The operational assessment of impacts and mitigation measures is based on the first year of opening of the Proposed Scheme (2026). A process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to avoid or reduce adverse effects during the operation of the Proposed Scheme. Measures that have been incorporated into the design of the Proposed Scheme include: • Reinstatement of severed lengths of hedge/enclosure of fields; • Replacement of lost vegetation/woodland; • Introduction of screening through new planting where this fits into the existing landscape pattern; • Integration of embankment landforms into the natural topography; • Creation of raised embankments on both sides of the route to screen the Proposed Scheme; and • Placement of noise barriers close to the track within cuttings, avoiding the top of the cut slope.

25 Selected viewpoints have been described to provide a broad range of the likely impacts for this draft ES. Assessment will be provided for all viewpoints in the formal ES.

90 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

9.6.2 These measures have been taken account of in the assessment of the operation effects. Photomontages have been produced showing the view during operation from viewpoints 347‑4-007 on Whittington Common Road (close to the junction with the A51 Tamworth Road) (figure LV-12-64) 352-2-001 on Cappers Lane (figure LV-12-65) and 353-2-007 at Hill Farm (figure LV-12-66). Landscape assessment

9.6.3 The potential significant effects on the landscape in 2026 (i.e. the assumed year of opening) would arise from new engineered landforms cutting across the existing landscape, in particular the major earthworks and embankments between Lichfield and Fradley; changes to the existing WCML at Handsacre; the introduction of other engineering components including Darnford Lane overbridge, Cappers Lane viaduct, Fulfen Wood viaduct, Bourne Brook viaduct and Harvey’s Rough viaduct; the realignment of existing transport routes including the A515, Darnford Lane and Wood End Lane; vegetation removal, loss of property and permanent severance of land. In addition, the introduction of high speed trains would result in a noticeable alteration to tranquillity.

9.6.4 There would be no change to the assessment during summer.

9.6.5 Table 14 summarises the LCAs that would be significantly affected by the Proposed Scheme in year one of operation (2026).

LCA Sensitivity of Magnitude of Level of effect LCA change to LCA26

Sandstone Estatelands LCA Medium Medium Moderate Presence of Proposed Scheme breaking up landform; permanent loss of adverse trees, hedgerow and woodland and fragmenting vegetation structure; roadway diversions.

Settled Farmlands LCA Medium Medium Moderate Loss of meander and associated watercourse vegetation at Fulfen Wood; adverse permanent loss of woodland at Fulfen Wood; changes in landform and to existing well established infrastructure routes.

Settled Heathlands LCA Medium Medium Moderate Culverting of water bodies and loss of vegetation; viaducts crossing Trent adverse and Mersey Canal at three points; distinctive landform changes around Rileyhill, Curborough and Fradley; loss of woodland, trees and hedgerows.

Table 14: Significant landscape effects during operation year one (2026) Visual assessment

9.6.6 The potential significant effects on views in 2026 (i.e. the assumed year of opening) would be at viewpoints where the route of the Proposed Scheme is on viaduct and embankment, where the rail, infrastructure including overhead line equipment and rail traffic are visible, where vegetation is lost, and where highway diversions introduce overbridges, viaducts and associated infrastructure.

9.6.7 For residential and recreational receptors, changes to views would result from changes to landform and vegetation pattern, and the introduction of built components and rail traffic. These changes would occur in the middle to foreground of several views and in longer views across the agricultural landscape and are summarised for significant effects inT able 14. For transport receptors, changes to views would result both from introduction of embankments

26 In year one of operation, any new planting along the Proposed Scheme would be immature and therefore not help to integrate the Proposed Scheme into the landscape. As the plants mature, screening of the Proposed Scheme would improve.

91 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

and overbridges in the foreground and in views of the new engineering elements and rail traffic of the Proposed Scheme, and are summarised for significant effects in Table 14.

9.6.8 The assessed level of effect would be reduced for some viewpoints in summer, due to intervening deciduous vegetation.

9.6.9 Photomontages have been produced illustrating the view of the Proposed Scheme during operation year one from viewpoints 347-4-007 on Whittington Common Road (close to the junction with the A51 Tamworth Road) (figure LV-12-64), 352-2-001 on Cappers Lane (figure LV-12-65) and 353-2-007 at Hill Farm (figure LV-12-66).

9.6.10 Table 15 summarises the visual receptors that would be significantly affected by the Proposed Scheme in year one of operation (2026). The numbers in brackets identify the viewpoint locations which are shown on figures LV-11-61 to LV-11-65.

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors27,28

Residential receptors

View north-east from South Lodge, on the A51/Tamworth Road High Low Moderate (347.2.002) adverse Direct views of the Proposed Scheme in the cutting would be predominantly screened by foreground vegetation; partial views towards the new alignment of the A51 Tamworth Road.

View east from Tamworth Road near Jockey Rise (349.2.002) High Medium Moderate Partial and oblique views to Whittington Common Road underpass; direct adverse views towards toward Darnford Lane overbridge and realignment of road; earthworks and false cutting

View north-east from Marsh Farm (349.2.004) High Medium Major adverse Visibility of Proposed Scheme from upper storey windows; cutting and embankments visible.

View east from Whittingham Hill Farm and Whittington Hill House, off High High Major adverse Darnford Lane (349.2.005) Visibility of the Proposed Scheme from key upper storey windows, partially screened by trees and vegetation; direct views of realignment of Darnford Lane dominating the foreground and middle ground views.

View west from Ellfield House, off Whittington Common Road High High Major adverse (350.2.001) Direct views of the route in cutting and on embankment.

View north-east from Fulfen Cottages on Cappers Lane (351.2.002) High High Major adverse Direct views towards new, extensive embankment across shallow slope of existing landform; Park Lane underbridge and Whittington auto- transformer station visible as realigned National Grid overhead power lines and earthworks.

View north-west from Brook House and Mill Farm on Cappers Lane High High Major adverse (352.2.001) Direct views of the Proposed Scheme as it crosses the Wyrley Essington Canal (disused) on viaduct, with substantial earthworks.

View north-west from Huddlesford junction near canalside residential High High Major adverse property (352.2.002) Direct views of the Proposed Scheme from property frontage; clear foreground and middle ground views of extensive earthworks over the post and rail field boundary.

92 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors27,28

View east from the Manor House, adjacent to the A38 (353.2.005) High High Major adverse Direct foreground views of the Proposed Scheme, partially filtered by garden vegetation in the curtilage of the property; Streethay viaduct and large scale embankments and earthworks visible.

View west from Orchard Farm (situated to the north of the A38) High High Major adverse (353.2.007) Direct views to upper sections of embankment, passing trains and associated overhead line equipment gantries in the middle ground.

View west from Streethay Farm adjacent to the A38, Streethay High High Major adverse (354.2.001) Direct close distance views of viaduct, embankments, proposed track and gantries.

View west from Orchard Farm (situated to the north of the A38) High High Major adverse (356.2.007) Direct views largely screened by existing vegetation, upper sections of the Proposed Scheme on embankments will be visible.

View north-east from Highfields Bungalow (357.2.001) High Medium Moderate Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on embankment will be partially adverse available.

View north-east from Wood End Farm/The Cottage, Wood End Lane High High Major adverse (360.2.002) Partial views would include Trent and Mersey Canal underbridge, Proposed Scheme on embankment and viaduct alongside new planting.

View south-west from Cranberry residential property near Fradley High High Major adverse junction (361.2.002) Filtered and partial views of Manchester Spur and Proposed Scheme on raised embankments and elevated viaduct will be available despite introduction of new planting.

View north from Black Slough Farm on Wood End Lane (362.2.001) High Medium Moderate Filtered and partial views of the Proposed Scheme at grade between adverse Ravenshaw and Black Slough Woods alongside new planting.

View east from residential property (Birch Ridings) on Wood End Lane High Medium Moderate near Vicar’s Coppice (362.2.003) adverse Partial views of Proposed Scheme on embankment largely screened by existing woodland with proposed new planting.

View south-east from Wood End Common Barn (363.2.001) High Medium Moderate Long distance views of the Proposed Scheme, the Trent and Mersey adverse Canal viaduct and Manchester Spur on embankment would be filtered by intervening vegetation.

View north-east from Hanch Hall Farm, Lichfield Road (364.2.001) High Medium Moderate Close distance views of WCML tie and Harvey’s Rough viaduct; this will adverse screen partially the Proposed Scheme and Bourne Brook viaduct and A515 Tewnals Lane underpass.

