Proposed Grantham North Sustainable Urban Extension
1.1.1. Environmental Statement
Volume 1 July 2015
A 14–17 Wells Mews London W1T 3HF United Kingdom T +44 (0) 20 7467 1470 F +44 (0) 20 7467 1471 W www.lda-design.co.uk LDA Design Consulting Ltd Registered No: 09312403 17 Minster Precincts, Peterborough PE1 1XX
Environmental Statement
Preface
This Environmental Statement has been prepared by LDA Design on behalf of the Applicants. LDA Design is a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment EIA Quality Mark.
Environmental Statement
Environmental Statement
Environmental Statement
Contents
VOLUME I
List of Figures and Appendices ...... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... v Glossary of Terms ...... ix 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Project Description ...... 7 3.0 Assessment Methodology ...... 15 4.0 Alternatives ...... 21 5.0 Planning and Policy Context ...... 33 6.0 Socio-Economics ...... 57 7.0 Landscape and Visual Impact ...... 95 8.0 Ecology ...... 167 9.0 Built Heritage ...... 259 10.0 Archaeology ...... 313 11.0 Transport, Accessibility and Movement ...... 335 12.0 Noise and Vibration ...... 369 13.0 Air Quality ...... 401 14.0 Flood Risk and Hydrology ...... 469 15.0 Agriculture and Land Use ...... 507 16.0 Cumulative Effects ...... 531 17.0 Summary of Mitigation ...... 561
Version: 1.1 Version date: 24th August 2015 Comment Final This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with ISO 9001:2008
Environmental Statement
List of Figures and Appendices
Volume I Figure Figure 1.1: Site Location Plan Figure 1.2: Site Location in Context Plan Figure 2.1: Illustrative Masterplan Figure 2.2: Landuse Parameter Plan Figure 2.3: Building Heights & Density Parameter Plan Figure 2.4: Access Parameter Plan Figure 2.5: Landscape Parameter Plan Figure 2.6: Phasing Plan Figure 4.1: Alternative Site Figure 7.1: Site Location and Local Policy Context Figure 7.2: Topography Figure 7.3: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) study including woodlands and settlements Figure 7.4: Local Context, Representative viewpoints and Public Rights of Way Figure 7.5: Aerial Photograph Figure 7.6: Local Landscape Character Figure 8.1: Ecology Desk Study Results Plan Figure 8.2: Ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results Plan Figure 8.3: Ecology Bat Activity Survey Results Plan Figure 8.4: Ecology Mitigation Plan Figure 9.1: Plan of Heritage Assets within 1km of the Application Site Figure 10.1: Non-Designated Heritage Assets Figure 10.2: Great Gonerby with Manthorpe and Little Gonerby Inclosure Award 1809 Figure 11.1: Junction Locations for Delay Comparisons Figure 11.2: ATC Locations for Two-way Peak Flow Comparisons Figure 11.3: Journey Time Comparison Routes Figure 12.1: Noise and Vibration measurement locations Figure 13.1: Existing and Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations Figure 16.1: Cumulative Assessment Developments Figure 16.2: Cumulative Assessment ZTV
Environmental Statement i
Volume II
Appendices Appendix 1.1: EIA Screening Request (November 2014) Appendix 1.2: EIA Screening Opinion (November 2014) Appendix 1.3: Request for EIA Screening Direction (March 2015) Appendix 1.4: EIA Screening Direction (May 2015) Appendix 2.1: Code of Construction Practice Appendix 5.1: Development Plan Policy Relevant to the Proposed Development Appendix 7.1: LIVA Methodology Appendix 7.2: Study Area and Viewpoint Agreement Correspondence Appendix 7.3: Glossary Appendix 7.4: Planning Policy relevant to Landscape and Visual Amenity Appendix 7.5: Extracts from Landscape Character Assessment Appendix 7.6: Lighting Assessment Appendix 7.7: Tree survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Appendix 7.8: Tree Preservation Orders Appendix 8.1: Extended phase 1 survey report Appendix 8.2: Bat activity survey report Appendix 8.3: White-clawed crayfish survey report Appendix 8.4: Great crested newt survey report Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline Appendix 10.1 Non-Designated Heritage Assets Appendix 10.2 Historic Ordnance Survey Appendix 10.3 Geophysical Survey Appendix 10.4 Report on Archaeological Field Evaluation Appendix 12.1: Railway noise contours and levels at proposed dwellings Appendix 12.2: Road Traffic noise impact Appendix 13.1: Traffic Flow Information Used in the Air Quality Assessment Appendix 13.2: 2013 Wind Rose for Cranwell Meteorological Recording Station Appendix 13.3: Model Verification Procedure Appendix 13.4: Air Quality Assessment Modelling Results Appendix 13.5: Sensitivity Analysis Modelling Results
Environmental Statement ii
Appendix 14.1: Flood Risk Assessment Appendix 15.1: Soils and Agricultural Land Classification Appendix 15.2: ALC Land Classification Map
Volume III
Photo panels and Photomontages Figure 7.7: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 1 Figure 7.8: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 2 Figure 7.9: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 3 Figure 7.10: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 4 Figure 7.11: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 5 Figure 7.12: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 6 Figure 7.13: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 7 Figure 7.14: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 8 Figure 7.15: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 9 Figure 7.16: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 10 Figure 7.17: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 11 Figure 7.18: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 12 Figure 7.19: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 13 Figure 7.20: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 14A Figure 7.21: Photograph Panel: Viewpoint 14B Figure 7.22: Viewpoint 1: Existing View Figure 7.23: Viewpoint 1: Photomontage Year 1 Figure 7.24: Viewpoint 1: Photomontage Year 15 Figure 7.25: Viewpoint 3: Existing View Figure 7.26: Viewpoint 3: Photomontage Year 1 Figure 7.27: Viewpoint 3: Photomontage Year 15 Figure 7.28: Viewpoint 4: Existing View Figure 7.29: Viewpoint 4: Photomontage Year 1 Figure 7.30: Viewpoint 4: Photomontage Year 15 Figure 7.31: Viewpoint 11: Existing View Figure 7.32: Viewpoint 11: Photomontage Year 1 Figure 7.33: Viewpoint 11: Photomontage Year 15
Environmental Statement iii
Environmental Statement iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ACM Asbestos Containing Material ALC Agricultural Land Classification AOD Above Ordnance Datum AQLV Air Quality Limit Value AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQO Air Quality Objective AQS Air Quality Strategy BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BGS British Geological Survey BH Borehole BMV Best and Most Versatile BRERC Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre BS British Standards Institution BTO British Trust for Ornithology Cd Cadmium CC Climate Change CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association COBA Cost Benefit Analysis CoCP Code of Construction Practice COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern CROW Act Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2006 CSM Conceptual Site Model Cu Copper CWRA Controlled Waters Risk Assessment DCLG Department of Community and Local Government DEFRA Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs DFT Department for Transport DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges EA Environment Agency EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment
Environmental Statement v
ECMRL East Coast Main Railway Line eDNA environmental DNA EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ELC European Landscape Convention EPA Environmental Protection Act EPSL European Protected Species Licence EPUK Environmental Protection UK EQS Environmental Quality Standard ES Environmental Statement EU European Union FE Form Entry FRA Flood Risk Assessment FWL Flood Water Level GAC Generic Assessment Criteria GI Green Infrastructure GIS Geographical Information Systems GSV Gas Screening Value GLNP Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership HER Historic Environment Record HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HSI Habitat Suitability Index IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management IHT Institute of Highways & Transportation JNCC Joint Nature Conservancy Council LA Local Authority LAQM Local Air Quality Management LA10 The noise level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. It has been the assessment of road traffic noise. LCC Lincolnshire County Council LiDAR Flood Detection and Ranging LDF Local Development Framework
Environmental Statement vi
LDV Light Duty Vehicle LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan LBC Lincolnshire Bird Club LSCS Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study LTP Local Transport Plan LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment LWS Local Wildlife Site m bgl metres below ground level MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside MCERTS The Environment Agency's Monitoring Certification Scheme MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement NBN National Biodiversity Network NERC Act Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 NGR National Grid Reference NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NO Nitrogen oxide NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Total oxides of nitrogen NRTF National Road Traffic Forecast OHL Overhead Line OPDM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Pb Lead PM10 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10μm PPE Personal Protective Equipment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SKDC South Kesteven District Council SGV Soil Guideline Value SNCI Site of Nature Conservation Importance SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest SUDS Sustainable Drainage System TA Transport Assessment TGNPPF Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework TITUE Transport in the Urban Environment
Environmental Statement vii
TrP Trial Pit TP Travel Plan TPO Tree Preservation Order TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon TRICS Trip Rate Information Computer System UKAS United Kingdom Accreditation Service UKDWS UK Drinking Water Standards WRA Water Resources Act Zn Zinc
Environmental Statement viii
Glossary of Terms Generic Terminology Application Site: The area outlined in red comprising the development works on Land on the Northern Edge of the Grantham Urban Area. Cumulative Effects: Impacts that result from incremental changes that caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the Proposed Development Magnitude: The combination of scale, extent and duration of effect Mitigation: Measures, including any process, activity or design to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for adverse effects of a development project Proposed Development: A housing-led mixed use development of up to 550 new homes at Land on the Northern Edge of the Grantham Urban Area. Residual Effects: Those impacts of the development that cannot be mitigated following implementation of mitigation measures.
Landscape and Visual Impact Landscape character type: A landscape type will have broadly similar patterns of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use, settlement and field pattern discernible in maps and field survey records.2 Landscape effects: Effects on the landscape as a resource in its own right.1 Landscape character: A distinct and recognisable pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse. Landscape quality (or condition): A measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include the extent to which typical character is represented in individual areas, the intactness of the landscape and the condition of individual elements.1 Landscape value: The relative value that is attached to different landscapes by society. A landscape may be valued by different stakeholders for a whole variety of reasons. Magnitude (of effect): A term that combines judgements about the size and scale of the effect, the extent of the area over which it occurs, whether it is reversible or irreversible and whether it is short or long term, in duration.1 Mitigation: Measures, including any process, activity or design to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for adverse landscape and visual effects of a development project. Receptor: Physical landscape resource, special interest or viewer group that will experience an effect.
Environmental Statement ix
Sensitivity: A term applied to specific receptors, combining judgements of the susceptibility of the receptor to the specific type of change or development proposed and the value related to that receptor.1 Susceptibility: The ability of a defined landscape or visual receptor to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences. Visual amenity: The overall pleasantness of the views people enjoy of their surroundings, which provides an attractive visual setting or backdrop for the enjoyment of activities of people living, working, recreating, visiting or travelling through an area Visual effect: Effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people. Visual envelope: Extent of potential visibility to or from a specific area or feature. Zone of visual influence: Area within which a proposed development may have an influence or effect on visual amenity.
Ecology Assemblage: A group of species found in the same location. Baseline conditions: The conditions that would pertain in the absence of the proposed project at the time that the project would be constructed/operated/decommissioned. The definition of these baseline conditions should be informed by changes arising from other causes (e.g. other consented developments). Biodiversity: The biological diversity of the earth’s living resources. The total range of variability among systems and organisms at the following levels of organisation: bioregional, landscape, ecosystem, habitat, communities, species, populations, individuals, genes and the structural and functional relationships within and between these different levels. Compensation: Measures taken to make up for the loss of, or permanent damage to, biological resources through the provision of replacement areas. Any replacement area should be similar to or, with appropriate management, have the ability to reproduce the ecological functions and conditions of those biological resources that have been lost or damaged. Connectivity: A measure of the functional availability of the habitats needed for a particular species to move through a given area. Examples include the flight lines used by bats to travel between roosts and foraging areas or the corridors of appropriate habitat needed by some slow colonising species if they are to spread. Enhancement: A new benefit to biodiversity, unrelated to any negative impact. Habitat: A place in which a particular plant or animal lives. Often used in the wider sense referring to major assemblages of plants and animals found together.
Environmental Statement x
Integrity: The coherence of a site’s ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or levels of populations of the species for which it was classified. Local Sites: ‘Non-statutory’ sites of nature conservation value that have been designated ‘locally’ (i.e. excluding SSSIs, ASSIs, SPAs, SACs, and Ramsar Sites). Local Nature Reserves are included as they are a designation made by the Local Authority not statutory country conservation agencies. These are often called Wildlife Sites, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation or other, similar names. Mitigation: Measures taken to avoid or reduce negative impacts. Measures may include: locating the development and its working areas and access routes away from areas of high ecological interest, fencing off sensitive areas during the construction period, or timing works to avoid sensitive periods. An example of a reduction measure is a reed bed silt trap that is designed to minimise the amount of polluted water running directly into an ecologically important watercourse. See also compensation (which is separate from mitigation). Network: An interconnected system of corridors. Net gain: The point at which the quality and quantity of habitats or species improves compared to their original condition. i.e. improvements over and above those required for mitigation/compensation. No net loss: The point at which habitat or biodiversity losses equal their gains, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Population: A collection of individuals (plants or animals), all of the same species and in a defined geographical area. Receptor: Any ecological or other defined feature (e.g. human beings) that is sensitive to or has the potential to be affected by an impact. Resource: Any ecological or other environmental component affected by an effect. Restoration: The re-establishment of a damaged or degraded system or habitat to a close approximation of its pre-degraded condition. Scale: The level or geographic context for evaluation.
Archaeology Heritage Asset: A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Setting of a heritage asset: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.
Environmental Statement xi
Transport, Accessibility and Movement Capacity: How well a junction of section of road operates in terms of vehicles queues and delay Scoping Discussions: Initial discussions to discuss the methodology for undertaking future work i.e. agree principles Highway Links: A section of road Car Share Scheme: A scheme providing a mechanism for two or more people to share a car when travelling a similar route Baseline Conditions: The existing situation or the situation in a future year without the Proposed Development Two-Way Flow : The combined flow of traffic travelling in both directions on a section of road Personalised Journey Planning: An approach to encouraging people to travel by transport other than the car, by seeing what suitable alternatives exist for a specific journey
Noise and Vibration Ambient noise: The totally encompassing sound in a given situation. Decibel (dB): The decibel is the basic unit of noise measurement. It relates to the pressure created by the sound (Sound Pressure Level) and operates on a logarithmic scale, ranging upwards from 0 dB, which represents the normal threshold of hearing at a frequency of 1000Hz. Each increase of 3 dB on the scale represents a doubling in the Sound Pressure Level. However, due the manner in which human hearing responds to sound, the smallest change in noise level that can generally be detected by the human ear is 3dB, a 5dB change is noticeable and a 10dB change represents a twofold change in perceived volume. Dba: Environmental noise levels are usually discussed in terms of dBA. This is known as the A-weighted sound pressure level, and indicates that a correction factor has been applied, which corresponds to the human ear’s response to sound across the range of audible frequencies. The ear is most sensitive in the middle range of frequencies (around 1000-3000Hz), and less sensitive at lower and higher frequencies. The A-weighted noise level is derived by analysing the level of a sound at a range of frequencies and applying a specific correction factor for each frequency before calculating the overall level. In practice this is carried out automatically within noise measuring equipment by the use of electronic filters, which adjust the frequency response of the instrument to mimic that of the ear. All decibel values referred to in the Environmental Statement are A-weighted. Free Field: Free field noise levels are measured or predicted such that there is no contribution made up of reflections from nearby building façades.
Environmental Statement xii
LAeq,T : The A-weighted sound pressure level of the steady sound which contains the same acoustic energy as the noise being assessed over a specific time period, T. LA10,T : The A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. It has been used in the UK for the assessment of road traffic noise. LA90,T: The A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. It is generally used to quantify the background noise level, the underlying level of noise which is present even during the quieter parts of the measurement period. LAmax : The maximum value that the A-weighted sound pressure level reaches during a measurement period. LAmax F, or Fast, is averaged over 0.125 of a second. Measured noise levels were all monitored using the Fast response. Noise: Unwanted sound. May refer to both natural (e.g. wind, birdsong etc) and artificial sounds (e.g. traffic, noise from wind turbines, etc). Noise contour: Lines of equal sound levels shown in a similar manner to height contours on an Ordnance Survey map or isobars (lines of equal pressure) on a weather map. Vibration: A to and fro motion; a motion which oscillates about a fixed equilibrium position. In this context, refers to vibration carried in structures such as the ground or buildings, rather than airborne noise Vibration Dose Value: VDV, expressed as ms-1.75, is specified in BS 6472, and is used as a basis for assessing human exposure to vibration over a given period of time.
Air Quality μg/m3: Microgrammes per cubic metre of air. A measure of concentration in terms of mass per unit volume. A concentration of 1μg/m3 means that 1 cubic metre of air contains one microgram (millionth of a gram) of pollutant AADT: Annual Average Daily Traffic which is expressed in vehicles per day AQMA: An Air Quality Management Area is an area formally designated by a local authority where one or more of the air quality objectives are unlikely to be met Air dispersion modelling: The mathematical simulation of how air pollutants disperse in the ambient atmosphere Air quality objectives: Policy targets set by government for air quality, generally expressed as a maximum ambient concentration to be achieved, either without exception or with a permitted number of exceedences within a specified timescale. Targets are considered to be achievable in terms of cost, benefit and technical feasibility Air Quality Standards: The concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere which can broadly be taken to achieve a certain level of environmental quality. The standards are based on assessment of the effects of each pollutant on human health including the effects on sensitive sub groups
Environmental Statement xiii
Annual mean: The average of the concentrations measured for each pollutant for one year. In the case of Air Quality Objectives this is for a calendar year Emission factor: The quantity of a pollutant released to the ambient air through the operation of a motor vehicle Nitrogen dioxide (NO2): Naturally occurring gas which is recognised as a pollutant at concentrations exceeding its air quality standard / objective NOx: Collective term for all gaseous compounds which are comprised of nitrogen and oxygen atoms only Particulate matter: Microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere PM10: Particulate matter, with a diameter of 10μm or less, which is recognised as a pollutant at concentrations exceeding its air quality standard / objective Pollutant: A substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects
Flood Risk and Hydrology Annual exceedance probability: The estimated probability of a flood of given magnitude occurring or being exceeded in any year. Expressed as, for example, 1 in 100 chance or 1 percent (1%). Flood Zone 1: Land at a lower probability of flooding, with a smaller annual chance of flooding than the 0.1% AEP (1 in 1,000) fluvial or tidal flood event. Flood Zone 2: Land at medium probability of flooding, with a smaller annual chance of flooding than the 1% AEP (1 in 100) fluvial or tidal flood event. Flood Zone 3: Land at high probability of flooding, with a smaller annual chance of flooding than the 0.1% AEP (1 in 100) fluvial or 0.5% (1 in 200) tidal flood event. Floodplain: Area of land that borders a watercourse, an estuary or the sea, over which water flows in time of flood, or would flow but for the presence of flood defences where they exist.. Functional floodplain: Land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. Flood Zone: A geographic area within which the flood risk is in a particular range, as defined within PPS25the NPPF and TGNPPF. Fluvial: Flooding caused by rivers. Freeboard: The difference between the flood defence level and the design flood level. Greenfield land : Land that has not been previously developed. Greenfield Runoff: Land that has not been previously developed. Main River: A watercourse designated on a statutory map of Main Rivers, maintained by Defra, on which the Environment Agency has permissive powers to construct and maintain flood defences.
Environmental Statement xiv
Ordinary watercourse: All rivers, streams, ditches, drains, cuts, dykes, sluices, sewers (other than public sewer) and passages through which water flows which do not form part of a Main River. Local authorities and, where relevant, Internal Drainage Boards have similar permissive powers on ordinary watercourses, as the Environment Agency has on Main Rivers. Pluvial: Surface flooding caused by rain. Run-off : The flow of water from an area caused by rainfall. Sustainable Drainage Systems: A sequence of management practices and control structures, often referred to as SUDS, designed to drain water in a more sustainable manner than some conventional techniques. Typically these are used to attenuate run-off from development sites.
Agriculture and Land Use Agricultural Land Classification (ALC): The ALC is a standardised method for classifying agricultural land according to its versatility, productivity and workability, based upon inter-related parameters including climate, relief, soil characteristics and drainage. These factors form the basis for classifying agricultural land into one of five grades (with Grade 3 land divided into Subgrades 3a and 3b), ranked from excellent (Grade 1) to very poor (Grade 5). ALC is determined using MAFF’s ‘Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: Revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land, 1988” Best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV): The term ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land is used to define agricultural land of Grades 1, 2 and 3a determined using the ‘Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: Revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land’ (MAFF, 1988) and National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012). Best and most versatile agricultural land is classified as grades 1, 2 or subgrade 3a and is afforded a degree of protection against development within planning policy. Moderate to very poor quality land is designated subgrade 3b or grades 4 and 5, and is restricted to a narrow range of agricultural uses. Gleying: Gleying is the process of iron reduction (opposite to oxidation) in soils from ferric (reddish in colour) to ferrous compounds (grey or colourless), by microorganisms or by-products of decomposing organic matter. Gleying occurs in areas devoid of oxygen when the soil is waterlogged. The resulting mottling (spots or blotches of colour) can therefore be used to identify occurrence of temporary excessive soil wetness. Soil: top layer of the Earth’s crust consisting of weathered rocks and minerals, water and air, for the purpose of the assessment it is assumed to have the depth of 120 cm from the surface or to bedrock (if shallower). Soil series: Soil series is the lower categorical level of the soil classification used in England and Wales. “Soil series are defined using a combination of three main properties, the broad type of parent material present (substrate type), the texture of
Environmental Statement xv
the soil material (textural grouping) and the presence or absence of material with a distinctive mineralogy.” (Soil Survey of England and Wales 1984). Higher categories are: major soil group, soil group, and soil subgroup, which are not explicitly used in this report. Soil association: Soil associations is a geographic grouping of soils identified by the name of the most frequently occurring soil series and by the combination of ancillary soil series. Soil resources: Term used to emphasise soil’s importance for food production and provision of other ecosystem goods and services, such as supporting plant life, storing and filtering water, nutrient cycling. Subsoil: lower layers of the soil extending from the bottom of the topsoil to bedrock, typically less biologically active than the topsoil and containing less organic matter. Topsoil: most biologically active top layer of the soil, typically 25-35 cm on agricultural land, in arable fields this is usually the plough layer, subject to regular cultivation.
Environmental Statement xvi
This page has been left blank intentionally
Environmental Statement xvii
1.0 Introduction
1.1. General Introduction
1.1.1. This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared on behalf of the Applicants to support an outline planning application for a housing-led mixed-use development at land on the Northern Edge of the Grantham Urban Area. The Proposed Development comprises up to 550 new homes, local centre, primary school, allotments and community orchard, open space, playing field, sustainable drainage systems and biodiversity enhancements, landscaping and all other associated infrastructure (“the Proposed Development”) on land to the north of Longcliffe Road, east of the East Coast Main Railway Line (ECMRL), south of Belton Lane and of the 132 kv high voltage overhead electricity transmission line (running south-east/north-west between High Road and Belton Lane) and west of the A607 High Road/Belton Road, Grantham (“the Application Site”).
1.1.2. The application site and site location is shown on Figures 1.1 and 1.2, presented at the end of this chapter. The Proposed Development is referred to in more detail in Chapter 2.
1.2. Planning Context
1.2.1. In January 2010, an outline planning application ( Ref: S10/0142)was submitted to South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) for the following development:
“a sustainable urban extension to Grantham comprising: at least 1,000 dwelling houses; a continuing care retirement community; a neighbourhood centre (incorporating a primary school, primary healthcare and community assembly facilities (UCO Class D1) and small scale (maximum 750 square metres) convenience shopping (UCO Class A)); public house/lodge hotel; ancillary formal (playing fields/play areas) and informal open space, including structural landscaping and biodiversity enhancement areas; and access works (including alterations to the A607/Belton Lane junction)”
Environmental Statement 1
1.2.2. The application was refused by the SKDC on 12th January 2011. The refusal was appealed through a public inquiry which commenced in November 2011 and which was dismissed in March 2012.
1.2.3. The Proposed Development for which this ES relates has been informed by the Inspector’s decision letter, which includes updates to the design as follows:
1) A significant reduction in the extent of the developed area by approximately 15.4 hectares (47%), on the northern and eastern sides of the Application Site;
2) Retention of the 132 KV OHL along the northern edge of the developed area;
3) A 45% reduction in the number of residential units and the omission of the Continuing Care Retirement Community, public house and lodge hotel; and
4) The omission of the four-arm roundabout at the junction of the A607, High Road and Belton Lane. In its place, new vehicular accesses will serve the Proposed Development from Longcliffe Road, Belton Lane and Rosedale Drive.
1.3. Location and Description of the Application Site
1.3.1. The Application Site comprises approximately 37.82 hectares of arable farmland and is located on land on the Northern Edge of the Grantham Urban Area. The Application Site is located on land to the north of Longcliffe Road, east of the ECMRL, south of Belton Lane and of the 132 kv high voltage overhead electricity transmission line (running south-east/north-west between High Road and Belton Lane) and west of the A607 High Road/Belton Road, Grantham . The Running Furrows watercourse which is a tributary of the River Witham runs in a south westerly direction, through the eastern part of the Application Site.
1.3.2. A public footpath referred to as BELT 2/1 runs in an east to west direction across the southern part of the Application Site from the A607 High Road to an underpass beneath the ECMRL. There are a number of gappy, mechanically-trimmed hedgerows located around and across the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 2
1.4. Requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment
1.4.1. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended 2015), (EIA Regulations) an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required if a Proposed Development constitutes either:
1) Schedule 1 development; or
2) Schedule 2 development which is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of its characteristics, location and the nature of potential effects.
1.4.2. Mixed-use masterplans are considered to fall within Schedule 2, Paragraph 10(b), Infrastructure Projects. This paragraph states that an EIA will be required for urban development projects where the area of development exceeds 5 hectares and where there are likely to be significant effects on the environment. The approach to undertaking an EIA is referred to in more detail in Chapter 3.
1.4.3. The EIA has been an important part of the iterative design process. In response to the findings of the EIA, the design has been modified in order to avoid and minimise negative environmental effects and maximise positive environmental effects.
1.5. EIA Team
1.5.1. The consultant team which has contributed to the preparation of this Environmental Statement (ES) are listed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: EIA team
Consultant Role
LDA Design EIA Coordination, Landscape and Visual Assessment, Ecology, Cumulative Assessment
Anthony Aspbury Planning and Policy Context Associates Socio-economic
Environmental Statement 3
Wardell Armstrong Archaeology, Air Quality, Agriculture and Land Use
10dB Acoustics Noise and Vibration
BWB Consulting Flood Risk and Hydrology
Montagu Evans Built Heritage
Odyssey Markides Transport, Accessibility and Movement
1.6. Environmental Topics Considered in EIA
1.6.1. The environmental topics considered in this EIA are listed as follows:
1) Planning and Policy Context;
2) Socio-economic;
3) Landscape and Visual Impact;
4) Ecology;
5) Built Heritage;
6) Archaeology,
7) Transport, Accessibility and Movement;
8) Noise and Vibration;
9) Air Quality;
10) Flood Risk and Hydrology;
11) Agriculture and Land Use; and
12) Cumulative Effects.
1.7. Environmental Statement
1.7.1. The ES comprises the following volumes:
1) Volume I Text and Figures (this document): The full text of the ES covering all topics listed in Table 1.1. Each topic is covered in a separate chapter as set out in
Environmental Statement 4
the contents list on the preceding pages. Relevant figures are included at the end of each chapter as appropriate;
2) Volume II Appendices: Appendices to the ES which includes all relevant correspondence, data and technical reports to support all topic chapters where relevant; and
3) Volume III Photo panels and Photomontages: This Volume includes all photo panels and photomontages necessary to support Chapter 7, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
1.7.2. A Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of the ES has also been prepared and a copy is included inside the front cover of Volume 1 (this document).
1.8. Public Comment
1.8.1. Copies of the ES have been forwarded to SKDC for circulation to statutory consultees and for inspection by members of the public. The ES can be viewed at the following location, during normal office hours:
Development Management
South Kesteven District Council
St Peters Hill, Grantham
Lincolnshire, NG31 6PZ.
1.8.2. The ES will also be available to download from the SKDC website. Copies of the NTS will be made available without charge to all interested parties upon request.
1.8.3. The ES will also be available on a CD at a cost of £15. Hard copies of Volume I of the ES (this document) can be purchased for £350 from:
LDA Design 14-17 Wells Mews London W1T 3HF
Environmental Statement 5
1.8.4. Written comments on the ES should be made directly to the Development Management team at SKDC so that they can be considered as part of the consultation on the planning application.
Environmental Statement 6
2.0 Project Description
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. This chapter provides a description of the Proposed Development, starting with an overview of the design objectives, followed by a detailed review of its key components.
2.1.2. The Proposed Development comprises up to 550 dwellings and associated uses, which include the following:
1) Three new access points, along Belton Lane, Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive. An existing access to the field south of St John’s Church, which is used for car parking for the church, is to be retained for continued use by churchgoers and for those using the proposed playing field here;
2) A network of cycle/pedestrian routes that connect to the existing public right of way (BELT 2/1);
3) Comprehensive green infrastructure, including retained hedgerows and trees, landscaped linear storm water attenuation , swales, formal and informal public open space to include children’s play space , with proposed community orchard and allotments;
4) Community facilities provided within a new local centre; and
5) A 1 Form Entry (FE) Primary School;
2.1.3. The proposed arrangement and distribution of land uses across the Application Site, together with access and circulation proposals are illustrated on the following figures:
1) Figure 2.1: Illustrative Masterplan;
2) Figure 2.2: Land Use Parameter Plan
3) Figure 2.3: Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan
4) Figure 2.4: Access Parameter Plan; and
Environmental Statement 7
5) Figure 2.5: Landscape Parameter Plan.
2.1.4. It is the above Parameter Plans, the project description and the COCP which have been used for the purposes of this EIA.
2.2. Design Rationale
2.2.1. The Proposed Development is primarily landscape and heritage led, with the proposed built form located within four distinct development parcels, informed by the existing field boundaries and constraints principally the OHL to the north, High Road to the east, watercourse and existing Longcliffe Road residential development to the south, and the ECMRL to the west.
2.2.2. The scheme is outward facing to the landscape corridors with a series of perimeter housing blocks linked through a principal avenue road from Longcliffe Road through to Belton Lane with streets and lanes. A new urban edge terminating at the OHL allowing for key landscape and heritage views to remain from Belton Park.
2.2.3. The heart of the scheme is the Local Centre, Primary School, Central Green and the viewing station through to local church spires.