View north-west from ‘The Elms’ on Shaw Lane, close to the junction High High Major adverse with the B5014 Lichfield Road (364.2.002) Middle ground views of Harvey’s Rough viaduct, retaining walls and overhead line equipment gantries alongside introduced new planting.

93 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors27,28

View south from Wharf Farm, off the A515 (365.2.001) High High Major adverse Long distance views of Proposed Scheme on embankment and the A515 overbridge and overhead line equipment gantries would be visible from upper storey windows.

View south-west from Tuppenhurst Lane near Show Lane Farm and High High Major adverse Shaw House (365.2.004) Views of Harvey’s Rough viaduct with embankment earthworks with new planting alongside overhead line equipment gantries visible from upper storeys.

View north-east from ‘Newtown’ located on the Lichfield Road (B5014) High Medium Moderate (366.2.001) adverse Views of viaduct at Shaw Lane and above track overhead line equipment gantries, and new planting filtered by dense intervening hedgerows and occasional blocks of woodland.

View north-east from residential properties adjoining Hanch Hall, High Medium Moderate Lichfield Road (366.2.007) adverse Views of junction between the existing WCML and Proposed Scheme with elevated viaduct associated overhead line equipment gantries and new planting.

View south-west from Ashton Hayes Farm/Ashton Hayes, off High Medium Moderate Tuppenhurst Lane (367.2.001) adverse Direct views of tie in with existing WCML as Proposed Scheme drops down off Harvey’s Rough viaduct with extensive areas of Proposed Planting.

View south-west from Shaw Barn, Shaw Lane (367.2.005) High Medium Moderate Direct views of scheme junction with the WCML alongside incorporated adverse large scale earthworks.

View south-east from residential properties located along Chestnut High Medium Moderate Close, Handsacre adverse (368.2.001) Direct views of Harvey’s Rough viaduct and associated overhead line equipment gantries in the context of existing WCML and National Grid overhead power lines.

View south from Bridge Road, Handsacre High Medium Moderate (369.2.001) adverse Clear views of Harvey’s Rough viaduct, partially screened by intervening existing vegetation.

Recreational receptors

View north from the playing course of Whittington Heath Golf Club Low Medium Moderate (Whittington F/P 16) (348.3.007) adverse Visibility of the Proposed Scheme emerging from cutting and crossing through existing golf course on embankment further to the north filtered through existing and proposed new planting.

View north-west from PRoW bridleway (Whittington footpath 7) High High Major adverse between Cappers Lane and Darnford Lane (350.3.005) Clear foreground and middle ground views of the Proposed Scheme emerging onto embankment prior to Wyrley and Essington Canal viaduct with extensive earth modelling; oblique views of Darnford Lane realignment and viaduct at Mill Farm and embankment toward WCML and the A38 at Streethay.

94 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors27,28

View north-west from PRoW (Whittington footpath 7) as it crosses High High Major adverse Cappers Lane (350.3.007) Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on embankment and viaduct with extensive new planting on embankments.

View west from Coventry Canal near Huddlesford Bridge (352.3.006) High Medium Moderate Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on the embankment would largely adverse be screened by existing vegetation; partial views of Fulfen Wood Rail underbridge and Cappers Lane viaduct.

View north-east from the PRoW (Streethay footpath 2) near Streethay High High Major adverse House Farm (353.3.001) High visibility of Proposed Scheme in foreground and middle ground views. Clear views of embankment and extensive earthworks and toward Mare Brook culvert and permanent diversion of Wood End Lane.

View east from the PRoW (Streethay footpath 7), to the east of High High Major adverse Curborough House (355.3.003) High visibility of the Proposed Scheme in the foreground and middle ground views, including new embankment and extensive earthworks, as well as diversion of Wood End Lane.

View west from Wood End Lane (356.3.006) High High Major adverse Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on the embankment with gantries and new planting; views would be filtered by existing vegetation.

View south-west from the PRoW public footpath (Alrewas F/P 0.256) High Medium Moderate near Fradley Wood (359.3.001) adverse Direct, partial and filtered views of the Proposed Scheme on embankment alongside Manchester Spur junction with high level viaduct and introduced planting.

View north-east from the Trent and Mersey Canal, close to Wood End High High Major adverse Lock Cottage (360.3.001) Direct close distance views of embankments with planting and Trent and Mersey Canal west underbridge.

View north-east from the PRoW public footpath (Alrewas F/P 44 and 45) High High Major adverse on Wood End Lane (360.3.007) Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on embankment, Manchester Spur junction and Trent and Mersey Canal underbridge.

View south-west from the PRoW public footpath (Alrewas F/P 44) High High Major adverse adjoining Trent and Mersey Canal (361.3.003) Direct and open views of the Proposed Scheme on elevated embankment with gantries and Trent and Mersey underbridge east.

View south-west from Marina adjoining King’s Bromley Wharf Low Medium Moderate (365.3.002) adverse Background views of the Proposed Scheme on low embankments and Bourne Brook viaduct; distant and filtered views of embanked ramps, overbridge of the A515 and elevated Proposed Scheme merging with the WCML.

View north-east from Whittington Common Road (347.4.007) Medium High Moderate Partial and filtered views of the route on embankment and in cutting adverse alongside viaducts and gantries are largely screened by existing landform and intervening vegetation.

95 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Viewpoint Sensitivity Magnitude of Level of effect of visual change to visual receptors receptors27,28

View north-east from Darnford Lane east of Lichfield (349.4.008) Medium Medium Moderate Filtered and partial views of the Proposed Scheme in cutting and on adverse embankments with viaducts and introduced environmental measures.

View north-west from Darnford Lane near Ellfield Nurseries (350.4.006) Medium Medium Moderate Direct filtered views of the route in the cutting and on embankment with adverse viaduct, gantries, and planted embankments.

View east from junction of Wood End Lane with Nanseawen Road Medium High Major adverse (356.4.005) Direct and filtered views of Proposed Scheme on embankment with gantries and incorporated new planting on embankments.

View west from Wood End Lane near Skid Pan (358.4.005) Medium High Major adverse Direct foreground views of Wood End Lane diversion with views of Curborough viaduct with planted embankments.

View north from Wood End Lane near Ravenshaw Wood (360.4.006) Medium Medium Moderate Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on the embankment are largely Adverse screened by Ravenshaw Wood; filtered and partial views of planted embankments and gantries.

View north from the bridge on the A515 road/Tewnals Lane over an Medium High Major adverse existing railway line (364.4.008) Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on embankments with fences, overhead line equipment gantries, the A515 overbridge and Harveys Rough viaduct and the WCML in the foreground.

View south-west from the A515 road (365.4.005) Medium High Major adverse Direct views of the Proposed Scheme on embankment with the A515 overbridge with Bourne Brook viaduct, planted embankments and junction with the WCML.

View south-west from Tuppenhurst Lane near Shaw House, to the south Medium High Major adverse of Handsacre (367.4.003) Direct views of embankments of the Proposed Scheme and junction with WCML with new planting.

View north-west from Lichfield Marina near the A38/Roman Road Low High Moderate (354.6.003) adverse Direct views of embankments of the Proposed Scheme and Streethay temporary construction siding and viaduct.

View east from Nanseawen Road in South Fradley (356.6.001) Low High Moderate Direct views of the Proposed Scheme, planted large scale embankments, adverse fencing, gantries; distant views of Streethay and Curborough viaduct.

View west from depot adjoining Wood End Lane (358.6.004) Low High Moderate Direct views of the Proposed Scheme cutting through the lower lying adverse ground on embankments with gantries, earthworks and planting.

Table 15: Significant visual effects during operation year one (2026)

9.6.11 Where planting has been proposed, effects in year 15 (2041) and 60 (2086) of operation would be reduced compared to year one (2026), due to the increased height and maturity of trees. An assessment of effects for these assessment years will be prepared and presented in the formal ES.

27 Selected viewpoints have been described to provide a broad range of the likely impacts for this draft ES. Assessment will be provided for all viewpoints in the formal ES. 28 In year one of operation, any new planting along the Proposed Scheme would be immature and therefore not help to integrate the Proposed Scheme into the landscape. As the plants mature, screening of the Proposed Scheme would improve.