2.3. Housing
2.3.1. An area of approximately 16.1 hectares or 42% of the Application Site is proposed for residential development. The residential density across the site is set at 35 dwellings per hectare, delivering a maximum of 550 houses of which up to 35% will be affordable housing. They will comprise a range of different house types, sizes and tenures (including affordable housing) and will be delivered in a phased manner. The proposed approach to phasing is shown on Figure 2.6.
2.4. Local Centre
2.4.1. A local centre is proposed, which will be located in the central part of the Application Site and will comprise of the following uses:
1) A small supermarket/’C’ Store (UCO Class A1) extending to 390 square metres gross internal floor area; and
Environmental Statement 8
2) Three small unit shops (UCO Class A1) each extending to 80 square metres gross internal floor area.
2.5. Education Facilities
2.5.1. A 1 FE Primary School which includes a joint education/community hall and joint education/community playing fields is located on the northern edge of the Application Site.
2.6. Access and Infrastructure
2.6.1. Principal vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access/egress into the Application Site will be from Longcliffe Road and Belton Lane. Secondary access, serving up to 23 dwellings will be from Rosedale Drive.
2.6.2. A public footpath that runs in an east to west direction across the southern part of the Application Site will be maintained largely on its present alignment and in its present character. It will be incorporated into the Proposed Development with no requirement for formal diversion. A network of new footpaths are proposed, which will include provision for cyclists. The proposed footpaths and cycleways have been set back from the edge of Manthorpe burial ground SNCI.
2.7. Surface Water Drainage
2.7.1. An outline surface water drainage strategy has been developed to mitigate any risk posed from the increase in impermeable areas that the Proposed Development will create. The discharge from the Proposed Development will be restricted to less than existing greenfield run off rates through a cascade of ponds and swales through gravity and piped connections with the final outfall into the Running Furrows. Improvement works to the Running Furrows will include measures to enhance the ecological value of the watercourse. These works will include ledges to stabilise banks to facilitate the reduced mechanical management of the banks of the watercourse.
2.7.2. The standard of storage for the Application Site has been calculated according to a 100 year plus climate change event based upon the anticipated lifetime of the
Environmental Statement 9
Proposed Development and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This includes for a 30% increase on peak rainfall intensity, more than sufficient to accept runoff from the Proposed Development.
2.7.3. The Sustainable Urban Drainage Strategy (SuDS) components will provide a thorough treatment train within the cascade of wet and dry ponds and swales. This will ensure suitable remediation of surface water flows from the Proposed Development. Recommendations have been made that as part of the Proposed Development safe overland flow routes are utilised which will direct any exceedance towards the natural outfalls from the Application Site as outfall from the Proposed Development.
2.8. Open Space and Play Provision
2.8.1. Ancillary formal and informal public open space provision will include outdoor sports space, parks, play equipped space, young people’s space and allotments in accordance with SKDC open space requirements. Three greens are proposed along a green spine with the central green having been designed to provide views of the spires of St John’s church and St Wulfram’s church. In addition to this, the green infrastructure of the Application Site will also include wetlands and ponds associated with the SuDS, native woodland planting in blocks around the perimeter of the Site, a community orchard and individual native tree planting within species rich/wildflower grassland.
2.8.2. The proposed landscaping elements include measures such as the retention of existing open space and proposed native woodland planting to avoid potential landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development and to ameliorate any identified effects upon nearby heritage assets, including the Manthorpe Conservation Area and Belton House and its Parkland.
2.8.3. An area of native woodland and an acoustic barrier is proposed along the western site boundary between the built development edge and the ECMRL.
Environmental Statement 10
2.8.4. Retention of trees, hedgerows and other features of habitat value, and the provision of significant biodiversity enhancement through the introduction of new habitats such as species-rich grassland in open space areas.
2.8.5. Retention of 5ha of grazing pasture within the eastern extents of the Application Site.
2.9. Lighting
2.9.1. A dark corridor along the Running Furrows will be created during the operational phase of the Proposed Development. The construction and operational lighting scheme, through careful selection and design of lamps, luminaires and optical control will be designed to avoid any upward light and light intrusion towards sensitive receptors.
2.9.2. The height of street and road lighting columns will be restricted to 5m to ensure that the majority of light sources will be screened by the built development. The proposed lighting will use LED light sources which will provide a reduction in the maintained light levels required for roads and streets. The use of LEDs will also avoid potential effects on local bat and bird species. A lighting control system will be operated during the night to control the street lights, which will include measures such as dimming and/or part-night lighting, to minimise obtrusive light.
2.9.3. The lighting strategy will follow the recommended best practice in the Lincolnshire County Council Street Lighting Strategy (2014)
2.10. Ecological Enhancement
2.10.1. The Proposed Development incorporates a number of ecological enhancement measures such as –
Creation of native woodland using species native to the local area;
Creation of a traditional orchard;
The gapping up and tree planting along the retained hedgerows;
Tree planting within areas of green infrastructure;
Environmental Statement 11
Creation of bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities through the installation of bird and bat boxes;
Creation of species rich grassland.
2.11. Phasing
2.11.1. An indicative phasing strategy has been prepared for the Proposed Development and is shown on Figure 2.6. It is anticipated that the construction phase will start in 2016 and finish in 2024, lasting approximately 8 and half years. The phasing will be broken down into three phases with the local centre and the primary school being delivered in the second phase. The proposed landscaping as illustrated on Figure 2.6: Landscape Parameter Plan will be completed within Phase 1 to allow the planting to mature throughout the construction period.
2.12. Principal Construction Activities
2.12.1. Construction activity will involve all of the necessary operations to construct the Proposed Development as described above. This will involve (at various stages); the use of earth-moving equipment, movement, loading and unloading of vehicles and plant, the erection, use and dismantling of scaffolding, use of small cranes/platforms and the creation of stockpiles of materials and construction compounds. An Outline Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (Appendix 2.1) has been prepared which sets out a series of measures to be applied during the construction phase to control and avoid potential environmental effects. It will provide a consistent approach to the management of construction activities across the Application Site. The CoCP will be reviewed and agreed with the SKDC prior to construction commencing onsite.
2.13. Site Preparation and Preliminary Works
2.13.1. During the construction phase, site preparation and preliminary works will comprise:
1) Construction compounds and other resources needed during construction will be sited to minimise effects arising wherever possible;
Environmental Statement 12
2) Appropriate measures will be taken to protect members of the public, wildlife, habitats and vegetation from potential harm arising from the construction work;
3) Reshaping of the ground will be undertaken to suit the layout of the proposed buildings. There will also be excavation of attenuation basins. This will involve excavation plant and potential truck movements around the site as well as the formation of temporary soil stockpiles;
4) Infrastructure including access roads, SUDS drainage, foul water drainage, utility supplies will be connected from existing networks and brought to the boundary of each plot; and
5) Advance or early planting of certain landscaping features at the southern edge of the site, such as the ecology translocation sites.
2.13.2. It is anticipated that the construction of the buildings will take place in the following sequence:
1) Excavation for foundations and services;
2) Construction of buildings, internal roads, services and surfacing; and
3) Fit out and landscaping around the buildings.
Environmental Statement 13
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 14
3.0 Assessment Methodology
3.1. Introduction
3.1.1. This chapter provides an outline of the overall EIA process, the key stages involved and the approach that has been undertaken to identify baseline conditions. It refers to the EIA Regulations which prescribe the statutory requirements governing the EIA process.
3.2. EIA Development
3.2.1. The EIA Regulations identify two types of development projects: Schedule 1, for which the requirement to prepare an EIA is mandatory, and Schedule 2 for which an EIA may be required.
3.2.2. As referred to in Chapter 1, this application falls under Schedule 2, Paragraph 10(b) Infrastructure Projects. The EIA Regulations state that an EIA may be required, depending on the nature, size and location of the proposed development and if the area of development exceeds 5 hectare. Schedule 2 developments are not automatically subject to EIA, but will require the process if they are likely to give rise to significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as their nature, size and location.
3.2.3. An EIA Screening Request was submitted to SKDC on 17th November 2014, which is included in Appendix 1.1. An EIA Screening Opinion was received on 19th November 2014, included in Appendix 1.2, which stated that the development was EIA development and an EIA was required.
3.2.4. On 23rd March 2014, a Request for an EIA Screening Direction was submitted to the Department of Community and Local Government (DCLG), which is included in Appendix 1.3. An EIA Screening Direction was received on 19th May 2015. It stated that in line with Regulation 6(4) of the EIA Regulations , the Proposed Development was not EIA Development and as such an EIA was not required for the following reasons:
Environmental Statement 15
Its characteristics. The proposal is primarily residential development of approximately 550 dwellings and associated development including a local centre, a single form entry Primary School and grounds. It is limited in size and unlikely to have significant effects in this regard. There would be traffic, noise, emissions and light impacts however, they are not considered to be significant due to the scale of the project.
The location of development in terms of environmental sensitivity of the areas that would be affected. The proposal is not within or adjacent to or close to a ‘sensitive area’ (such as a Site of Special Scientific Interest) as set out in Regulation 2 of the 2011 Regulations). The site is within the Grantham Scarps and Valleys character area of the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment and the Grade I Belton House and Park are approximately 1.5 km north of the site. However, I do not consider that the proposal would have a significant effect on these ecological or cultural assets. The Environment Agency flood-risk maps indicate that the site is entirely within flood Zone 1. Due to the nature and scale of the proposal it is not considered that it would have a significant effect to warrant the need for an ES.
The characteristics of the potential impact. The proposal would primarily be residential development on previously agricultural land, and its impacts will not be of a magnitude or complexity such as to indicate that there is a likelihood of significant effects. I accept that the development would increase traffic and that an impact on air quality is likely. However the traffic, emissions, noise and light impacts are not considered to be significant. The site does not fall within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) but it is noted that there is an AQMA approx. 3km away to the south in Grantham Town Centre. The proposal is not a particularly hazardous or complex form of development.
3.2.5. Notwithstanding the above, an applicant is entitled to submit an ES voluntarily. In this case the consultant work was undertaken with such care and depth that the Applicant concluded notwithstanding the negative screening direction, it was appropriate and reasonable to place in the public domain a full assessment of the Proposed Development that examines all relevant environmental effects. The
Environmental Statement 16
product of this exercise reaches the same conclusions as those outlined in the screening direction, namely the Proposed Development would not give rise to any significant environmental effects; if any effects did arise these can be appropriately mitigated in accordance with the mitigation strategy set out in the ES.
3.2.6. In approaching matters in this reasonable and proportionate way the Applicant believes that the proposals are made in a full and transparent way, subject to transparency manner in the public domain, thereby being subject to full consultation as part of the planning application process.
3.2.7. The EIA Screening Direction is included in Appendix 1.4.
3.3. EIA Process The main stages in this EIA process are as follows: 1) Screening: Determining the need for EIA;
2) Data review: Compiling and reviewing available environmental data;
3) Baseline surveys: undertaking baseline studies and monitoring exercises to gather baseline information relating to the site and study area;
4) Assessment and design iteration: An iterative process where the design is continually updated in response to on-going assessment work; and
5) Preparation of the ES.
3.4. Consultation
3.4.1. Consultation has been undertaken with a range of prescribed and non-prescribed consultees. Each topic chapter refers to the specific consultation undertaken.
3.4.2. Pre-application consultation on the planning submission was undertaken with the Planning Officer at SKDC. In addition, a public exhibition event was held on 23rd October 2014. Following this event, the Masterplan was amended to address the following issues:
1) A new vehicular access was added from Belton Lane;
Environmental Statement 17
2) The development zone shown directly adjacent to Rosedale Drive and Ryedale Close was removed, creating a continuous green corridor between the proposed houses and existing urban edge;
3) The number of proposed houses to be served off Rosedale Drive has been reduced from 50 to 23; and
4) The surface water drainage strategy was amended to remove previously proposed attenuation areas in field adjacent to High Road.
3.5. Study Area
3.5.1. For each of the topics considered, a study area has been defined to ensure that potentially significant effects are identified and assessed in accordance with relevant standards and guidance for that topic. Study areas differ for each topic as the geographic extent of predicted impacts differs in each case. The study areas are defined and described in the methodology sections of each topic chapter.
3.6. Baseline Survey
3.6.1. For the purposes of the EIA, it is assumed that the baseline environment is the Application Site and its surroundings in its current condition. Baseline surveys of the Application Site and study area for each topic were carried out as part of the EIA and to inform the iterative design process.
3.7. Duration and Frequency of Effects
3.7.1. When undertaking an EIA, environmental effects are classified as either permanent or temporary, as appropriate to the effect in question. Permanent changes are those which are irreversible (e.g. permanent land take) or will last for the foreseeable future (e.g. noise from generated road traffic). The durations of temporary effects are listed as follows:
1) Short-term;
2) Medium-term; and
3) Long-term.
Environmental Statement 18
3.8. Assessment of Effects
3.8.1. In assessing the significance of potential effects identified through the EIA process, account has been taken as to whether effects are:
1) Positive effects: effects that have a beneficial influence on the environment;
2) Negative effects: effects that have an adverse influence on the environment;
3) Direct effects: effects that are caused by activities which are an integral part of the project;
4) Indirect effects: effects that are due to activities that are not part of the project;
5) Residual effects; effects that remain after the positive influence of mitigation and/or enhancement measures are taken into account; and
6) Cumulative effects; combined effects of the Proposed Development in combination with other projects.
3.9. Significance Criteria
3.9.1. The approach to assessing and assigning significance to an environmental effect is derived from a variety of sources including, in particular National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG), legislative requirements, topic-specific guidelines, standards and codes of practice, the EIA Regulations, advice from statutory consultees and other stakeholders and the expert judgement of the team undertaking the EIA.
3.9.2. Each topic assessment is carried out based upon significance criteria derived from topic specific legislation, planning policy and guidance. Further details can be found within the assessment methodology sections within each of the technical chapters.
3.10. Cumulative Assessment
3.10.1. The EIA Regulations require an EIA to consider cumulative effects i.e. the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development being carried out alongside any other reasonably foreseeable development in the locality. The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that regard should be had “to the possible cumulative effects
Environmental Statement 19
arising from any existing or approved development”. A cumulative assessment has been undertaken and is referred to in Chapter 16 of this ES.
3.11. Assessment Scenarios
3.11.1. The EIA has assessed the effects of the Proposed Development for the following scenarios:
1) Construction Phase: 2016-2024: The construction phase of the Proposed Development is predicted to take approximately 8 years;
2) Opening Year 2024: The assessment of environmental effects is undertaken for an opening year of 2024 when the Proposed Development should be operational and assumed to be at full capacity.
3) Design Year: A 'design year' (when the Proposed Development should be fully operational) applies to Landscape and Visual Impacts to allow for the maturation of landscape proposals. The design year refers to 15 years following completion, i.e. 2039.
Environmental Statement 20
4.0 Alternatives
4.1.1. Part I of Schedule 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 requires the applicant to “outline the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.” In this context, ‘alternatives’ may encompass both alternative sites and alternative forms of development for the subject site.
4.1.2. There is no obligation upon the Applicants to study specific alternatives. However, an explanation is required of those considered and their environmental effects. In this case the Applicant has considered alternative sites, although, as will be seen, it is not considered that there are any directly comparable alternative development sites in and around Grantham in terms of scale or environmental effects (in which exercise the choice of the location of the Proposed Development Site is considered; and, alternative development layouts of the Site).
4.2. Choice of the development site and potential alternatives
4.2.1. At an early stage in the production of the Core Strategy (CS) (see Chapter 5.0 – Planning Context) it was concluded that there was insufficient land, including previously developed land, within the built up area of Grantham to accommodate the scale of growth needed in the Town. It was accepted, therefore, that most of the needed housing requirement would have to be accommodated on greenfield urban extensions. Eight possible locations for such extensions were canvassed at Issues and Options stage of the Core Strategy. This was refined to three directions for growth in the Preferred Options, being those locations with least environmental constraints and potential capacity to deliver the required scale of development.
4.2.2. These three directions comprised the so-called North-West – (NWQ) and Southern (SQ) Quadrants (both of which were subsequently identified but not allocated in the adopted Core Strategy); and, a larger area (comprising the whole of the area bounded by High Road, the housing estate to the south, the East Coast Main Railway Line and Belton Lane), containing the Proposed Development Site (which, for ease of identification in this Chapter, is here referred to as the ‘Northern Quadrant’ [NQ]). As
Environmental Statement 21
the CS Examination Inspector subsequently noted in her Report, the SA and CI outcomes for all three locations revealed that each had positive and negative impacts.
4.2.3. In the event, the Council decided that the NWQ effectively continued the direction of growth already established in the preceding local plan, which made a sizeable housing allocation at ‘Poplar Farm’ (an area comprising a substantial proportion of the NWQ); and, that both it and the SQ had the potential to provide significant wider benefits through the associated construction of the Pennine Way Link and East–West Relief Road (A52), both of which pieces of infrastructure were, at the time, intended to be fully funded by those particular developments. Furthermore, the Council also concluded that the NQ, which was considerably smaller (and thus had more limited development capacity) than the other two prospective directions for growth, was too small to achieved the required levels of development and that such development could be accommodated on the two larger directions, without the need for the third one (see CS paragraph 5.1.6). It is clear, and should be noted in this context, that the Council was treating the three sites as competitors or alternative (combinations of) options to meet a specific target for housing to be accommodated on sustainable urban extensions. By contrast, the promoters of the Proposed Development have never seen it as an alternative to the NWQ and SQ, but rather as a complementary strategic development location adjoining the urban edge of Grantham, necessary to ensure that the development plan housing requirement (including the Grantham Growth Point) is delivered.
4.2.4. Part of the NQ, albeit encompassing a larger area than the Proposed Development the subject of this Planning Application and ES, was previously put forward as an additional SUE location in order to make the respective DPDs sound in both the Core Strategy and the Grantham Area Action Plan DPDs and were, accordingly, considered in the examinations of those DPDs. In both cases the sites considered were larger (more extensive) and accommodated more housing development than does the Proposed Development now. In terms, the then proposals were the same as that the subject of the Planning Application in 2010 and the Planning Appeal in 2011/12. (See Chapter 2.0).
Environmental Statement 22
4.2.5. The CS Inspector concluded that, in broad terms, there was no evidence to suggest that housing development would not be both feasible and deliverable in this location. However, given her conclusions elsewhere, to the effect that NWQ and SQ were adequate and appropriate in themselves and despite the acknowledged risks to delivery by relying only on those two identified directions for growth/sustainable urban extensions, there was no strong imperative for her to introduce another strategic location in the CS.
4.2.6. She also expressed some concern that to do so could deflect the current focus on delivering these SUEs to the detriment of the wider benefits this would bring for the Growth Point. In addition, given the intrinsic limitations of the examination process and the level of information available to her about the then site and its impacts (including on the environment of significant heritage assets and on the local highway network), she expressed reservations about identifying a strategic housing location without a full assessment of the potential impacts of it on the environment.
4.2.7. These factors reinforced her view that it was not necessary or appropriate, at that time (early 2010) to introduce this additional direction of growth within the CS. However, she went on to say that such a conclusion was not to rule out development in this location completely. She averred that the principle of extending the urban area of Grantham here is compatible with the spatial strategy in the development plan. She also observed that, in addition to the SUEs, the Grantham Area Action Plan (GAAP)(again see Chapter 5.0) would need to identify a range of sites within and on the edge of the built area in order to meet the housing target. Consideration of the location at that stage would allow detailed assessment of environmental impacts, striking the most appropriate and sustainable balance of sites in the light of anticipated levels of delivery from the SUEs. This is precisely what was expected to happen subsequently. However, in the event, as recorded in Chapter 5.0, the GAAP was, at the prompting of the examining inspector for that DPD, withdrawn before he reported on it formally including on the proposed allocations and omission sites (including the Application/Development Proposal Site) promoted by objectors to it.
Environmental Statement 23
4.2.8. The process by which a somewhat larger site (both in extent and scale of development) than the Application Site of the current Proposed Development (but still smaller than the site that has been identified above, for convenience, as the ‘NQ’ site), was promoted through a Planning Application and Appeal; and how the Proposed Development was formulated in response to the outcomes of that Application and that Appeal has been described elsewhere in this Statement (including in Chapter 2.0 and in the letters at Appendices 1.1. and 1.3).
4.2.9. The preceding commentary in this Chapter (and the commentary at Chapter 5.0 following) explains why the Application Site is still considered to be an appropriate and sustainable candidate for significant housing development on its merits.
Potential Alternative Sites
4.2.10. As a starting point, the latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) was interrogated in order to identify potential alternatives to the Application Site. In addition and, notwithstanding its subsequent abandonment, sites being promoted through the draft Grantham Area Action Plan (both proposed allocations and omission sites being promoted by objectors to the Plan) have also been considered.
4.2.11. This exercise has revealed that the range of potential housing sites in and on the edge of Grantham is in fact strictly limited.
4.2.12. The much larger NWQ and SQ sites, apart from their size and character, must be distinguished from the Application Site because they are explicitly identified as directions for growth in the adopted Core Strategy. Because the GAAP was abandoned, neither of these proposed/nascent SUEs have been examined and tested as proposed site allocations through a detailed/site-specific development plan exercise, which process has now effectively been overtaken by events.
4.2.13. Moreover, much (the ‘Poplar Farm’ part) of the NWQ already benefits from an outline planning permission granted before the adoption of the CS. Approvals of Reserved Matters have subsequently been granted and development is underway pursuant to these approvals. However, the balance of this identified location
Environmental Statement 24
remains uncommitted at this time and there is no outstanding planning application on it. Even this area is substantially larger than the Application Site and is of course intended to be a later (medium/long-term) phase of the overall NWQ SUE, so is in a different time frame to the Grantham North Application Site, but, given its current planning status and character, it was decided to consider it as a possible alternative site. It is not presently known whether any proposal for this area will be the subject of environmental impact assessment.
4.2.14. The SQ is the subject of a current, as yet undetermined, application for outline planning permission, encompassing the whole of the proposed development area. This Application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement Chapter 3.0 – ‘Consideration of Alternatives’ – of that Statement, does not identify any alternative sites.
4.2.15. There are no other sites of comparable size or character to the Application Site, which would thus be able to fulfil the same function in contributing to housing land supply, in or on the edge of Grantham, in the form of an integrated, mixed use, sustainable urban extension accommodating, in addition to housing, a range of on- site community facilities intended to meet the day-to-day needs of the occupants of the proposed housing
4.2.16. Two smaller greenfield sites: Land North of Dysart Road and East of the A1(T) – a proposed housing allocation in the GAAP; and, Land South of Barrowby Road and east of the A1 – a proposed employment allocation in the GAAP; which abut each other, have been identified. The former has a capacity of 250 houses and the latter of 300 houses. Thus, together these two discrete sites have an overall housing capacity similar to the Application Site. Coincidentally both are also the subject of current, as yet undetermined, planning applications. However, both applications are being considered separately on their individual merits by the Local Planning Authority and not as a consolidated development therefore. They are separately accessed and there is no shared infrastructure. Neither development proposal encompasses on- site facilities, other than play- and some informal open space
Environmental Statement 25
4.2.17. Notwithstanding that the three sites discussed above are not judged to be genuine alternatives, all four candidates: NWQ Phase 2; land north of Dysart Road; land south of the Barrowby Road; and, the Application Site; have been subjected to a comparative assessment adopting, where relevant, the appraisal methodology used in the preparation of the GAAP, which is considered to be appropriate and is the most up-to-date such methodology available, but with some refinement to take account of the latest information (for example the information derived from the EIA exercise for the Proposed Development and provided with the Planning Applications for land south of Barrowby Road and the land north of Dysart Road). [The assessment has examined the key or main significant environmental effects comparatively as required by Schedule 2 Part II Paragraph 2]
4.2.18. The outcome of this comparative exercise reveals that each site has positive and negative impacts. On a balanced analysis and given the growth imperative it is clear that the Application Site performs well in comparison to these notional alternatives overall.
4.3. Alternative development proposals for the proposed development application site considered by the applicants
4.3.1. In formulating the Proposed Development the subject of this planning application, careful regard has been had to a previous proposal made to the Council under planning application Ref. S10/0142/EIAOL dated 22 January 2010. That proposal, being of a significantly greater scale and development area than that now being proposed, comprised:
A sustainable urban extension to Grantham comprising: up to 1,000 dwelling houses (UCO Class C3); a continuing care retirement community (CCRC)(UCO Class C2); a neighbourhood centre (incorporating a primary school [UCO Class D1] primary healthcare and community assembly facilities [UCOI Class D1] and small scale [maximum 750 square metres] convenience shopping [UCO Class A1, A3 and A5] facilities); a public house (UCO Class A4) and lodge hotel (UCO Class C1); ancillary formal playing field/play areas and informal open space (including structural landscaping and bio-diversity enhancement areas; and access works, including alterations to the A607, High Road/Belton Lane Junction.
Environmental Statement 26
4.3.2. An Appeal (PINS ref. APP/E2530/A/11/2150609) against a refusal of that application (dated 12 January 2012) was lodged and subsequently recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination.
4.3.3. Following a public local inquiry in November 2011 and a report by the Inspector, Terry G Phillimore, dated 12 January 2012, it was dismissed by a Secretary of State Decision Letter dated 1 March 2012.
4.3.4. The Applicants have paid careful attention to the reasons given by the Secretary of State in his Decision Letter and to the constraints and opportunities presented by the Application Site in drawing up the current development proposal. Following independent peer review and advice on landscape and heritage considerations and a careful review of transport and sustainability issues, the Proposed Development has emerged, constraint-led, but also embracing the major opportunities available here to produce a high quality sustainable development adjoining the urban edge of Grantham area that is readily deliverable.
The Proposed Development, taking advantage of the opportunities now presented, proposes the following changes when compared with the previous proposals:
4.3.5. A significant reduction in the extent of the developed area (by some 17.16 hectares/52% [from a Net Developable Area of 33 to 15.84 hectares]), principally to the north of the Application Site and within the eastern extents of the Application Site. This involves drawing back the northern edge of the Proposed Development generally to the southern side of the 132 Kv Over Head Line (OHL) and the removal of all built development from the area north of the electricity line, which is the most visible part of the Application Site in views to and from Belton Park and in the wider landscape. These changes enable this area to retain its existing open character (and continue in productive agricultural use) and significantly enhance the landscape fabric through carefully considered native species tree and hedgerow planting consistent with and reinforcing its historic character, thereby preserving the heritage value of Belton Park, Belmont Tower and other nearby built heritage receptors.
Environmental Statement 27
4.3.6. The Proposed Development incorporates a number of further amendments, including the following:
Retention of the 132 Kv. OHL along the northern edge of the Application Site.
A 45% reduction in the number of dwelling houses from up to 1000 to 550 and the deletion of the Continuing Care Retirement Community;
A smaller, relocated neighbourhood centre;
Relocation of the proposed primary school;
Deletion of a new healthcare facility within the neighbourhood centre;
The deletion of the public house and lodge hotel development; and
The abandonment of the previously promoted four-arm roundabout at the junction of the A607, High Road and Belton Lane and, in its place, two new principal vehicular accesses to serve the development, through the extension of Longcliffe Road northwards and eastwards into the Site, which will then continue through to a new priority junction on Belton Lane.
4.3.7. The cumulative effect of these changes is to significantly reduce the size and potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Development in comparison with its predecessor
4.3.8. The precise extent of the developed area and the layout of development within it has been the subject of an extended constraints and opportunities process throughout 2014 and 2015 to date, resulting in the Illustrative Master Plan and Parameters Plans that support the Proposed Development. In summary, this was a collaborative exercise masterplan-led within the multi-disciplinary design team which exercise was, however, at all times, primarily landscape and heritage-led. During this time a number of development options were explored and these have been discussed in the Design and Access Statement and accompanying Chapters on Landscape and Built Heritage.
4.3.9. In late 2014 the prospective Applicants undertook a public consultation event (including a public exhibition), and simultaneously consulted with key
Environmental Statement 28
stakeholders, such as, the Local Planning Authority, English Heritage and Lincolnshire County Council as Local Highway Authority. This exercise was based on a development similar in scale and extent to that which is now being promoted, but with a single point of vehicular access/egress (via Longcliffe Road) to the majority of the Application Site, with slightly more development to the immediate west of Manthorpe Grange, served off Rosedale Drive and with a more extensive SUDS scheme.
4.3.10. The public and stakeholder consultation exercise revealed local concerns about the reliance on one principal point of vehicular access/egress and about the amount of development served by the secondary access/egress via Rosedale Drive.
4.3.11. These issues, together with the results of refined transport modelling and drainage design, were then taken into account in developing the revised masterplan/layout option which upon which the Proposed Development is now based.
4.3.12. The principal differences between the current scheme and that consulted upon in 2014 are:
the introduction of a second main vehicular access/egress (on Belton Lane), with a through route between the two accesses in place of an extended cul-de- sac access/egress;
a reduction in the amount and physical extent of development served of the Rosedale Drive (and thus in the extent of built development here);
a rationalisation and reduction in the extent of the SUDS mitigation;
refinement of the siting, layout and design of the noise mitigation bund alongside the East Coast Main Railway Line;
development of the landscape design and bio-diversity measures;
4.3.13. At the same time these and other amendments were reviewed and tested by the Design Team, with the benefit of a developing, enhanced information/evidence base as the results of the various EIA studies have become available.
Environmental Statement 29
4.3.14. Amongst other things, this has allowed a better, more detailed, understanding of the constraints and opportunities of development here, as reflected in the Masterplan, the Parameters Plans and the Phasing Plan (Figures 2.1 to 2.6).
4.3.15. Because the location, layout and design of the Proposed Development within the available area has been constraint-, and particularly topography-, landscape- and heritage-led, and is based on sound spatial planning principles and parameters, there is neither scope, nor need for the consideration of radically different alternatives. Indeed, as the other Chapters of this Environmental Statement clearly demonstrate by reference to a wide range of environmental effects, the Proposed Development represents the optimal solution for the Site, both in terms of avoiding and minimising adverse effects.
4.4. Conclusions
4.4.1. Part I of Schedule 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 requires the applicant to “outline the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.” In this context, ‘alternatives’ may encompass both alternative sites and alternative forms of development for the subject site.
4.4.2. There is no obligation upon the Applicants to study specific alternatives. However, an explanation is required of those considered and their environmental effects. In this case the Applicant has considered whether there are genuine alternative sites that fall to be studied.