96 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Landscape and visual assessment

Likely residual significant effects

9.6.12 Due to the highly sensitive nature of the landscape and visible nature of the Proposed Scheme, significant residual effects would remain as set out in Tables 14 and 15 above. The residual effects would arise from a local change in character in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme and the foreground visibility of the proposed structures from recreational and residential receptors. Further mitigation

9.6.13 Additional mitigation measures that could be incorporated and are being considered include refining mitigation proposals to provide more detailed integration with the fine texture of the existing landscape. This would include: • Refining proposed planting to better fit with the existing vegetation pattern and to increase screening, for example around proposed balancing ponds located to the west of Fradley Industrial Estate; • Relocation of balancing ponds to avoid loss of veteran trees; and • Creation of an extensive mitigation area between Whittington Common Road to the disused canal, which would incorporate ecological and landscape mitigation.

97 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Socio-economics 10 Socio-economics 10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 This section provides a summary of the environmental baseline, and likely significant economic and employment effects during construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme.

10.1.2 The need generally for a socio-economic assessment results from the potential for the Proposed Scheme to affect: • Existing businesses and community organisations and thus the amount of local employment; • Local economies, including factors such as employment; and • Planned growth and development.

10.1.3 The beneficial and adverse socio-economic effects of the ProposedScheme are reported at two different levels: route-wide and CFA. Effects on levels of employment are reported at a route-wide level within Report 27 (Route-wide effects). Localised effects on businesses and observations on potential local economic effects are described within eachCF A report. 10.2 Policy framework 10.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to the area are described in Sections 2.1. 10.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 10.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the socio-economic assessment are set out in Volume 1. 10.4 Environmental baseline 10.4.1 Section 2.1 provides a general overview of the CFA which includes data of specific relevance to socio-economics, notably demographic data and employment data. The following provides a brief overview in terms of employment rates, economic structure, labour market, and business premises available within the CFA.

10.4.2 The Whittington to Handsacre CFA lies wholly within the area covered by Lichfield District Council.

10.4.3 In 2011 41,000 people worked in Lichfield District29. The employment rate within the district in 2011 was 66% which is higher than that recorded for both the West Midlands (62%) and England (65%)30,31. As of September 2012 the unemployment rate for Lichfield District Council area was 6% compared to the England average of 8%32. In 2011 28% of Lichfield residents aged 16 and over were qualified to National Vocational Qualification Level 4 (NVQ4), compared to 23% in West Midlands and 27% in England, while 22% of these residents had no qualifications which was lower than that recorded both for West Midlands (27%) and England (23%).

29 Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2012), Business Register and Employment Survey 2011. 30 The proportion of working age (16-74 years) residents who are in employment. 31 ONS (2012), Census 2011. 32 ONS (2012), Annual Population Survey.

98 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Socio-economics

10.4.4 The largest business sector in the Lichfield District in 2011 was professional, scientific and technical services which accounts for a larger proportion (at 15%) of businesses than the West Midlands region average (12%) and English average (14%).Lichfield District also has a higher proportion of construction sector businesses than is typical (at 12% compared to 10% in the region). Conversely, Lichfield District had a lower than average proportion of retail businesses (9% compared to 12% across the West Midlands and 11% across England)33. This is shown in Figure 434.

Professional, scientific & technical

Construction

Retail

Production

Arts, entertainment, recreation and other services

Business administration and support services

Accommodation & food services

Agriculture, forestry & fishing

Health

Information & communication

Wholesale

Lichfield Other West Midlands 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%12% 14%16% 18%20%

Figure 4: Business Sector Composition in Lichfield District and West Midlands

Source: Office for National Statistics (2011), UK Business: Activity, Size and Location35

10.4.5 A 2012 employment land assessment found there to be 11,066 sq. m floorspace of vacant office properties and 201,148 sq. m of vacant industrial floorspace in Lichfield District36. Given the current state of the economy it is expected that net absorption of vacant office, industrial and warehousing floorspace by the market over coming years will be relatively slow. 10.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and effects

10.5.1 Businesses directly affected, i.e. those that lie within land which would be acquired for the construction of the Proposed Scheme are reported in groups where reasonably practicable to form defined resources, based on their location and operational characteristics.A group could contain either one or a number of businesses.

10.5.2 Construction would require the permanent taking of land from the Whittington Heath Golf Club, including the demolition of the club house building and a section of the golf course. Given these locational aspects of a golf club operation with its reliance on maintaining links

33 Office for National Statistics (2011), UK Business: Activity, Size and Location. 34 Figure 4 presents the proportion of businesses within each business sector in the district but not the proportion of employment by sector. 35 ‘Other’ includes Motor Trades; Information and Communication; Finance and Insurance; Property; Public Administration and Defence; and Education and Health sectors. 36 Lichfield District Council (2012),Employment Land Review.

99 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Socio-economics

with a specific membership based on the attractiveness of a course, the business may experience particular problems in adapting to change, extending or relocating.

10.5.3 It is estimated that the Proposed Scheme would result in the displacement or possible loss of approximately 10 jobs within this CFA37. Taking into account the availability of alternative premises and total employed within the district (approximately 41,000) the displacement or possible loss of jobs is considered to be relatively modest compared to the scale of economic activity and opportunity in the area.

10.5.4 Construction compounds would consist of two main sites and 20 satellite sites including one construction sidings (see Table 1). This could result in the creation of up to 2,800 person years of construction employment that, depending on skill levels required and the skills of local people, are potentially accessible to residents in the locality and to others living further afield38. It could also lead to opportunities for local businesses to supply the project or to benefit from expenditure of construction workers. Direct and wider construction employment effects are quantified at a route wide level (see Report 27 Route-wide effects).

10.5.5 It is intended that discretionary enhancement measures, such as business support, supply chain engagement and local construction skills development initiatives to enhance local business performance will be included as appropriate in the formal ES. Likely residual significant effects

10.5.6 The likely residual significant socio-economic effects are currently being assessed and will be reported in the formal ES. 10.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

10.6.1 The Proposed Scheme will create direct and wider operational employment opportunities at locations along the route including stations, train crew facilities and infrastructure/ maintenance depots. Although no plans exist to locate these facilities within this CFA, it is considered possible that wider operational employment opportunities could be accessed by residents of the CFA. Operational effects are captured and assessed at a route wide level (see Report 27 (Route-wide effects)). Likely residual significant effects

10.6.2 The likely residual significant socio-economic effects are currently being assessed and will be reported in the formal ES.

37 Employment within businesses has been estimated through a combination of sources, for example, surveys of businesses, the Experian employment dataset, employment floor space and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Employment Density Guide (2010). The estimate is calculated using standard employment density ratios and estimates of floor areas and may vary from actual employment at the sites. 38 Construction labour is reported in construction person years, where one construction person year represents the work done by one person in a year composed of a standard number of working days.

100 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Sound, noise and vibration 11 Sound, noise and vibration 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the likely noise and vibration significant effects associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme for the Whittington to Handsacre CFA. This chapter should be read in conjunction with Volume 1. 11.2 Policy framework 11.2.1 The policy framework for sound, noise and vibration is set out in Volume 1. 11.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 11.3.1 The approach to the assessment of sound, noise and vibration and the related key assumptions are set out in Volume 1, with local variations as described below. A summary of the operating assumptions is given in Section 2.4 of this report. Assumptions

11.3.2 In addition to those given in Volume 1 and Section 2.4 of this report, the following assumptions apply to the assessment of sound noise and vibration in this area.

11.3.3 For the assessment, 12tph in each direction have been assumed between 07:00 and 21:00 south of the junction to the Manchester spur. North of the connection to the Phase Two Manchester spur (on the section of line connecting to the WCML at Handsacre) 11tph in each direction have been assumed between 07:00 and 21:00, reducing to 1tph when Phase Two becomes operational.

11.3.4 Passenger services to Manchester have been assumed to operate at up to 360kph in this area with trains joining the WCML spur slowing to 200kph where they connect with the WCML at Handsacre. 11.4 Environmental baseline 11.4.1 Baseline sound levels in this CFA are varied due to the presence of major roads and major railways. Close to these roads and railways high baseline sound levels are experienced during the daytime. Night-time levels remain high in the vicinity of the A38. In areas further from these sources, lower baseline sound levels are experienced.