4.4.3. The range of potential alternative housing sites in and on the edge of Grantham is limited. There are no other sites of comparable size or character to the Application Site, which would thus be able to fulfil the same function in contributing to housing land supply, in or on the edge of Grantham.
4.4.4. Three other sites – NWQ Phase 2; land south of Barrowby Road; and land north of Dysart Road; were, along with the Application Site, subjected to an exercise in broadly comparing environmental effects, based on professional judgement.
Environmental Statement 30
4.4.5. The outcome of this comparative exercise reveals that none of these sites constitute genuine alternatives. Furthermore, each of the sites considered has positive and negative impacts. On a balanced analysis and, given the growth imperative in Grantham, the Application Site performs well in comparison to these notional alternatives overall.
4.4.6. Taking as a starting point the proposal the subjective of the preceding planning application and appeal on the site in 2010/12 and having regard to the critique of that proposal by the Appeal Inspector and the Secretary of State, the professional team undertook an entirely new appraisal of the Application Site. The Proposed Development has emerged from that appraisal, constraint-led, but also embracing the major opportunities available with the objective of producing a high quality sustainable development adjoining the northern urban edge of Grantham. The Proposed Development is primarily topography-, landscape- and heritage-led, but has also been informed by a rigorous assessment of other impacts, including, amongst others: Transport, Noise, Air Quality, Ecology and Social and Economic Impacts.
4.4.7. The Proposal Development has evolved through an iterative review process, responding to: the comments of the Local Planning Authority and technical stakeholders; to the results of a community consultation exercise; the environmental impact assessment process; and to design development. This process has endorsed the core location, layout and design principles adopted at the outset, with the result that there has been no need to consider radically different development alternatives for the Site, but rather a series of progressive amendments and refinements.
Environmental Statement 31
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 32
5.0 Planning Policy Context
5.1. The provisions of the development plan
Introduction
5.1.1. The development plan for the purposes of Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, comprises the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy (CS) Development Plan Document (DPD) and the adopted Site Allocation and Policies DPD, which sets out site specific allocations and policies for the whole of the District apart from the Grantham area, together with certain saved policies from the South Kesteven Local Plan 1995.
5.1.2. It had been intended that a suite of complementary DPDs would be completed with the Grantham Area Action Plan which would have set out site specific allocations and policies for the Grantham area, thereby completing geographical coverage of the District. However, on 7 January 2013, South Kesteven District Council resolved to withdraw the Grantham Area Action Plan and instead to bring forward a new comprehensive Local Plan for South Kesteven. This new Local Plan, which will eventually supersede the existing DPDs and will cover the whole of the District for the period 2011 to 2036, is still in its early stages of preparation.
5.1.3. Planning Documents (SPD). Of these, the only one relevant to the Application the subject of this Environmental Statement is the Planning Obligations SPD, adopted by the Council in June 2012.
The South Kesteven Core Strategy DPD
5.1.4. The Core Strategy (CS) for the District was adopted in 2010, and provides strategic policies to guide development throughout the District.
5.1.5. In 2007, along with a number of other towns in England, Grantham was awarded ‘Growth Point’ status by the then Government and as a consequence, it has since been anticipated that the Town would be a focus for significant and sustainable population and economic growth - 7,500 new homes and up to 4,000 new jobs by
Environmental Statement 33
2026. It anticipates a population increase in the Town of over 30% to approximately 60,000 people by 2026. The development of new housing, employment premises and provision of jobs would simultaneously be supported by substantial investment in retail provision, as well as the social and physical infrastructure required to meet the needs of the increased population. A budget of £6m was granted by the Department of Communities & Local Government to assist in delivering the growth ambitions. Grantham Growth is led by a partnership between South Kesteven District Council and Lincolnshire County Council with an agreed strategic programme and seeking to work closely with the private sector to deliver growth.
5.1.6. Growth Point status has therefore underpinned spatial planning and social and economic regeneration strategies for Grantham over the subsequent eight years including in the Core Strategy.
5.1.7. Amongst the Core Strategy Objectives that are particularly relevant to the Application Proposals are:
Objective 6: To promote and strengthen the role of Grantham as a Sub-Regional Centre, and properly plan and deliver the additional housing growth expected by the Grantham Growth Point and the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Objective 7: To ensure that new residential development includes a mix and range of housing types which are suitable for a variety of needs, including the need for affordable and local need housing in the District
Objective 11: To support new and existing community infrastructure, and to ensure that relevant community and other infrastructure costs such as facilities for leisure, open space, green infrastructure, health, education, affordable housing, transport, water infrastructure and the arts, arising from new development, are delivered through on- and off-site contributions.
5.1.8. The Application Proposals can be assessed against the following relevant policies in the Strategy (These Policies and their supporting explanatory text are attached at Appendix 5.1):
Environmental Statement 34
SP1 Spatial Strategy:
5.1.9. This focuses the majority of development in the District on Grantham to support and strengthen its role as a Sub-Regional Centre and to reflect its Growth Point status. New development proposals will be considered on appropriate, sustainable and deliverable brownfield sites and appropriate greenfield sites (including urban extensions), sufficient to ensure the achievement of growth targets. Details of specific sites (including urban extension sites) were to have been included in the Grantham Area Action Plan. However, as noted above, that Plan has subsequently been abandoned (7 January 2013) and there is no extant site allocations document pursuant to the Core Strategy. The Application Site is located adjoining the built-up area of Grantham and the Proposed Development would be sustainably located, well-related and well-linked to the rest of the Town. It accords with Policy SP1 therefore.
SP4 Developer Contributions:
5.1.10. The Application sets out the proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms relating to a proposed CIL-compliant Planning Obligation, to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement, in accordance with the terms of this Policy. See also the commentary on the Planning Obligations SPD below.
EN1 Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District:
5.1.11. The submitted Design & Access Statement and this Environmental Statement explain how the proposed development takes into account the policies and proposals of the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (January 2007), the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (July 2006) and the Framework amongst other background documents.
5.1.12. The Planning Application Proposals are appropriate and complementary to the character of the local landscape and environmental features. The submitted Design and Access Statement, the Parameters Plans and Illustrative Masterplan, amongst other Application Documents, demonstrate how local features have been taken into
Environmental Statement 35
account in the scheme design. As demonstrated in Section 5.2 below, the Proposed Development constitutes ‘sustainable development’ as defined in the Framework.
EN2 Reducing the Risk of Flooding:
5.1.13. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy take into account the recommendations of the Grantham Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009) and demonstrate how surface water discharge will be controlled through SUDs features, to ensure the development does not have an adverse impact upon local drainage.
EN4: Sustainable Construction and Design:
5.1.14. The submitted Design and Access Statement describes how the Application Proposals will create a new place that is sustainable, and will simultaneously meet the needs of its new community, including its future generations. The Masterplan seeks to demonstrate how a sustainable development and a high quality of life that improves economic, social and environmental wellbeing will be delivered.
H1 Residential Development:
5.1.15. This Policy specifies that housing growth for the District should be focused at Grantham with at least 6,992 dwellings to be provided in the period 2008-2026. The 550 dwellings proposed on the Application Site will make a significant contribution towards this provision and the objectives of the South Kesteven Housing Strategy (SKHS) 2013-2018, particularly in the short to medium term, and will help to overcome the current shortfall in housing land supply.
5.1.16. The SKHS 2013-2018 is the product of consultation with a range of stakeholders and draws upon multiple data sources in setting out an ambitious vision for the future of the District within the context of the corporate priority of creating the environment to support good housing for all. Supporting that corporate priority are four strategic housing priorities:
Priority 1: High quality new affordable homes available to buy or rent;
Priority 2: Improved housing standards across the district and for all tenures;
Priority 3: Access to housing and wellbeing services;
Environmental Statement 36
Priority 4: Promotion of sustainable neighbourhoods and communities.
5.1.17. The proposed development will comply with all of these priorities.
H3 Affordable Housing:
5.1.18. The Application Proposal includes provision for affordable housing in accordance with this Policy through the agency of the proposed Section 106 Planning Obligation.
E2 Retail Development:
5.1.19. The proposed neighbourhood centre within the proposed development will accommodate limited convenience retail facilities, to meet the day-to-day needs of the local community, comprising both the new residents of the development and those already living in the area, and will not compete with the retail function of Grantham Town Centre.
5.1.20. It can be seen from the foregoing that the Proposed Development complies with all of the Core Strategy policies listed above.
5.1.21. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is of relevance that the Core Strategy was adopted in 2010, is based on supporting evidence, strategies, guidance and policy from a number of older national, regional and local documents and other sources which are now largely redundant and have been superseded by more up-to-date material. Thus, it clearly pre-dates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Moreover, its development requirements and the evidence base underpinning them are derived from outdated Census data and demographic projections and from the abolished East Midlands Regional Plan.
5.1.22. The Council has apparently undertaken a review of the Core Strategy to assess its compliance with the Framework, concluding that it was compliant in all material respects, However, this review has not been published and not made available to the Applicant. An independent audit of this exercise has not been possible therefore. Moreover, the datedness of the evidence base and the fact that the Council cannot presently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (See the Framework paragraph
Environmental Statement 37
49 [op cit Section 5.2]) casts doubt on the contention that the development plan is, after all, Framework compliant. Thus, DLP Planning Consultants, on behalf of the Applicants, has undertaken an independent review of the housing land supply in South Kesteven District and concluded that the supply is significantly less than five years. (See Appendix 1 to the Spatial Planning Statement submitted with the Planning Application the subject of this ES). As will be seen from the commentary below at 5.2.15 to 5.2.17 inclusive below, this has implications for the Policy in the Framework at paragraphs 14, 47 and 49.
5.1.23. It is also relevant to any assessment of how up-to-date the development plan is that the Grantham Area Action Plan has been withdrawn by the Council. This decision was evidently a response to strong reservations about its soundness expressed by the Inspector appointed to examine it. As noted above, this was to have been one of two complementary site allocation development plan documents (along with the Site Allocations DPD [see below]) giving effect to the Core Strategy.
5.1.24. Indeed, given the key distributional strategy of concentrating development (including housing) in Grantham encompassed by the Core Strategy, this was arguably the most important of the two site allocation plans and its loss was therefore instrumental in the failure to meet the Core Strategy housing trajectory and in rendering the Core Strategy out-of-date.
5.1.25. The section of the recently-published Regulation 18 Consultation on the New Local Plan explaining the need for this Plan endorses the above analysis. Thus it states that there is a need to review/update the Core Strategy to take account of national planning policy changes and to cover the absence of up to date policies and allocations in Grantham. It goes on to state that the District Council, together with its Housing Market Area partners (Rutland County Council, Peterborough City Council and South Holland District Council), has published (in August 2014) a new Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which provides evidence about emerging housing needs for the period to 2036
5.1.26. The Core Strategy is, therefore, out of date by reference to policy in the NPPF (the Framework) as set out in Section 5.2 below.
Environmental Statement 38
Site Allocation and Polices DPD
5.1.27. The Council adopted the Site Allocation and Policies DPD (SAP DPD) on the 17April 2014.
5.1.28. Although the SAP DPD does not generally relate to the Grantham Area, there is one policy that is relevant to this Proposed Development as it relates to Belton House and Grounds, that is Policy SAP 11.
SAP11 Protecting and Enhancing the Setting of Belton House and Park
5.1.29. This Policy notes that Belton House and its Historic Park and Garden are nationally and internationally significant heritage assets located in close proximity to the northern edge of the existing built-up area of Grantham. Protecting and enhancing their setting, using the Belton House and Park Setting study to inform the assessment of the impacts, is important to maintaining their significance as heritage assets. Proposals will need to demonstrate what, if any, impact there will be on the setting of Belton House and Park through the preparation of a Heritage Impact Statement, and how through their location, scale, design, landscaping and materials they have taken account of the setting of Belton, and that any adverse impacts have been removed and/or mitigated. The Application Proposal is fundamentally landscape- and heritage-led and the layout and design of the development, as expressed in the Master Plan and Design and Access Statement, has been conceived to avoid any impact of Proposed Development on Belton House and Park. In its location, scale, design, landscaping and materials, the proposal has taken full account of the setting of the House and Park. The Heritage Impact Statement that forms a chapter in this Environmental Statement concludes that the impact of the development on heritage assets is ‘less than substantial’ and, furthermore, that in practice, such impacts as there are will not to cause any material harm to those assets. The proposed development is full in compliance with Policy SAP11 of the SADPD.
Environmental Statement 39
The South Kesteven Local Plan 1995
5.1.30. Certain saved policies from the 1995 Local Plan remain in force. They are essentially policies setting out open space standards in Grantham that would have been superseded by the provisions of the Grantham Area Action Plan had it been pursued. They are:
Policy REC3 Public Open Space and New Housing Development (Grantham)
Policy REC4 Playing Fields Provision in New Residential Developments (Grantham)
Policy REC5 Play Space Provision in New Residential Developments (Grantham)
Policy REC7 Allotments (Grantham)
5.1.31. These policies have been fully taken into account and the standards set out in them have been applied to the proposed development. This is noted in the relevant supporting documents to this Planning Application, including the Design and Access Statement and the Spatial Planning Statement. (See also the Socio-Economic Impacts Chapter of this Statement).
New Local Plan
5.1.32. As noted above, the Core Strategy is now out of date. The Council has now embarked on the preparation of a new style Local Plan. That process is still at an early stage however. So far, as noted above, only a Regulation 18 Consultation has been undertaken.
5.1.33. One of the first elements of the evidence base for this new Local Plan is an up-to-date Peterborough Sub Regional Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The review undertaken by DLP Planning Consultants at Appendix 1 of the Spatial Planning Statement also includes a full objective assessment of (housing) need (FOAN) based on the SHMA data. This assessment suggests that additional housing provision will need to be made even without the carrying forward of the Growth Point designation for Grantham.
Environmental Statement 40
The Planning Obligations SPD
5.1.34. This Supplementary Planning Document which has been drawn up pursuant to Core Strategy SP4 (see 5.1.8.2 above) is intended to amplify and give effect to that Policy and, amongst other things, to help to ensure development proposals make a positive contribution to sustainable development by providing social, economic and environmental mitigation which considers the community as a whole. It states that contributions will only be sought from development where there is a recognised need to mitigate the impact of the development proposal. The SPD makes clear that the full list of Planning Obligation requirements set out in it would not be required from every development proposal. Thus, if there is sufficient infrastructure capacity within the catchment area of the development site e.g. sufficient spare capacity within the school to accommodate the pupil numbers generated by development, then contributions will not be sought unnecessarily.
5.1.35. The SPD explains how the section 106 Planning Obligation mechanism works, how it relates to Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 and the provisions of that Regulation.
5.1.36. Finally, it lists the specific categories of community infrastructure for which contributions may be sought.
5.1.37. The Application the subject of this ES and the S106 Planning Obligation ‘Heads of Terms’ submitted with the Application have been drawn up with full regard to the provisions of this SPD.
5.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (‘The Framework’)
5.2.1. At paragraph 6 the Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
5.2.2. At paragraph 7 it sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic; social and environmental. These dimensions give rise in turn to the need for the planning system to perform three roles:
Environmental Statement 41
An economic role – contributing to building a string, responsive and competitive economy.
A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations;
An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.
5.2.3. Paragraph 8 of the Framework states that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.
5.2.4. Paragraph 9 continues by saying that pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):
making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;
moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature
replacing poor design with better design;
improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure;
widening the choice of high quality homes
5.2.5. The material contained in the documents submitted with the Planning Application the subject of this Environmental Statement and in the Statement itself, demonstrates that the proposed development will provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits, consistent with the roles of the planning system cited in Paragraph 7 of the Framework. Thus, it will stimulate and support (both directly and indirectly) sustainable economic development through the delivery of
Environmental Statement 42
up to 550 (market and affordable) homes, together with the requisite physical, transportation and community infrastructure, without harm to the environment, facilitating the growth of Grantham and contributing to the meeting of the area’s (economic and social) needs in a sustainable manner. These facilities will delivered an integrated fashion with, amongst other features, a high quality of layout, design and environment, and with a net gain in bio-diversity. Thus, as the material contained in the documents submitted with the Planning Application the subject of this Environmental Statement and in the Statement itself demonstrates, development will accord also with the policy at Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Framework.
5.2.6. At paragraph 14 the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development – the “golden thread” running through both plan-making and decision-taking process. Planning law (Section 38[6] of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70[2] of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 14 continues, under the sub heading “For decision- taking this means:”
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Environmental Statement 43
5.2.7. The material contained in the documents submitted with the Planning Application the subject of this Environmental Statement and in the Statement itself, demonstrates that the proposed development accords with the provisions of the development plan but, insofar as the development plan (the Core Strategy) is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date (as contended in Section 5.1. above):
The Application proposal constitutes ‘sustainable development within the meaning of the framework;
Any adverse impacts are marginal, can be satisfactorily avoided through careful design and are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits; and,
No specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
Accordingly, it is concluded that the Application Proposals in this case amount to Sustainable Development within the terms of Paragraph 14 of the Framework and should, therefore, attract the positive presumption set out in this Paragraph.
5.2.8. Paragraph 17 of the Framework sets out 12 core planning principles which underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These principles can be summarised as follows: Planning should
be genuinely plan-led by succinct and up-to-date local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area;
be not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives;
proactively drive and support economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made to objectively identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area and respond positively to the wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area;
Environmental Statement 44
it should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity;
take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside;
planning should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate;
it should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in the Framework;
encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;
it should promote mixed use-developments;
it should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance;
it should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible uses of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable; and,
it should take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well-being for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.
The material contained in the documents submitted with the Planning Application the subject of this Environmental Statement and in the Statement itself, demonstrate how the proposed development will comply with all but one of these principles. So far as the 8th principle is concerned, the development plan accepts that the development needs of the District cannot be met by the exclusive, or even predominant use of previously developed land and that most new development will need to be accommodated on greenfield sites therefore. Thus, both the proposed Sustainable Urban Extensions identified in the Core
Environmental Statement 45
Strategy and most of the major candidates for other allocations in the withdrawn Grantham Area Action Plan are greenfield sites.
5.2.9. At paragraph 32 the Framework states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:
the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;
safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and
improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
5.2.10. At paragraph 35, it is stated that plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to:
accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;
give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;
create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;
incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and
consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.
Environmental Statement 46
5.2.11. Paragraph 36 states that a key tool to facilitate the securing of the features listed in Paragraph 35 will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.
5.2.12. The Transport Assessment, Transport chapter in this ES and Travel Plan submitted with this planning application demonstrate full compliance with the policies at paragraphs 32, 35 and 36 of the Framework, including each of the specific points listed in each of the paragraphs.
5.2.13. The Framework NPPF continues at paragraph 37 that planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.
5.2.14. Paragraph 38 says that for larger scale residential developments in particular, planning policies should promote a mix of uses in order to provide opportunities to undertake day-to-day activities including work on site. Where practical, particularly within large-scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties. The Application proposals fully comply with the policy at Paragraphs 37 and 38.
5.2.15. Section 6 of the Framework is entitled “Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes” and paragraph 47 opens by stating: “To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:
use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years-worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record
Environmental Statement 47
of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.
5.2.16. Paragraph 49 continues that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.2.17. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
5.2.18. With respect to the policy set out in Paragraphs 47 and 49, as noted at 5.1.11 above, the Applicants have commissioned an audit of the Council’s current Housing Land Supply, which also includes an objective assessment of housing need in the District based in the emerging SHMA. It demonstrates that there is NOT currently a 5 year housing land supply in South Kesteven District in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework and it is considered, therefore, that, in accordance with Paragraph 49, the relevant policies for the supply of housing are not up to date and that the Paragraph 14 presumption described at paragraph 5.2.7 of this Chapter should apply accordingly.
5.2.19. Section 7 (Paragraphs 56 et seq.) of the Framework sets out the Government’s policies in relation to requiring good design of the built environment, emphasizing that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The material contained in the documents submitted with the Planning Application (including the Design and Access Statement and the Illustrative Masterplan) the subject of this Environmental Statement and in the Statement itself, demonstrates that the scheme design is fundamentally landscape- heritage- and design-led. It has been carefully formulated so as to produce a scheme of high design quality, including high-quality landscaping, and high sustainability.
Environmental Statement 48
5.2.20. Section 8 (paragraphs 69 et seq.) is concerned with promoting healthy communities. Paragraph 69 states that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve places which promote:
opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and active street frontages which bring together those who work, live and play in the vicinity;
safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and,
safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas.
The Application Proposals demonstrate full compliance with these principles
5.2.21. Paragraph 70 goes on to say that in order to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;
ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.
5.2.22. Once again, this policy is fully reflected in the Application Proposals.
5.2.23. Paragraph 73 states that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well- being of communities. The Application proposals make generous provision for high quality open space in the proposed development which fully meet the locally
Environmental Statement 49
defined standards. (See 5.1.18 above and the Socio-Economic Chapter of this Statement).
5.2.24. Paragraph 75 states that planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and access. Local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.
5.2.25. The Proposed Development provide for the integration of the existing public right of way crossing the site from east to west into the development and for new linkages into the local footpath and cycleway network beyond the site.
5.2.26. Section 10 (paragraph 93 et seq.) of the Framework addresses the issue of meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Paragraph 95 states that to support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should, amongst other things, plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
5.2.27. The Site is in a strategically accessible and sustainable location on the edge of Grantham. The proposals have been formulated to take full advantage of this location and to integrate closely with the rest of the urban area by a range of transport modes, including public transport, walking and cycling. (see also the Transport Chapter of this ES and the Transport Assessment).
5.2.28. Section 11 (paragraph 109 et seq.) is concerned with conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst other things:
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the
Environmental Statement 50
overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
5.2.29. The measures incorporated in the Development Proposals will amount to a significant improvement and net benefit in bio-diversity. Paragraph 110 states that, in preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land for development with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in the Framework. As recorded in the preceding paragraph, the Site, and specifically that part which is intended to be occupied by built development is, for the most part, intensively-cultivated arable land with little environmental or amenity value. The Proposed Development will significantly increase the amount of land with amenity value, which is also publically accessible, in this area.
5.2.30. Paragraph 112 of the Framework continues that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. As noted in the Soils Chapter of this ES, the Application Site is ALC grading 3b and thus does not fall in to the best and most versatile category. The preceding paragraphs record that, generally, the Site comprises intensively-cultivated arable land which has little environmental or amenity value. There are no national or local landscape or biodiversity designations affecting the Site.
5.2.31. The Proposed Development retains and incorporates and creates features of environmental and amenity value, including mature trees and hedgerows, all of which are referred to in more detail in the Landscape and Ecology chapter of this ES. Thus it results in a net gain in amenity value.
5.2.32. Paragraph 123 states that planning policies and decisions should, amongst other things, aim to:
Environmental Statement 51
avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;
mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;
recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established.
5.2.33. This Environmental Statement includes an Acoustic Chapter which, amongst other things, discusses a Noise Assessment of the development that has been undertaken addressing the impact of noise from the principal noise source in the vicinity, the East Coast Main Railway Line. The Assessment demonstrates that noise from the latter can be satisfactorily mitigated. It also shows that, apart from highly localised and generally short term impacts, the development itself will not result in a significant adverse impact on the local noise environment. Planning conditions are proposed to regulate noise from construction activity.
5.2.34. Paragraph 124 states that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan. The development does not fall within an AQMA, but Grantham Town Centre does. It is necessary, therefore, to address the marginal impact of the Proposed Development on the Town Centre AQMA. This is referred to in more detail in the Air Quality chapter of this ES. The assessment set out therein has demonstrated that the Proposed Development will not lead to an unacceptable risk from air pollution, or to any breach in national objectives, or to a failure to comply with the Habitats Regulations as required by national policy. Thus, there are
Environmental Statement 52
no material reasons in relation to air quality why the proposed scheme should not proceed, subject to appropriate planning conditions.
5.2.35. Paragraph 125 states that by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. A Lighting Assessment has been undertaken and is appended to the Landscape and Visual Impact Chapter of the ES. Its findings and recommendations have informed the design of the development and will continue to do so through the detailed design/approval of reserved matters stage. In formulating the Application Proposals, therefore, full regard has been had to this policy in the Framework.
5.2.36. Section 12 of the Framework is concerned with conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Paragraph 128 states that, in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation..
5.2.37. Paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
Environmental Statement 53
the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
5.2.38. Paragraph 132 continues by stating when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
5.2.39. Paragraph 134 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
5.2.40. A Built Heritage and a Cultural Heritage chapter has been prepared as part of this ES, which demonstrates that full and specific regard has been had to heritage assets in the surrounding area and that the impact of the Proposed Development on local heritage assets is less than substantial. However, that Chapter also concludes that the actual impact of the development on heritage assets is marginal and does not in practice amount to any material harm to these assets.
5.2.41. In summary, the Application Proposals meet all the relevant policies of the Framework by:
Delivering Sustainable Development: The Application Site located in a sustainable location on the edge of the built up area of Grantham. Local facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of residents, including a neighbourhood centre - comprising convenience shopping, a primary school, and community assembly facilities - playing fields, children’s play space, allotments and a community orchard and open space for informal; recreation, including walking, are proposed. An extension of the existing bus-service operating in the vicinity into the Application Site, together with new footpath and cycleway links are
Environmental Statement 54
proposed giving the new residents a choice of transport mode. This is set out in more detail in the Travel Plan.
The Design and Access Statement sets out how carbon use will be controlled and managed.
Delivering a Wide Choice of Quality Homes: Within the proposed maximum of 550 dwellings there will be a wide range of house types. There will also be an appropriate proportion of affordable housing. The development will provide a range and choice of housing opportunities therefore..
Delivering Good Design: The design principles set out in the Framework are reflected in the Design and Access Statement and in Illustrative Masterplan, which aim to deliver an attractive, high quality development where people want to live and work and where they can enjoy a healthy lifestyle. The Framework also expects applicants to take account of the views of the community. The submitted Statement of Community Involvement sets out how the local community’s comments have been taken into account.
Promoting Healthy Communities: The Proposed Development will incorporate a range of public open space and facilities to encourage walking and cycling by providing new routes and links to existing rights of way, including those giving access to the surrounding open countryside. The proposed neighbourhood centre will include a good range of community facilities, including a primary school, community assembly facilities and shops, all within walking distance of the rest of the development and indeed of adjoining areas of Grantham. This will facilitate social interaction and engagement.
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment: The Proposals have been landscape-led and are sensitive to landscape context of the Site. The Application Site has limited biodiversity and is lacking in variety and quality of wildlife habitats at present. Provision for new and enhanced habitats and increasing biodiversity have been consciously designed in to the Application Proposals and these are described in the relevant supporting documents. They represent significant benefits to the community. The Application Proposals involve the loss of only Grade 3B agricultural land.
Environmental Statement 55
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment: The Application Proposals have been formulated explicitly to avoid any impacts of Proposed Development on, nearby heritage assets. Such impact as there will be to these assets is less than substantial and, in practice so marginal as not to cause any material harm to them. In any event, the impacts, such as they are, are significantly outweighed by the other public benefits of the development.
Environmental Statement 56
6.0 Introduction
6.1. The Scope of this chapter
6.1.1. The Socio Economic Impact Assessment contained in this Chapter predicts the socio-economic impacts, arising from the Proposed Development and sets out the potential impacts therefrom and the measures required/proposed to avoid them.
6.1.2. The EIA Regulations identify the need to describe: “aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population… (and) material assets”.
6.1.3. Section 6.2 of this Chapter sets out the methodology adopted, Section 6.3 identifies the relevant planning policy; Section 6.4 the baseline conditions for the study area; Section 6.5 identifies and quantifies the socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development; Section 6.6 provides a summary of measures which avoid significant adverse effects, including those embedded in and integral to the development, or contained in a Planning Obligation; and 6.7 considers Indirect and Cumulative impacts and Impact Interactions. The final section includes the conclusions of the Assessment.
6.2. Methodology
6.2.1. There is no generally recognised methodology or guidance for assessing the significance of potential socio-economic effects of development in environmental statements.
6.2.2. The methodology adopted in drafting this Chapter has involved interrogating: National Census Data and other information published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), including Household and other demographic projections; information and data published by Government Departments and Local Authorities; standards set out in development plan documents and supplementary planning documents; and, the expressed requirements of key stakeholders in relation to the Proposed Development.
Environmental Statement 57
6.2.3. Given the nature of the anticipated socio–economic effects of the Development and of the above-cited information sources, in the professional judgement of the authors of this Chapter it was not necessary in this case to carry out any dedicated project- related surveys or data collection.
6.2.4. The identification of sensitive receptors for which impact predictions are made in this Chapter has been done on the basis of common professional practice/the professional judgement of the authors, of the analysis of relevant planning policy and of the findings of the baseline conditions. The identified receptors are:
Population
Housing
Education
Health Care
Community Facilities, including Sport, leisure & Recreation facilities
Open Space
The Economy
6.2.5. Effects have been defined as:
Negligible/No effect: either no change or no detectable change to a location, environment or sensitive receptor;
Minor: a detectable but non-material change to a location, environment or sensitive receptor;
Moderate: a material, but non-fundamental change to a location, environment or sensitive receptor; or,
Major: a fundamental change to a location, environment or sensitive receptor or in breach of recognised legislation, policy or standards
6.2.6. It is important to appreciate that the main elements of the Proposed Development that are relevant to socio-economic effects are integral to it and do not constitute
Environmental Statement 58
mitigation of those effects, but in themselves render discrete mitigation unnecessary.
6.3. Planning Policy Context
6.3.1. The Planning Policy context is set out fully in Chapter 5 of this Statement.
6.3.2. The provisions of the development plan relevant to the socio-economic effects of the Proposed Development are: South Kesteven Core Strategy 2010 Policies: SP1 – Spatial Strategy; SP4 – Developer Contributions; H1 – Residential Development; H3 – Affordable Housing; E2 – Retail Development; South Kesteven Local Plan 1995, Saved Policies - REC3 - Public Open Space and New Housing Development (Grantham); REC4 - Playing Fields Provision in New Residential Developments (Grantham); REC5 - Play Space Provision in New Residential Developments (Grantham); and REC7 - Allotments (Grantham); and, the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
6.3.3. The policy in the Framework relevant to the socio-economic effects of the proposed development are: paragraphs: 6; 7; 8; 9; 14; 17; Section 6, notably paragraphs 47, 49 and 50; Section 7, notably paragraphs 56, 58; and, Section 8, notably paragraphs 69, 70, 73 and 75.