11.4.2 It is likely that the majority of receptors adjacent to the line of route are not currently subject to appreciable vibration. Baseline monitoring to be undertaken for the formal ES will confirm whether this is the case for receptors close to existing railways. For the draft ES, vibration at all receptors has been assessed using the absolute vibration criteria as described in Volume 1. 11.5 Construction Assessment of effects and mitigation

11.5.1 This initial assessment has considered the potential effects on community receptors within the study area, their occupants and their use (including annoyance and activity disturbance) arising from construction noise and/or vibration.

11.5.2 The mitigation measures specified within the draft CoCP have been included within the assessment of construction noise and vibration.

101 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Sound, noise and vibration

11.5.3 Potential construction noise or vibration effects could occur on the receptors closest to the construction areas in the following communities: • Handsacre, arising from construction activities such as line of route activities including site clearance, earthworks and track base installation (refer to Section 2.2/2.3 and to maps CT‑05 Construction features); • Streethay, arising from construction activities such as line of route activities including site clearance, earthworks and track base installation (refer to Section 2.2/2.3 and to maps CT‑05 Construction features); • Whittington, arising from construction activities such as line of route activities including site clearance, earthworks and track base installation (refer to Section 2.2/2.3 and to maps CT‑05 Construction features); and • Whittington Heath, arising from construction activities such as line of route activities including site clearance, earthworks and track base installation (refer to Section 2.2/2.3 and to maps CT‑05 Construction features).

11.5.4 Track laying, power system and signalling installation works along the line of route are unlikely to result in significant construction noise effects, given the short duration of activities close to any communities and the presence of the permanent noise barriers. Likely residual significant effects

11.5.5 Further work is being undertaken to confirm significant construction noise and vibration effects, including any temporary effects from construction traffic. Non-residential receptors identified at this stage as potentially subject to construction noise or vibration effects will be further considered, where necessary, on a receptor-by-receptor basis. Any further assessment will be reported in the formal ES. Further mitigation

11.5.6 Further work is being undertaken to confirm the likely significant effects and identify any site specific mitigation considered necessary in addition to the general measures set out in the draft CoCP. Any site specific mitigation will be presented in the formal ES and will include an estimate of the number of properties that may qualify for noise insulation or temporary rehousing under provisions set out in the draft CoCP. 11.6 Operation Assessment of effects and mitigation

11.6.1 This initial assessment has considered the potential effects on community receptors within the study area, their occupants and their use (including annoyance, activity and sleep disturbance) arising from operational noise and/or vibration. Further assessment will be undertaken for the formal ES.

11.6.2 The ongoing development of the scheme includes noise barriers in the form of landscape earthworks, noise barriers and/or low level barriers on viaducts. The envisaged noise barrier locations are shown on the Operational Sound Contour and Potential Significant Effect Maps SV-01.

11.6.3 The Operational Sound Contour and Potential Significant Effect Maps SV-01 indicate the likely long term daytime sound level (defined as the equivalent continuous sound level from 07:00 to

23:00 or LpAeq,day) from the Proposed Scheme. The contours are shown in 5dB steps from 50dB to 70dB. With the train flows described in Volume 1, the night-time sound level (defined as the

equivalent continuous sound level from 23:00 to 07:00 or LpAeq,night) from the Proposed Scheme

102 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Sound, noise and vibration

would be approximately 10dB lower than the daytime sound level. The 50dB contour therefore indicates the distance from the Proposed Scheme at which the night-time sound level would be 40dB. This contour represents where the lowest observed community noise effects would be expected to occur during the day (with respect to annoyance) and night (with respect to sleep disturbance). It is generally unlikely that there will be any adverse noise effects outside of this contour. With regard to sleep disturbance the assessment has also taken account the maximum sound levels generated by each train pass by.

11.6.4 Residential receptors within the daytime 65dB contour, and therefore the night-time 55dB contour, have been identified as being likely to experience a significant adverse effect from HS2 noise alone. This is in line with the daytime threshold for in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1996 and the Interim Target defined in the World Health Organization’s Night Noise Guidelines39,40.

11.6.5 The potential for significant noise effects on communities in areas between the0dB 5 and 65dB daytime sound contours, or 40dB and 55dB night-time contours, will be dependent on the baseline in that area and the change in sound level brought about by the Proposed Scheme.

11.6.6 For the draft ES, the criteria used in assessing whether an effect is potentially significant includes factors such as the number and magnitude of impacts in a community as well as the existing sound environment. The further significance criteria set out in the Volume 1, including the character of the existing sound environment, any unique features of the Proposed Scheme’s sound or impacts, and the potential combined impacts of sound and vibration will be taken into account in the formal ES.

11.6.7 This initial assessment has identified potential airborne noise effects on the following non‑residential receptors and land uses (e.g. schools, hospitals, hotels): • Office premises within Fradley Park, Industrial Park, Lichfield (identified by SV22-N01 on maps SV-01).

11.6.8 PRoW are by their nature transitory routes, with users not staying in any one location for long periods. Train sound from the Proposed Scheme is intermittent and its level will vary as the PRoW move closer to and further away from the Proposed Scheme. Noise effects would generally be reduced by the landscape earthworks envisaged to reduce visual impact of the scheme and envisaged noise mitigation to protect other receptors. No significant noise effects have therefore been identified on PRoW within this CFA.

11.6.9 No potentially significant noise or vibration effects arising from changes to existing roads are anticipated at this stage. This will be confirmed in the formal ES.

11.6.10 A number of potential minor ground-borne noise and vibration impacts have been forecast at a small number of properties very close to the alignment. Taking account of the number and minor magnitude of the impacts, and the experience of HS1, no significant effects have been identified. Further assessment will be undertaken for the formal ES to confirm whether the impacts currently forecast are likely to occur. Vibration from the operation of the Proposed Scheme will present no risk of any building damage.

39 The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations, 1996. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 40 World Health Organization (2009), Night Noise Guidelines for Europe.

103 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Sound, noise and vibration

Likely residual significant effects

11.6.11 Further assessment work is being undertaken to confirm operational sound and vibration significant effects, including those at non-residential receptors and quiet areas (as necessary on a receptor-by-receptor basis). This will be reported in the formal ES which will present baseline levels, forecasts for the Proposed Scheme and the change in sound levels brought about by the Proposed Scheme both as impact plans and tables.

104 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport 12 Traffic and transport 12.1 Introduction 12.1.1 This traffic and transport section describes the likely impacts and effects arising from the construction and operation of the Proposed Scheme within the Whittington and Handsacre area on all forms of transport. 12.2 Policy framework 12.2.1 Staffordshire County Council’s Local Transport Plan (2011) and Implementation Plan Chapter 1 ‘Supporting Growth and Regeneration’ refers to HS2. Box 1.3 states, “Whilst some considerable time in the future and with no new station proposed in Staffordshire, High Speed 2 is claimed to have potential medium to long term benefits to the county’s economy. It is claimed that High Speed 2 will free up capacity on the WCML, resulting in the opportunity to operate more frequent local rail services along the Trent Valley line through Tamworth and Lichfield to Stafford. On the other hand, there will undoubtedly be significant environmental impacts. At its meeting on 17th March 2011, the County Council resolved to oppose the High Speed 2 proposals”41.

12.2.2 Lichfield’s District Local Plan: Strategy Policy Whit1: Whittington Environment, states that ”The route of the high speed rail link, High Speed 2, runs to the west (sic) of the village and measures will need to be supported which minimise the impacts of this upon the community and the environment”. HS2 will seek to minimise and mitigate against any negative impacts upon the community and the environment along its proposed route. 12.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 12.3.1 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the traffic and transport assessment are set out in Volume 1.

12.3.2 The potential impacts of the Proposed Scheme in this area are limited to local diversions of existing highways and PRoW together with construction traffic.

12.3.3 It should be noted that the transport and passenger modelling of the Proposed Scheme is continuing to be developed and therefore the assessment may be updated for the formal ES.

12.3.4 The impact of construction traffic has been assessed on the assumption that all excavated material from the worksites would be removed by road, although investigation will continue to establish the possibility of movement by rail. The construction traffic assessment may be updated for the formal ES.

12.3.5 There have been certain scheme design changes following the initial transport assessment work. The assessment that follows in this section will therefore change once the revised scheme has been assessed and this will be reported in the formal ES. These include: • Potentially revised satellite compound locations; and • Potentially revised construction routes.

12.3.6 The scope of this assessment has been discussed and agreed with the relevant highway authority.

12.3.7 Although future transport baseline scenario assessments have been made, as of yet no assessments of the future baseline with the Proposed Scheme have been undertaken.