6.3.4. The Planning Policy context demonstrates that the Development is consistent with the provisions of the development plan and with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
6.4. Baseline Conditions
Population (Source ONS 2011 Census)
6.4.1. Grantham is the largest town in South Kesteven District (containing 31% of the District’s population) and had a population of a 41,615 in 2011, compared to 38,239 in 2001 (an increase of about 3400 or 8%). However, the population is anticipated to grow to up to around 60,000 (an increase of 18,385 or 44%) by 2026 as a result of the delivery of increased housing growth.
Environmental Statement 59
6.4.2. A breakdown of the percentages of different age groups in Grantham, South Kesteven, Lincolnshire and England and Wales is shown in Table 6.1 below:
6.4.3. The Table shows that Grantham, South Kesteven District and Lincolnshire County have a lower than (national) average population in the 0.-4 and 5-9 age bands. The 10-14 and 15-19 age cohorts are about the same or a slightly higher proportion of the overall population as in England and Wales. However, the 20- 24, 25-29 and 30-34 and 35-39 age bands in Grantham are consistently lower than the national average, indicating a lower than average younger ‘working age’ population in the Town. The older working age group - 40-44, 45-49, 50-54 and 55-59 is proportionately larger than in England and Wales, with the differential increasing in the older cohorts. Whilst the District and the County have a higher than (national) average population in all age ranges over 60 years, in Grantham this ‘bulge’ in the aged population occurs later, in the over 70’s.
Table 6.1: Age Profile of the Population 2011
Age Band Grantham South Kesteven Lincolnshire England and Wales
0 to 4 5.2 5.6 5.2 6.2
5 to 9 4.9 5.4 4.9 5.6
10 to 14 5.9 6.2 5.7 5.8
15 to 19 6.6 6.1 6.2 6.3
20 to 24 5.6 4.7 5.8 6.8
25 to 29 5.2 5.1 5.5 6.8
30 to 34 5.3 5.3 5.2 6.6
35 to 39 6.1 6.3 5.8 6.7
40 to 44 7.4 7.6 7.0 7.3
45 to 49 7.6 7.9 7.5 7.3
50 to 54 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.4
55 to 59 6.4 6.5 6.4 5.7
Environmental Statement 60
60 to 64 5.4 7.2 7.4 6.0
65 to 69 4.1 5.9 6.3 4.8
70 to 74 4.1 4.4 5.0 3.9
75 to 79 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.2
80 to 84 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.4
85 to 89 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.5
Age 90 or 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 over
6.4.4. Comparisons between 2001 and 2011 Census data for Grantham and South Kesteven District, shows that there has been an increase in the proportion of the population aged 60 – 90 years and over. At the same time, these areas have witnessed a fall in the proportion of the population aged between 25 and 44 years.
6.4.5. According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of households in South Kesteven District and the wards of Grantham town, based upon the 2011 Census, are as follows:
Table 6.2: Number of Households in Grantham (by Electoral Ward) South Kesteven and England and Wales and the Average Household Size for these areas.
Ward Households 2011
Belmont 2224
Earlsfield 2936
Greyfriars 1902
Green Hill 1747
Grantham St Johns 2983
Harrowby 2468
St Annes 2351
St Wulframs 1961
Environmental Statement 61
Total (for Grantham) 18,572
Average Household Size 2.24
Total for South Kesteven 59530
Average Household Size 2.25
Total for E&W 23,366,044
Average HHS for E&W 2.4
6.4.6. It will be seen that the average household size is smaller in Grantham (2.24 pph) and South Kesteven (2.25 pph) than in England and Wales (2.4 pph). This is almost certainly explained by the age profile of the Town and the District, with a higher proportion of older people. The Site falls within St Wulfrum’s Ward.
Housing
6.4.7. Grantham as a whole has relatively low levels of owner-occupancy compared with St Wulfrum’s Ward, SKDC and the East Midlands Region, although it equates to about the average for England and Wales. Similarly, it has somewhat higher rates of social housing and private rentals compared to the SKDC area and the East Midlands, but slightly lower than England and Wales.
Table 6.3(a): Proportion of Owner Occupation (ONS Census 2011)
Area % Owner Occupied
St Wulfrum’s Ward 69.80
Grantham 64.00
SKDC 69.40
East Midlands 67.20
England & Wales 63.60
Table 6.3(b): Proportion of Social Rented (ONS Census 2011)
Area % Social Rented
St Wulfrum’s Ward 10.80
Environmental Statement 62
Grantham 17.16
SKDC 13.40
East Midlands 15.80
England & Wales 17.60
6.4.8. The housing offer in the Town generally is characterised by a high proportion of more expensive detached and semi-detached properties dating from the mid/late 20 Century onwards and older (19 and early 20 Century) terraced homes. There is, therefore, something of a polarisation between the older, cheap terraced properties and larger, more modern and more expensive, semi-detached/detached homes. On the evidence, there is a gap in the housing market between these opposite ends of the property spectrum, with a relative shortage in the middle band of small/medium-sized, modestly priced modern properties – a specification most likely to appeal to younger professionals/new young family households in particular.
6.4.9. The northern suburbs of Grantham, including those adjoining the Application Site (St Wulfrum’s Electoral Ward), appear generally to be more affluent, as might be expected. The area has a higher proportion of higher quality, more expensive housing. dating from the late 20/early 21 Century and higher levels of owner occupation (see Table 3[a]) and lower levels of social rented housing (See Table 3[b]).
6.4.10. The Lincolnshire Housing Strategy 2010-2015 identified four priorities:
To increase the supply of affordable housing across Lincolnshire;
To increase the supply of affordable homes in rural communities;
To meet the challenge of an ageing population; and
To assist vulnerable households.
6.4.11. The second priority is not relevant in this case.
6.4.12. The outcomes sought by the county strategy are:
Environmental Statement 63
More high quality affordable housing in both urban and rural communities;
Closer working between partners to provide a more effective service for local people, including a well-informed evidence base;
A wider range of choices for older, vulnerable or homeless people;
Communities, economies and existing homes that are more sustainable
6.4.13. The second outcome is not relevant in this case.
6.4.14. The South Kesteven Housing Strategy (2013 – 2018) notes that the ageing population of the district “presents challenges for the housing strategy”. The proportion of the population of the district who are over the age of 65 is forecast to increase from 19.2% (2012) to 28% by 2020. See also 6.4.1.3and Table 6.1 above. The Study sets a corporate priority of creating the environment to support good housing for all. Supporting that corporate priority are four strategic housing priorities:
Priority 1: High quality new affordable homes available to buy or rent;
Priority 2: Improved housing standards across the district and for all tenures;
Priority 3: Access to housing and wellbeing services;
Priority 4: Promotion of sustainable neighbourhoods and communities.
6.4.15. The Strategy states that it will be important “to ensure that any new house building across all tenures and market sectors……..provide appropriate responses to both the range and extent of identified housing need”.
6.4.16. The Peterborough Sub Regional Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), March 2014 Draft Report, produced by GL Hearn, identifies a “net need” for 343 units per annum of affordable housing within South Kesteven District between 2013 and 2036. At least 200 of these need to be built in Grantham on a pro-rata basis.
Car Ownership
6.4.17. Whilst slightly above the England and Wales average, car ownership in Grantham is below that for South Kesteven and for the East Midlands Region as a whole.
Environmental Statement 64
However, car ownership in the northern suburbs, including in the areas adjoining the Site (St Wulfrum’s Ward) is comparable to the national average.
Table 6.4: Percentage of households with access to at least 1 vehicle by area (ONS 2011 Census).
Area % with access to at least one car
St Wulfrum’s Ward 73.7
Grantham 75.6
South Kesteven 83.3
East Midlands 77.9
England & Wales 74.4
Education
Primary Schools
6.4.18. The proposed development lies within St Wulfrum’s Ward. Births within the Ward have been on a rising trend in recent years. Births in 2011 (44) were the highest in the 11 years shown below. There has been an average of 33 births per year over the 11 years. 2011 births will begin to impact the local schools in 2015
Table 6.5: Births in St Wulfrum’s Ward, Grantham 2002 -2012
Year 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Births 28 23 20 35 34 33 39 42 32 44 34
6.4.19. There are 15 primary schools serving Grantham, of which 4 are within walking distance (2 miles) of the Site, a further 3 may be within walking distance and the balance are definitely beyond 2 miles. For forecasting purposes, LCC considers them as one planning area. The nearest school is Cliffedale Primary on Northcliffe Road. (see Table 6.6).
Environmental Statement 65
6.4.20. The schools are a mixture of primary (ages 4-10), infant (ages 4- 6) and junior (ages 7- 10). There is no consistency in admission numbers (AN) between the phases, which means that they effectively serve different areas within the community.
Table 6.6: Primary Schools Relevant to the Site
School Postcode Distance Capacity NoR AN Reception Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Cliffedale Primary School NG31 8DP 0.6 315 321 45 46 45 45 45 46 46 48 The National CofE Juniors NG31 6SR 1.7 512 401 128 0 0 0 104 118 102 77 The Gonerby Hill Foot CofE Primary NG31 8HQ 1.7 350 311 50 44 44 39 44 47 44 49 The Little Gonerby CofE Infants NG31 9AZ 1.7 180 176 60 59 60 57 0 0 0 0 1357 1209 155/223 149 149 141 193 211 192 174 Occupancy 89% 96% 96% 91% 87% 95% 86% 78%
The Saint Mary's Catholic Primary NG31 9AX 2 210 206 30 22 30 30 32 30 30 32 The Harrowby CofE Infants NG31 9LJ 2 180 159 60 50 60 49 0 0 0 0 Belton Lane Community Primary NG31 9PP 2 210 195 30 28 21 31 31 28 28 28
600 560 120/60 100 111 110 63 58 58 60 Occupancy 93% 83% 93% 92% 105% 97% 97% 100%
Total 1957 1769 275/283 249 260 251 256 269 250 234 Occupancy 90% 91% 95% 91% 90% 95% 88% 83%
6.4.21. So, for example, for the closest schools to the Site there are 155 infant places but 223 junior places. On balance within the 2 miles there are 275 infant places and 283 junior places.
6.4.22. As at January 2014, the closest schools had some capacity, but below the 5% working tolerance generally considered to be desirable, for 4 – 7 year olds.). For older children primary schools have a little more capacity. However, birth numbers in Grantham indicate that the primary schools will be full within the period to 2016/17.
Future school capacity forecasting
Primary
6.4.23. Lincolnshire CC as Education Authority is required to make pupil forecasts to the Department for Education on a year of age basis by ‘school planning area’ and identify each school in the cluster and its capacity. The forecasts cover the period for which birth data is available. Forecasts covered by Section 106 agreements are omitted. For primary school age pupils this runs to 2017/18 and for secondary 2019/20. This is known as the School Capacity ("SCAP") returns. Government
Environmental Statement 66
allocation of education funding for additional school places that are its responsibility to fund is based on these returns.
6.4.24. The local Primary schools lie within the “Grantham Primary” planning area along with 8 other primary schools. The SCAP forecast for the Grantham Primary planning area shows a general increase in pupil numbers across all years.
Table 6.7: SCAP Forecast for Grantham Primary Planning Area
Environmental Statement 67
Table 6.8: Secondary Schools Relevant to the Site (i.e. in Grantham)
Environmental Statement 68
Environmental Statement 69
6.4.25. There were planned enlargements during 2014 at two Grantham Primary Schools (adding 175 places) following on from the enlargement of The National C of E Junior School in 2013. This will provide 545 places, which Table 6.7 indicates results in a shortfall in places at Reception into primary school for the foreseeable future. That will require schools to admit over their capacity.
Secondary Schools
6.4.26. There are five secondary schools serving Grantham with three within 3 mile walking distance. The nearest of these is the Priory Ruskin Academy. (Table 6.8)
6.4.27. The Priory Ruskin Academy, the Kings School and Kesteven & Grantham Girls School lie within the “Grantham Secondary” planning area along with four other schools, two of which lie outside Grantham and are not therefore included in Table 6.8. Collectively, the schools have 808 places for each year of age. The forecasts based on existing primary school numbers show capacity being exceeded from 2016.
Table 6.9: Grantham Secondary SCAP
6.4.28. The Grantham Secondary schools serve a wider rural area as well as Grantham itself.
Health Care
6.4.29. The Site is within the administrative area of the South West Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group. There are 6 NHS GP Surgeries in the Town. The nearest to the Site (some 2.5 kilometres) is that at Harrowby Lane, which is described as serving the north east side of the Town, east of the main railway line and, thus, is the
Environmental Statement 70
relevant primary healthcare facility for the Site. There are three other surgeries in the Town Centre which are also readily accessible to the Site.
6.4.30. Grantham District Hospital, which lies 1 kilometre south of the Site on Manthorpe Road, is a mainly acute hospital, serving Grantham and the local area. It has substantial developments and improvements, including extensive Accident and Emergency, Maternity and Outpatients Departments. It provides consultant medical and some surgical specialties. The existing bus services that is proposed to be extended to serve the Site also stop at the Hospital on both outward and inward legs from and to Grantham Town Centre.
Leisure
6.4.31. There are two public parks close to the Site: Queen Elizabeth Park and Wyndham Park. Both are located beside the River Witham and to the east of the A607 Manthorpe Road/High Road. Wyndham park offers a wide range of facilities, including: a riverside walk; toddlers play area; paddling pool; sensory garden; skateboard park, bowling green; tennis courts; model boat pool; playing fields and tearoom. Queen Elizabeth Park, which is a more informal facility, amounting to some 9 hectares, accommodates: a fishing pond; an adventure play area; a cycle path; riverside walk; floral conservation area; wildflower meadows; a conservation pond; and picnic areas.
6.4.32. Belton House and Park (described in the Heritage Chapter of this ES) adjoin the Site and offers extensive indoor and outdoor facilities.
6.4.33. There are two golf courses adjoining the Site: Belton Park Golf Course, to the east, and Belton Woods Golf Course to the north.
6.4.34. There is a network of public rights of way in the vicinity of the Site including one that crosses it from east (Manthorpe)-to-west (towards Gonerby).
6.4.35. Grantham possesses a major leisure and sports centre facility (Meres Leisure Centre/South Kesteven Sports Stadium) on Trent Road, approximately 5 km to the south west of the Site. It is managed by Leisure in the Community Ltd, working in
Environmental Statement 71
partnership with South Kesteven District Council. This extensive facility provides the following facilities:
Crèche
Four swimming pools
Main sports hall / smaller hall
Climbing wall
Table tennis Centre
Health & fitness facilities
Floodlit synthetic facilities / turf pitches
Football facilities
Athletics track
Tennis courts.
6.4.36. There are also two private health and fitness clubs in the Town, one off Dysart Road and one in the Town Centre.
6.4.37. The Parish Church of St John the Evangelist immediately adjoins the Site, fronting the A607, High Road.
6.4.38. The nearest community hall to the Site is Belton Lane Children’s and Community Centre attached to Belton Lane Primary School, 1.5 kilometres east of the Application Site.
6.4.39. The South Kesteven Open Space Study (2009) – part of the evidence base for the South Kesteven Core Strategy – records that, in contrast to the situation for the District as a whole, the space devoted to Parks, Gardens and Recreation Grounds is relatively small in the Grantham urban area – albeit such facilities are concentrated in the north of the Town, close to the Application Site. The Study further notes that the space devoted to allotments is higher in relative terms than in the rest of the District. Most of the allotment sites are ‘private’ and not in the control of a public body. Education land is still the largest category in terms of open space provided.