41 Staffordshire County Council (2011), Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2011.

104 105 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport

Therefore analyses of junction impacts during construction are not yet known. These will be assessed in the formal ES.

12.3.8 The following key limitations exist in the reporting of significant effects: • As yet only limited assessment has been made of the impacts on public transport, although at this stage it is not expected that demand generated by the operation of the Proposed Scheme would be sufficient to have a significant impact on existing public transport services in the area; • The following criteria, set out in Volume 1,for construction and operational scenarios have not yet been assessed at this stage: ȃȃ Public transport delay; ȃȃ Traffic flows and delays to vehicle occupants; and ȃȃ Vulnerable road user delays, amenity and ambience.

12.3.9 The following effects have not been assessed as there is no impact in this area as a result of the Proposed Scheme: • Parking and loading; and • Disruption at stations/interchanges.

12.3.10 Future year traffic flows are based on an approach that does not etak account of wider effects, e.g. redistribution and reassignment of traffic, modal shift and peak spreading.As a consequence, local transport effects may be over-estimated.

12.3.11 The assessment is based on the Proposed Scheme construction and operation assumptions with the following exceptions: • The current forecast construction traffic flows, temporary diversions, traffic management arrangements and phasing of construction interventions are indicative. They will be subject to revision and update in the formal ES; and • Construction traffic volumes, assumptions for truck capacities and periods of movement of excavated materials, construction materials and staff numbers are indicative and will be subject to revision and update in the formal ES.

12.3.12 The assessment assumes that construction traffic would use the routes to and from the worksites (as described in Section 2.3 of this document).

12.3.13 Engineering and construction details associated with required service diversion works have still to be confirmed, and will be assessed in the formal ES. 12.4 Environmental baseline 12.4.1 Comprehensive traffic surveys were undertaken between 18th June 2012 and 12th July 2012 and additional sites were surveyed in November 2012. Traffic flow data have been collected through manual classified counts, automatic traffic counts and queue length surveys.

12.4.2 There are no motorways which would intersect with the Proposed Scheme in the Whittington to Handsacre area; however, the following three A-roads would cross the route of the Proposed Scheme: • The A51 Tamworth Road would intersect with the proposed route between the Common Lane/A51 and Whittington Common Road/A51 junctions, to the east of Whittington Heath Golf Club;

106 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport

• The A38 would intersect with the proposed route to the north of the A5127 Burton Road/ A38 junction, to the north-east of Lichfield; and • The A515 Tewnals Lane would intersect with the proposed route to the north of the Wood End Lane/A515 junction, between Lichfield and Kings Bromley.

12.4.3 None of the relevant roads that would be affected by the Proposed Scheme currently experience any noteworthy demand for on-street parking and/or loading.

12.4.4 Bus services currently operating along Whittington Common Road and the A38 are in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme.

12.4.5 The Proposed Scheme would cross the existing WCML services between London Euston and Holyhead or Wrexham General; London Euston and Liverpool Lime Street; London Euston and Glasgow Central; and London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly. The Proposed Scheme would intersect with these services between Lichfield Trent Valley and Tamworth. Virgin operates a minimum of seven rail services per hour to these destinations. The proposed route would cross the existing Crewe to London Euston rail services, operated by London Midland, between Lichfield Trent Valley and Tamworth. This route runs with an average off peak frequency of one service per hour and a total of 17 services per day. The proposed route would also cross rail services between Lichfield Trent Valley and Burton-on-Trent. This route is a freight only route and is only used by the South Staffordshire Line as an alternative route when there is engineering disruption.

12.4.6 All PRoW which would be intersected by the proposed route have been surveyed, taking account of the nature of the PRoW and their levels of utilisation. As appropriate, these covered weekday and weekend use. A total of 16 PRoW have been identified consisting of public footpaths, bridleways and cycleways. The surveys indicate that none of the roads, footpaths, bridleways and cycleways that would cross the proposed route are used by more than 140 people per day walking, cycling or riding.

12.4.7 Accident data have been obtained from Staffordshire County Council for a three year period until 31st March 2012. Analyses shows that a total of 76 accidents occurred over the three year period, of which 46 (87%) were recorded as slight, three (6.5%) as serious and three (6.5%) as fatal; the maximum number occurring on A38, with 14 during the three year period.

12.4.8 There are two canals, the Trent and Mersey Canal and the Wyrley and Essington Canal, three minor waterways; Pyford Brook, Bourne Brook and Mare Brook; situated which would intersect the proposed route within the Whittington to Handsacre area. The Coventry Canal runs adjacent to the scheme. The impact on the usage of the waterways has not yet been assessed; this will be included in the formal ES.

12.4.9 The following eight junctions have been assessed in terms of their capacity for the 2021, 2026 and 2041 baseline scenarios; these junctions are either close to the alignment of the Proposed Scheme or are likely to be affected by the scheme either by alignment or as a result of changes to traffic volumes42: • Church Street/Common Lane/Main Street; • Tamworth Road/Common Road; • A5127 Trent Valley Road/A5192 Eastern Avenue/Cappers Lane/Valley Lane; • A5192 Cappers Lane/A38 offslip (west);

42 A junction operates with spare capacity when traffic demand is below the maximum volume of traffic this junction can accommodate at any one point in time. A junction operates at capacity when traffic demand is equal to the maximum volume of traffic this junction can accommodate at any one point in time before congestion is likely to occur. A junction operates over capacity when traffic demand exceeds the maximum volume of traffic this junction can accommodate at any point in time and thus congestion is likely to occur.

107 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport

• A5192 Cappers Lane/A38 onslip (east); • A51 The Friary/A51 Birmingham Road/A5127 Birmingham Road/A461 Sainte Foy Avenue; • A51 Western By-Pass/The Friary/Friary Road; and • A5127 Birmingham Road/A461 Falkland Road.

12.4.10 The A5127/A5192/Cappers Lane/Valley Lane junction would operate over capacity in the morning and in the evening peak hour in the 2041 baseline scenario.

12.4.11 All other junctions tested in this area, would operate with spare or at capacity.

12.4.12 A number of additional junctions along the construction route between the A515 and M6 via the A5127 will be assessed for existing, baseline and baseline with construction scenarios. 12.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

12.5.1 The following section considers the impacts on traffic and transport and the consequential effects resulting from construction of the Proposed Scheme.

12.5.2 The draft CoCP has been followed throughout the engineering design of the Proposed Scheme to avoid or reduce impacts on travellers.

12.5.3 Table 16 shows the number of compounds and satellite compounds in the Whittington to Handsacre area and their associated number of workers, average duration of use and trip generation.

Compound Type Number of Number of workers Average duration Likely vehicular two- compounds (year) way peak hour trips43

Small satellite compound 15 330 1 340

Medium satellite compound 5 320 1.5 290

Main site compound 2 440 5 1130

Total 22 1350 – 2120

Table 16: Typical vehicle trip generation for site compounds in this area44

12.5.4 It has been assumed that during the compound’s peak time of operation, a third of satellite compounds would also be in operation at the same time.

12.5.5 Assessment has not yet taken any detailed phasing implications or capacity assessments at individual junctions into account, as the construction strategy is still developing. These will be assessed in the formal ES.

12.5.6 Temporary road closures and diversions would be required; as shown on maps CT‑06-123 to CT‑06-131; to tie-in new highway diversions of the Proposed Scheme with the existing highways: • Whittington Common Road (online – overnight closures); • Darnford Lane (half day/overnight closures); • Cappers Lane (half day/overnight closures); • Park Lane (half day/overnight closures);

43 Construction sidings not currently included in the assessment will be included within formal ES. 44 Construction traffic volumes, assumptions for truck capacities and periods of movement of excavated materials, construction materials and staff numbers have been determined from earlier Proposed Scheme information. Further revisions to this information would inform the formal ES.

108 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport

• A38 (half day/overnight closures); • A515 Tewnals Lane (half day/overnight closures); and • Wood End Lane (half day/overnight closures).

12.5.7 Due to the temporary and very short nature of these diversions, they are not deemed to be significant.

12.5.8 In addition to the temporary closures and diversions above it is proposed to close Shaw Lane.

12.5.9 A number of access points to the construction sites would be required and so the construction vehicle movements would be spread over a number of roads. Access points are shown on maps CT‑06-123 to CT‑06-131 and will be reported in the formal ES.

12.5.10 The general principle that has been adopted in this area is that replacement road bridges and underbridges across the proposed route would be constructed early in the programme prior to construction of the haul road along the route to avoid conflict between construction traffic travelling along the haul road and traffic on public highways. It is also assumed that the majority of excavated material would be reused within the Proposed Scheme.

12.5.11 Transport related impacts of the Proposed Scheme during construction would arise from traffic generated by construction activities as well as temporary diversions of roads and PRoW.

12.5.12 Construction vehicle movements related to the building of the Proposed Scheme have been calculated based on the quantity of materials required to construct the Proposed Scheme with +10% for ancillary delivery vehicles. These numbers presently exclude any vehicle flows associated with the removal of excavated materials since the project intends that these materials would be retained and transported along the route of the Proposed Scheme and within the construction areas.

12.5.13 The average levels of traffic generated by construction activities at the main compounds throughout the construction period would be approximately 550 (total two-way flow) vehicles per day. However in the first three years of construction, traffic levels could be up to 20% higher than this on two or three days a week. The split of construction vehicles is expected to be on average 65% HGVs and 35% light goods vehicles (LGV), however this excludes workforce arrival/departure trips, and when related to the overall traffic flows, the percentage split of HGVs in these flows during the morning and evening peaks would therefore be lower.

12.5.14 The CoCP would seek to maximise consolidation of construction materials and equipment thus reducing construction lorry trip generation and reducing deliveries of construction materials and equipment during peak traffic periods. The levels of traffic and the access arrangements, together with the controls imposed by the CoCP means that the number of roads around the compounds which would be significantly affected would be reduced.

12.5.15 The measures in the draft CoCP would include HGV management and control measures. A construction workforce travel plan would be put into operation with the aim of reducing workforce commuting by private car, especially sole occupancy car travel. The combined effect of the CoCP and the construction workforce travel plan is anticipated to reduce construction traffic generation by a minimum of 7% overall and 15% during the peak periods.

12.5.16 A total of seven PRoW would either be diverted or temporarily closed during the construction period. The numbers of users has been identified during surveys undertaken in August and September 2012 as mentioned in paragraph 12.4.6. Of the seven PRoW, five have been

109 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport

identified with user numbers below 10 per day. The remaining two which are used more frequently are detailed below: • Whittington 16 – Whittington Common Road – Public Footpath No. 16 Whittington Parish with 26 pedestrian users; and • Streethay 6 – Ash Tree Lane – Public Footpath No. 6 Streethay Parish with 11 pedestrian and three cycle users.

12.5.17 The length of the diversions will be kept to a minimum where reasonably practicable. The impact of all diversions is considered to be not significant or of minor significance because of the few people that would be affected (less than 140 people per day per PRoW).

12.5.18 Bus services which would be subject to temporary diversion include the following: • Bus routes 765 and 785 on Whittington Common Road; and • Bus routes 7, 7A, 7E, X7, 991 and X12 on the A38.

12.5.19 Details of bus diversion distances and durations will be included in the formal ES.

12.5.20 No other significant transport related impacts arising from the construction of the Proposed Scheme have been identified. Likely residual significant effects

12.5.21 Although the CoCP seeks to reduce construction lorry trips, the construction of the Proposed Scheme is anticipated to result in significant increases in traffic flows (i.e. more than 30% for HGV or all vehicles) on some roads and junctions as a result of temporary closures/diversions. The A5127/A461 junction would experience an increase in HGV flows of more than 30%.

12.5.22 The effect of increased traffic on congestion and delay at the A5127/A461 junction would not be significant, as this junction is currently forecast to have sufficient capacity tocommodate ac additional traffic flows.

12.5.23 It is not expected that the increase in traffic flows on major roads and through certain junctions is likely to increase accident risk. In the Whittington to Handsacre area no junctions have been identified which experienced a significant amount of accidents (nine and above in a three year period ending in 2011/12), however on the A38 a total of 14 accidents have been identified for the three year period. Of those, 12 have been of slight, one of serious and one of fatal severity.

12.5.24 It is unknown at present whether the Proposed Scheme would cause a reduction in the frequency of existing rail services due to shifts in patronage.

12.5.25 Resultant residual effects are to be confirmed upon assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures and will be reported in the formal ES. 12.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

12.6.1 The assessments undertaken at this stage have indicated that for this area there are no significant transport related impacts during operation of the ProposedScheme that require mitigation. This is due to there being no stations or depots within this area, trips generated by the Proposed Scheme are deemed to be insignificant.

12.6.2 The effects of the currently proposed temporary construction sidings atStreethay will be assessed and reported in the formal ES as appropriate.

110 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Traffic and transport

12.6.3 PRoW diversions as detailed below are not deemed to be significant as the maximum number affected is no more than 140 per day per PRoW: • Whittington Common Road – Public Footpath No. 16 Whittington Parish (Whittington 16) – not significant; • Link West Bound from A51 Tamworth Road – Public Footpath No. 17 Whittington Parish (Whittington 17) – not significant; • Public Footpath No. 6 Streethay Parish (Streethay 6) – not significant; • Wood End Lane opposite Fradley Distribution Park – Public Footpath No. 31 Alrewas Parish (Alrewas 31) – minor effect; • Trent and Mersey Canal Towpath – Public Footpath No. 44 Alrewas Parish (Alrewas 44) – not significant; • Wood End Lane, towards Ravenshaw House – Public Footpath No. 0.392 Kings Bromley Parish (Kings Bromley 0.392) – minor effect; and • West of Tupppenhurst Lane, Staffordshire – Public Footpath No. 6 Kings Bromley Parish (Kings Bromley 6) – not significant. Likely residual significant effects

12.6.4 There are not considered to be any significant residual effects associated with the operation of the Proposed Scheme.

111 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment 13 Water resources and flood risk assessment 13.1 Introduction 13.1.1 This section provides a summary of the likely impacts and significant effects on water resources and flood risk as a result of the construction and operation of the ProposedScheme. The assessment considers effects on surface water resources, groundwater resources and flood risk. 13.2 Policy framework 13.2.1 The planning policy documents (and their status) applicable to this area are described in Section 2.1. Policies of relevance to water resources and flood risk assessment are set out in the following section.

13.2.2 The Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan includes two saved policies of particular relevance. Policy D1 Sustainable Development and Policy D2: (The Design and Environmental Quality of Development), which promote sustainable development, measures to protect the water environment, and management of flood risk. Policy D7: (Conserving Energy and Water) promotes the efficient use of water by encouraging incorporation of use of rainwater collection systems and the recycling of grey water, whilst Policy NC9: (Water Resources) seeks to protect groundwater resources, standing water bodies and river systems.

13.2.3 The adopted Lichfield District Local Plan contains a number of relevant saved policies including: • Policy E15: (Flood Protection) which would not generally support development in areas at risk of flooding, unless suitable preventative measures are undertaken; • Policy E17: (Contaminated Land) which provides guidance on contaminated land to prevent amongst other things the contamination of any surface or groundwater; • Policy E14: (Water Habitats) states that development that may affect the water quality and quantity of river catchments, wetland areas, and aquatic habitats would not be permitted, unless it is demonstrated that suitable remediation would be carried out; and • Policy DC1: (Amenity and Design Principles for Development) requires adequate means of surface and foul water disposal to be available or provided.

13.2.4 The emerging Local Plan contains the following policies of relevance to the water environment: • Core Policy Three: Delivering Sustainable Development which seeks to conserve water resources and promotes sustainable drainage techniques to manage runoff. The policy also directs development away from areas at risk of flooding and requires site-specific flood risk assessments to be undertaken; and • Policy NR9: Water Quality states that development would be permitted where it does not negatively impact on water quality. 13.3 Assessment scope and key assumptions 13.3.1 The route of the Proposed Scheme is described in Section 2.

13.3.2 The assessment scope and key assumptions for the water resources and flood risk assessment are set out in Volume 1.

112 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment

13.3.3 The assessment of surface water resources and flood risk focuses on theTrent and Mersey Canal, the Wyrley and Essington Canal, Mare Brook, Curborough Brook and Bourne Brook, their tributaries and their associated catchment areas and floodplains.

13.3.4 The groundwater resources assessment focuses on aquifers that are present within bedrock and overlying deposits, including a Principal aquifer located within the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation and Secondary aquifers within the Mercia Mudstone and drift deposits. Effects on groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems ecological sites and groundwater users (both licensed abstractions and private users) are also considered. 13.4 Environmental baseline 13.4.1 The study area is predominantly rural. Ground levels in the area range from 65m above sea level near Fradley South to 100m above sea level at Whittington Heath. Gradients are typically shallow.

13.4.2 The proposed route crosses water features 16 times within the study area, including the Wyrley and Essington Canal, the Mare Brook and several of its tributaries, the Trent and Mersey Canal and Curborough Brook. The majority of these watercourses have been predicted by the EA to be of “moderate” status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) on 2015, the same as their current status45. The River Trent and parts of the Tame have been predicted to be of “poor” status, the same as their current status.

13.4.3 There are a further 108 water features within the Whittington to Handsacre area.

13.4.4 The EA has indicted that there are 11 licensed surface water abstractions within the study area. The majority of abstractions are for agricultural purposes. There are 89 surface water discharges within the study area, comprising sewage, trade effluent and surface water discharges.

13.4.5 A principal aquifer is located within the Bromsgrove Sandstone Formation, with a secondary aquifer within the Mercia Mudstone. Some of the superficial deposits of river terrace gravels and alluvium alongside rivers within the study area are also classed as secondary aquifers (map CT‑04-23)46. The study area supports several groundwater SPZs.

13.4.6 The EA predicts that the WFD status within the Staffordshire Trent Valley – Permo-Triassic Sandstone, Staffordshire, Tame Anker Mease – Permo-Triassic Sandstone Birmingham Lichfield and Tame Anker Mease – Secondary Combined groundwater bodies will be poor in 2015, the same as currently. The WFD status of the Staffordshire Trent Valley – Mercia Mudstone East and Coal Measures groundwater body is predicted to be good in 2015, the same as it is currently.

13.4.7 Within the study area, the south of the route lies within the Tame, Anker and Mease Permo‑Triassic Sandstone Birmingham Lichfield (Principal aquifer) Groundwater Management Unit (GWMU). The EA reports that there is no water available for licensing in the GWMU. The central portion of the study area falls within the Tame Anker Mease – Secondary Combined GWMU (secondary aquifer), however it has not been designated in terms of groundwater availability for licensing. The rest of the study area falls within the Staffordshire Trent Valley Mercia Mudstone East and Coal Measures GWMUs, both of which are designated as non- productive aquifers and therefore have no designation in terms of groundwater availability for licensing47.

45 Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Strasbourg, European Parliament and European Council. 46 A wide range of geological strata with a correspondingly wide range of permeability and storage capable of supporting small to moderate water supplies. 47 EA (February 2013), Tame, Anker and Mease abstraction licensing strategy.

113 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment

13.4.8 The EA has indicated that there are five licensed groundwater abstractions within the study area; these are all for public water supplies (PWSs). Lichfield DistrictCouncil has confirmed that there are no unlicensed potable supplies within the study area. 19 discharges to groundwater have been identified; the majority being sewerage discharges.The Proposed Scheme crosses a SPZ 3 in the south of the study area (map CT‑04-23). 19 springs, sinks and wells have been identified within the study area. Groundwater and surface water interactions and impacts will be assessed in more detail within the formal ES.

13.4.9 No nationally or internationally designated wildlife sites have been identified within the study area. The following locally designated potential Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) have been identified: Whittington Heath Golf Course, Tuppenhurst Lane, Big Lyntus, Fradley Wood, Pool Wood and Fradley Reservoir, Ravenshaw Wood, Black Slough and Slaish, Vicar’s Coppice, The Roundabout, John’s Gorse, Hanch Wood and unnamed ancient woodland immediately south-west of Hanch Wood House and Riley Hill (map CT‑02‑23).

13.4.10 The route within the study area lies within the ‘Mid Staffordshire and Lower Tame’ policy unit of the River Trent Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP). Flood risk is generally low across the area, but recognised as medium around Tamworth due to the high number of properties behind existing flood defences. The properties at risk of flooding are not within the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme. The CFMP policy for the Mid Staffordshire and Lower Tame policy unit requires that action be taken to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits, locally or elsewhere in the catchment48.

13.4.11 The Level One Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) produced by Staffordshire County Council states that no incidences of groundwater flooding due to groundwater rebound are known to Staffordshire County Council; however a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) prepared in 2001 documents the risk of groundwater flooding from groundwater rebound within Lichfield49,50. The Level One Strategic Flood Risk Assessment produced for Lichfield District Council also states that there have been no observed/recorded incidences of groundwater flooding. The British Geological Survey groundwater flood maps show that overall the area is at a low risk of groundwater flooding, although there are local incidences of higher risk of groundwater flooding including the area around Hademore.

13.4.12 The Proposed Scheme crosses the one in 100 annual probability (1%) floodplain of a number of watercourses including the Mare Brook, Curborough Brook, Bourne Brook and a number of minor tributaries. The route therefore has the potential to impact Flood Zone Two and Three.

13.4.13 The EA Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW) has been used to identify the parts of the Proposed Scheme within the study area that are susceptible to flooding from surface water during the one in 200 annual probability (0.5%) flooding event to a depth of greater than 10cm51. The most significant areas being: • An area around and to the south of Wyrley and Essington Canal, west of Whittington; • An area north-east of Streethay, east of Coventry Canal; • Areas west and south-west of Fradley South; • An area south of Trent and Mersey Canal; and • An area south-west of Armitage.

48 EA (December 2010), River Trent Catchment Flood Management Plan. Summary Report. 49 Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council (2010), Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. 50 Staffordshire County Council (2011),Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment. 51 EA (2010), Flood Map for Surface Water.

114 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment

13.4.14 The route crosses the sewer network at several locations within the study area. However, due to the nature of the closed sewer system and the fact that there are only three locations where the route crosses inspection covers, the risk of flooding from this source is generally considered low. 13.5 Construction Assessment of impacts and mitigation

13.5.1 The draft CoCP sets out the measures and standards of work that will be applied to the construction of the Proposed Scheme. It would provide effective management and control of the impacts during the construction period including those required for bridges and viaducts, embankments cuttings and construction facilities.

13.5.2 The draft CoCP includes the following provisions: • Implementing, in consultation with the EA, a surface water and/or groundwater monitoring plan as required, particularly in relation to works which may affect groundwater sensitive areas; • Undertaking risk assessments associated with excavation work and impacts on surface water; groundwater; abstractions; aquifers and private water supplies; • Preparing site specific flood risk management plans for those areas at risk of flooding; • Avoiding the use of contaminating materials through appropriate design, construction and equipment specification and wherever possible, using biodegradable substances; • Following the measures outlined for the provision of suitable site drainage, for the storage and control or oils and chemicals and to mitigate against accidental spillages in the CoCP; and • Undertaking, as required, further pre-construction monitoring to establish baseline water quality conditions for watercourses; groundwater and during construction works. This would enable the effectiveness of those mitigation measures introduced to limit pollution risk to be monitored and any pollution incidents to be identified.

13.5.3 Construction works have the potential to impact surface and groundwater quality, due to runoff, sediment, fuels or other construction materials entering the watercourse, or through mobilisation of contamination following disturbance of contaminated ground or groundwater, or through uncontrolled site runoff or direct discharges. Measures defined in theCoCP, including detailed method statements, would ensure that there would be no effect on surface water quality or flows associated with construction, including the proposed construction compound at Cappers Lane and the proposed temporary construction sidings at Streethay.

13.5.4 The route of the Proposed Scheme would cross a number of small watercourses, some of which would require permanent realignment over a short distance to a new culvert. These are moderate value receptors, and whilst diversion could have moderate potential impacts, by constructing the new channel in advance and following the measures included in the CoCP these would be reduced to slight. It is unlikely that there would be any significant effect during construction as a result.

13.5.5 Although the majority of the route within the study area is at grade or on embankment, and therefore would not significantly affect groundwater flow, there are areas of below ground construction which may require temporary dewatering. These are associated with the proposed viaducts/bridges over the A38, Trent and Mersey Canal and Bourne Brook. This has the potential to affect groundwater flows, for example during dewatering for foundation construction, and to affect groundwater quality by disturbing and mobilising existing ground

115 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment

or groundwater contamination. However, the application of the CoCP will adequately mitigate any effects.

13.5.6 There is one cutting associated with the new railway, at Whittington Heath. This is shallow (ar0und 4m) and cuts through a small hill and therefore it is unlikely that there would be a significant impact on groundwater.

13.5.7 The effects of disturbing and mobilising existing poor quality ground or ground water and of creating or altering of pathways on groundwater quality during construction would be mitigated by the following measures: • Avoid below ground construction in the saturated zone, if at all possible; • Create hydraulic barriers around excavations; and • Implement a regime of pre-construction monitoring of groundwater quality to establish baseline conditions.

13.5.8 None of the identified ecological receptors are likely to be significantly impacted during the construction phase of the project as a result of changes to the water environment as extensive dewatering or disturbance of the ground is not expected. The following potential ecological sites which are intersected by the Proposed Scheme were identified within the study area: • Ravenshaw Wood, Black Slough and Slaish (a site of biological importance); • Vicar’s Coppice (an area of ancient and semi-natural woodland); and • John’s Gorse (an area of ancient woodland).

13.5.9 Three proposed temporary bridges are required to cross a tributary of the River Tame, the Bourne Brook and an unnamed watercourse during construction. These bridges will be designed to convey the one in 100 annual probability (1%) flooding event without increasing flood risk and therefore there would not be a significant effect on flood risk from rivers.

13.5.10 In addition, there are several locations where proposed temporary works are at risk of or have the potential to increase surface water flooding, including: • Whittington Barracks and west of Whittington; • Streethay; • Curborough Brook, west of Fradley South; • Bourne Brook, south of Rileyhill; • South-west of Whittington; and • South of Rileyhill.

13.5.11 Mitigation would ensure runoff from construction areas does not increase above the existing runoff rate during the one in 100 annual probability (1%) floodingvent e or more frequent events, as appropriate to address this risk.

13.5.12 Any potential for increase in off-site flood risks as a result of construction works will be managed by measures defined in the CoCP and reported in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Likely residual significant effects

13.5.13 No significant residual effects have been identified.

116 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment

13.6 Operation Assessment of impacts and mitigation

13.6.1 The Proposed Scheme has been designed to control impacts on the water environment through the following: • Drainage has been designed to reduce the rate and volume of runoff from the railway and prevent an increase in flood risk; • Sustainable Drainage Systems, where appropriate, have been included to encourage water to soak back into the ground; and where drainage or cuttings intercept groundwater flow; and • Sustainable Drainage Systems would also provide opportunities to reduce the effect of run-off on water quality by reducing potential contaminants through filtration, vegetation adsorption or settlement.

13.6.2 Best practice pollution control guidance will be adopted for maintenance of the Proposed Scheme.

13.6.3 Runoff and drainage from the Proposed Scheme has the potential to affect surface water quality and quantity. The ballast to be used on the tracks would encourage infiltration. In addition, balancing ponds are proposed to attenuate runoff and Sustainable Drainage Systems would be used to maintain natural flow regimes, aid infiltration and reduce the risk of flooding; these measures would both also provide opportunities to further improve water quality. Water will be discharged to ground, surface waters or sewers as appropriate for the location in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage.

13.6.4 There are nine crossings where it is proposed to culvert a watercourse where it crosses the Proposed Scheme (map CT‑04-23), potentially changing flow characteristics and the ecology supported. As part of the culverting and realignment, opportunities would be taken to retain and if possible enhance the overall quality of the watercourses, for example by including meanders and enhanced banks. It is considered that mitigation would ensure no significant adverse impacts occur. Mitigation for the effects on the ecology of the watercourses is considered in Section 7, Ecology.

13.6.5 Some road diversions would be required as part of the Proposed Scheme. Mitigation would be selected for realignments, using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and CIRIA guidance to minimise operational impacts on the water environment52,53.

13.6.6 It is highly likely that, within the study area, permanent works would be above groundwater levels. It is therefore not anticipated that long term active or passive dewatering would be required and therefore long term significant impacts on groundwater flow are not expected.

13.6.7 None of the identified ecological receptors are likely to be significantly impacted during the operation phase of the Proposed Scheme as a result of changes to the water environment. The following potential GWDTEs which are intersected by the Proposed Scheme were identified within the study area. Disturbance to the groundwater regime is likely to of negligible significance: • Ravenshaw Wood, Black Slough and Slash (a site of biological importance); • Vicar’s Coppice (an area of ancient and semi-natural woodland); and • John’s Gorse (an area of ancient woodland).

52 Highways Agency (1992 – plus subsequent addenda), The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). 53 CIRIA (2007), The SUDS manual (C697).

117 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I Water resources and flood risk assessment

13.6.8 All watercourse crossings are designed to convey the one in 100 annual probability (1%) flooding event (including an allowance for climate change) without increasing flood risk. Appropriate storage compensation would be provided at locations where required to mitigate any increase in flood risk to sensitive receptors.

13.6.9 Modelling undertaken to quantify the risk of flooding from rivers post operation of the Proposed Scheme has indicated that overall the Proposed Scheme would have minimal impact on flood levels at sensitive receptors. This work is ongoing and will be reported in the Flood Risk Assessment that will accompany the formal ES.

13.6.10 Where design elements of the Proposed Scheme have been identified increasing the risk of surface water flooding, flows would be mitigated either by discharging run-off to a neighbouring watercourse, after attenuation, or through the provision of infiltration ponds; relevant locations include a temporary road south-west of Whittington and three areas of landscaping at Whittington Heath, east of Lichfield and south of Fradley.

13.6.11 The overall impact on flooding from all sources during operation is therefore not significant and the effect on property and the water environment is not significant.

13.6.12 None of the effects likely to arise during the operation of the Proposed Scheme has been identified as being significant after mitigation. Likely residual significant effects

13.6.13 The realignment of minor watercourses associated with culverts would offer the opportunity for beneficial effects, should enhancements be identified. This would be reviewed and assessed in the formal ES. All other residual effects on the water environment or flood risk have been assessed as not significant.

118 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I References 14 References Arup/URS (2013), Phase One: Draft Code of Construction Practice, HS2 Ltd, London.

CIRIA (2007), The SUDS manual (C697).

Cranfield University (2001), The National Soil Map of England and Wales 1:250,000 scale, Cranfield University, National Soil Resources Institute.

Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Strasbourg, European Parliament and European Council.

Environment Agency (2010), Flood Map for Surface Water.

Environment Agency (December 2010), River Trent Catchment Flood Management Plan. Summary Report.

Environment Agency (February 2013), Tame, Anker and Mease abstraction licensing strategy.

Highways Agency (1992 – plus subsequent addenda), The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

Hollis, J. (2001), Soils in Staffordshire IV Sheet SK00/10 (Lichfield), Rothamsted Experimental Station.

HS2 Ltd; Community forums; http://www.hs2.org.uk/have-your-say/forums/community-forums; Accessed: 11 April 2013.

Lichfield District Council (1998), Lichfield District Local Plan 1998.

Lichfield District Council (2010),Local Air Quality Management 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Further Assessment and Air Quality Action Plan for Muckley Corner.

Lichfield District Council (2012),Employment Land Review.

Lichfield District Council (2012),Lichfield District Local Plan Our Strategy July 2012 (Proposed Submission).

Lichfield District Council (2013), Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan: Strategy Proposed Submission March 2013.

Natural England (1996); The Character of England 1996; http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/ nca/default.aspx; Accessed: 8 January 2013.

Office for National Statistics (2011),Census 2011.

Office for National Statistics (2011),UK Business: Activity, Size and Location.

Office for National Statistics (2012),Annual Population Survey.

Office for National Statistics (2012),Business Register and Employment Survey 2011.

Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan; http://sbap.org.uk/index.php.

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent,Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996 -2011 – saved policies extended beyond 28 September 2007.

Staffordshire County Council and Stoke on Trent City Council (1999) Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan 1994-2006 – saved policies extended beyond 28 September 2007.

Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council (2010), Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Staffordshire County Council (2011),Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.

119 CFA Report – Whittington to Handsacre/No 22 I References

Staffordshire County Council (2011),Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2011.

Standing Order 27A of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to private business (environmental assessment), House of Commons.

The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations, 1996. London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 (No. 1160). London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Weeds Act 1959 (7 and 8 Eliz II c. 54). London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

West Midlands Regional Assembly (2006), A Sustainable Future for the West Midlands: Regional Sustainable Development Framework (Version 2).

World Health Organization (2009), Night Noise Guidelines for Europe.

120