Environmental Statement 72
6.4.40. There is scope to improve the overall level of open space for parks, gardens, sports and recreation facilities in the Town by the Development in question and by other new planned housing developments. The Development could also contribute to an interconnected network of green spaces running through and around the urban area.
6.4.41. There is also an opportunity to improve upon the relative paucity of indoor community assembly facilities in this part of the Town.
The Local Economy
Overview
6.4.42. Grantham’s modern economy grew out of its historic function as a market town for south west Lincolnshire and as a major coaching stop on the Old Great North Road. Agricultural engineering, originally serving the rural hinterland developed and diversified into general engineering and associated businesses. The engineering tradition continues, whilst the manufacturing base has expanded. Other businesses traditionally associated with agriculture include food processing, cold storage and distribution, whose development has been aided by the Towns’ excellent road communications based on its location beside the A1 amongst other principal roads. The public sector (including local government, education, and the NHS [notably Grantham Hospital]), defence (Prince William of Gloucester Barracks and nearby RAF bases) and general services (notably retail) are all major employers. Improving services on the East Coast Main Railway Line, including fast direct services to-and- from London, since the electrification of the line in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s have also stimulated economic development, but also long-distance commuting.
6.4.43. The Town suffers from relatively low pay and low skill levels historically and average incomes are distorted somewhat by the higher incomes of those who commute out of the district, to London, Nottingham, Peterborough, amongst other places. There are limited employment opportunities for young graduates and many of these, having benefitted from the excellent schooling in the Town and gone on to Higher Education elsewhere, tend not return. This phenomenon is a factor in the
Environmental Statement 73
under representation of young adults relative to the rest of the East Midlands Region and England and Wales identified above.
6.4.44. Grantham is an important sub-regional shopping centre, but it has suffered from competition from larger regional centres in recent years and the range of and quality of national multiple retailers is low and vacancy rates are quite high. Whilst there is a good choice of convenience shopping, mainly in modern edge-of-centre supermarkets, comparison shopping has suffered a decline. Marks and Spencer’s closure of its High Street store was particularly damaging for the image and confidence of the Centre.
6.4.45. Commercial rents are relatively low. The supply of general industrial and commercial land is satisfactory and will be improved (in quantity and quality) by planned developments in the pipeline. However, there is a lack of good quality office supply within the Town and no recognised business quarter or high quality business park, especially in a high profile/prestigious and accessible location, well-related to the primary road network. Grantham is not regarded as a location of first choice for many footloose businesses which typically prefer to locate elsewhere within the East Midlands. Without quality of supply the Town will be unable to develop its business base in higher value sectors.
6.4.46. Apart from the Alma Park Industrial Estate, the northern and eastern suburbs of the Town are primarily of a residential character. However, there is significant service employment at Grantham Hospital, the Belton Woods golf and hotel complex (including the adjoining garden centre), at Belton House and in local schools. The Town Centre also provides a nearby and accessible employment facility.
Economic Activity
6.4.47. Table 6.10 shows that Grantham has a higher proportion of economically active persons than St Wulfrum’s Ward, South Kesteven District, the East Midlands and England and Wales. Concomitantly, it has a lower proportion of economically inactive people. St Wulfrum’s Ward has a higher proportion of economically inactive than the Town, District, Region or England and Wales and this is likely to be explained by the number of retired people living there. Although the Town and
Environmental Statement 74
the District have a relatively high level of persons in employment, Grantham has a higher level of unemployment (comparable with the East Midlands and England and Wales Average, than South Kesteven District as a whole and St Wulfrum’s Ward.
6.4.48. Predictably, unemployment in St Wulfrum’s Ward is significantly lower than the Town, Regional and National levels, and comparable with South Kesteven District as a whole.
Table 6.10: % Economic Activity (16-74 years) by Area (ONS Census 2011)
Classification Economically Economically Employed (in Unemployed. Area active inactive employment)
St Wolfram’s 68.5 31.5 62.4 3.5
Grantham 72.4 27.6 65.4 4.2
South 69.3 30.7 66.3 3.3 Kesteven
East Midlands 69.4 30.6 61.8 4.2
England & 69.7 30.3 61.9 4.4 Wales
Employment by Sector
6.4.49. Table 6.11 endorses the commentary above, that Grantham has significantly higher employment in manufacturing than England and Wales and higher levels than the District or the Region. The Town also has higher employment in Distribution. Somewhat surprisingly, given its nodal location, employment in Transport & Communications in the Town is below the Regional and England and Wales averages. Employment in Finance, Real Estate, Professional and Admin is below the District and Regional averages and significantly below the average for England & Wales. Employment in this sector is higher in St Wulfrum’s Ward than the Town as a whole, but is still lower than the District, Regional and England & Wales averages. The most significant employment sector amongst resident adults in employment in
Environmental Statement 75
St Wulfrums Ward is Public Administration, Education and Health, at 30.3% – above the Town, District, Regional and England & Wales averages.
Environmental Statement 76
Table 6.11: % Employment by Sector (ONS 2011 Census)
Sector Agriculture, Manufacturing Construction. Distribution. Transport & Financial, Public Other; Area Energy & Communication. Real Estate, admin, Economic Water Professional Education Activity: and Admin. & Health
St 2.3 12.1 7.2 24.9 5.8 12.9 30.3 4.5 Wulfrums
Grantham 2.7 13.8 7.3 25 6.9 12.1 27.4 4.8
South 3.4 12.9 7.7 22.4 7.1 14.0 27.8 4.8 Kesteven
East 3.1 12.9 7.7 22.9 7.9 13.1 28.0 4.4 Midlands
England 2.3 8.9 7.7 21.5 8.9 17.2 28.4 5.0 & Wales
Environmental Statement 77
Retail
6.4.50. The Site is close to the centre of Grantham (2 kilometres to the south), which, as noted above, contains a large number of shops, supermarkets, catering and leisure facilities, as well as the District Council’s Headquarters.
6.4.51. Convenience/top-up shopping facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of the local area are limited in the northern and eastern suburbs of the Town, especially in the built-up area adjoining the Proposed Development. There is a small independent grocery shop at the corner of Rushcliffe Road and Sandcliffe Road. Based on the author’s experience, observations and judgement, it is likely, therefore, that the area is underprovided with this type of retail and, accordingly, additional journeys are being made by the local resident population to shops further afield to satisfy day-to- day shopping needs. Moreover, a significant number of these trips are likely to be by private motor car.
Communications (NB Communications are described more fully in the Transport Chapter of this ES).
6.4.52. The Town is located immediately east of the A1 London to Edinburgh Trunk Road, having been bypassed in the 1960s (the bypassed sections of the former Great North Road through the Town being reclassified as the B1174. Other significant roads passing through the Town are the A52 Newcastle-under-Lyme to Skegness/Mablethorpe Trunk Road and the A607 Leicester to Lincoln road. The latter forms the eastern boundary of the Application Site where it passes through Manthorpe. The Town centre, through which the A52, A607 and B1174 pass, suffers from peak hour congestion. An A52 by-pass is proposed to the south of the Town as part of the ‘Southern Quadrant’ development.
6.4.53. Grantham Railway Station is approximately 3 kilometres from the Site. It is served by the East Coast Main Line which links London Kings Cross with the North East and Scotland. The Town is also on the cross-country Nottingham to Skegness -, and Liverpool to Norwich Lines.
Environmental Statement 78
6.4.54. There are a number of bus routes operating within Grantham and between the Town and surrounding village and towns. The Connect 1 (Lincoln-Grantham) Service operates along the A607 and via a circular route through the suburban housing estate to the south of the Site.
Baseline Summary
6.4.55. Grantham has a number of assets, including:
A strategic location within the East Midlands at the junction of major south- north and east west transport routes, giving it excellent communications with the rest of the Region and the Country, including fast access to London;
Excellent schools with high pupil attainment levels;
A relatively diversified economy with high economic activity levels and unemployment levels that area close to the national average;
Generally sound and marketable housing stock with a functioning housing market;
Generally low levels of social deprivation across the Town as a whole;
A range of commercial and community facilities and service
Good Access to the countryside
A commitment by local stakeholders to growth.
6.4.56. At the same time the Town faces a number of challenges, including, the need
to bring about a step change in the supply of housing to meet the substantial identified quantitative need and the wider objectives of the Growth Point;
to significantly increase the rate of housing delivery, especially in the short term to compensate for the retarded delivery from the two proposed sustainable urban extensions;
to broaden the range of product in the housing market locally, including in the middle price ranges and to provide more affordable housing;
Environmental Statement 79
to retain/attract back younger skilled workers and graduates;
to change the balance of the economy, with the creation of more, higher-paid, higher skilled jobs in knowledge-based and other expanding sectors;
for higher-quality commercial floor space that is relevant to the market;
to overcome local transport and traffic issues, including congestion, poor air quality and a poor physical environment in the Town Centre;
to improve the retail offer in the Town Centre.
6.4.57. The spatial planning and development management systems have only limited capacity to address these challenges directly. Other, non-planning, interventions are necessary therefore. The most effective role for these systems is to sustain the growth agenda for Grantham and to ensure the early delivery of needed sustainable development. Moreover, not all development sites are suitable for directly addressing the full range of challenges, nor do they need to, providing a range of sites for different types of development is brought forward and developed.
6.5. Potential Effects of the Proposed Development
Introduction
6.5.1. Potential effects of the Proposed Development include impacts on the following receptors (see 6.2.3 above):
population;
local education provision;
medical facilities (doctors, hospitals etc.);
(indoor and outdoor) recreation and leisure facilities;
local convenience shopping provision;
the local economy, including jobs created and spending.
6.5.2. The Proposed Development contains a number of embedded elements, including a primary school, community hall, neighbourhood shopping centre and open space,
Environmental Statement 80
which are integral to it and, through their inclusion prevent adverse impacts arising. Similarly a Section 106 Planning Obligation is proffered as required by Policy SP 4 of the adopted South Kesteven Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. Because they are integral to the scheme they have been taken into account in predicting the effects of the Proposed Development on the relevant receptors.
Population
6.5.3. The development will accommodate up to 550 new houses. Using a multiplier (see 6.4.1.6 above) of 2.25 ppd (the local average household size derived from the 2011 Census [see above]) this number of houses, once completed, would generate a population for the development of about 1240 people. Applying the Census household size figure of for England & Wales of 2.4 ppd this population would rise to 1320 residents. For the purpose of assessing impacts the higher figure will be used as this provides the most robust scenario.
6.5.4. If all the households occupying the Proposed Development came from outside the area (which is highly unlikely) the population of Grantham could rise by some 3% as a result of the development. In practice, some will be new households, some residential occupiers will move from within the Town, others from within South Kesteven District and, some from outside the latter. This would be consistent with the Core Strategy/Growth Point assumptions and with associated population projections set out at 6.5.1.1. above
6.5.5. Applying rates derived from the 2011 Census for South Kesteven District as a whole it is possible to model; the profile of the population of the development. Thus 72.7% (960) are likely to age between 16 and 74. On the basis of the data recorded in Table 6.10 above and again applying District-wide figures the profile would be as set out in Table 6.12 below.
Table 6.12: Projected Demographic Profile of the Proposed Development
Category No. of Residents
Economically Active 665
Environmental Statement 81
Economically inactive 295
In employment 595
Unemployed 32
Students (Econ. Active) 25
Students (Econ. Inactive) 30
Retired 157
Long Term Sick/disabled 28
6.5.6. Overall population impacts may be regarded as Minor, Short-term Positive as, in accordance with the local growth agenda, the Proposed Development will contribute to a significant increase in the Town’s population, with the concomitant benefits that this will confer.
Housing
6.5.7. The proposed 550 dwellings would increase the housing stock in Grantham by just over 3%. As well as contributing to meeting the objectively assessed housing need for the area, this provision will help to meet both development plan and growth point objectives for Grantham. Moreover, as a medium-sized site without significant infrastructure thresholds to overcome, the housing developed on it can be brought forward early and compensate for the retarded delivery of housing from the planned sustainable urban extensions consequent upon their need to accommodate major infrastructure thresholds. Assuming a grant of planning permission by January 2016 the earliest achievable start on Site is April 2016. Table 6.13 below sets out the housing completion rates projected by the Applicants.
Environmental Statement 82
Table 6.13: Projected Housing Completion Rates.
Year Phase Phase Phase Phase Annual Total 1a 1b 2 3 Build
Jan 2017 60 20 80
Jan 2018 87 3 30 120 200
Jan 2019 56 56 256
Jan 2020 56 56 312
Jan 2021 30 20 50 362
Jan 2022 56 56 418
Jan 2023 56 56 474
Jan 2024 56 56 530
June 2024 20 20 550
6.5.8. A proportion of this new housing will be affordable. The Proposed Development is ‘Policy Compliant’ as regards affordable housing and the level of such housing has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Accordingly the Proposed Development will deliver up to 190 affordable homes through the medium of a Section 106 Agreement.
6.5.9. At paragraph 8.29 the Peterborough Sub-Regional SHMA (Op cit) also finds that there is a localised shortage of “smaller family homes to support newly forming families” within Grantham. Through the range of house sizes in the proposed development, this need is addressed.
6.5.10. The provision of an on-site neighbourhood centre, accommodating small scale shopping to meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, of a primary school and community hall, of generous amounts of public open space and access by a variety of transport modes, including public transport, will ensure that the development will constitute a sustainable neighbourhood and community.
Environmental Statement 83
6.5.11. Effects on housing may be regarded as Moderate, Medium Term, Positive.
Education
6.5.12. Increases in population will result in an increased demand for school places. School capacity needs to be addressed therefore. The development will have an impact upon the following facilities:
Pre-school (nursery accommodation)
Primary schools
Secondary schools
post-16 education
Child Yield from the Proposed Development.
6.5.13. In assessing the child yield from housing Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) as Education Authority relies on an evidence base that applies a multiplier factor for different sizes of dwelling. One bedroom dwellings are exempted on the basis that they are less likely to accommodate households containing children of school age. Dedicated housing for the elderly is also exempted for obvious reasons.
6.5.14. The table below shows the yield the pupil yield LCC uses to calculate child yield per dwelling for each phase of education.
Table 6.14: Lincolnshire County Council Child Yield Formula
6.5.15. The Education Authority seeks the same cost per pupil place whether for a new school or an extension to an existing school. It uses the Department for Education Cost Multipliers from 2008/09 to set the cost of a school place. The Cost Multipliers are not designed for developer contributions, but are a mechanism to inform local education authorities how the Basic Need Grant is calculated on a per pupil place
Environmental Statement 84
basis. However in practice they are used to determine developer contributions where there is a lack of capacity in local schools, The cost per place the Authority is currently working off is shown in Table 6.15 below.
Table 6.15: Cost Multiplier per child school place
6.5.16. LCC has confirmed that it is seeking £12,000 per primary school place from this proposed development. However, because the nearest Primary School – Cliffedale – is already at capacity and occupies a constrained site with no scope for further expansion, it has been agreed with LCC that the Proposed Development will provide land for a primary school of up to 1 form of entry (1. hectare).
6.5.17. A 1 form-entry school with 210 places would cost of the order of £3-3.2m – on the range £14,200 - £15,200 per place, plus land costs, depending upon site shape and topography. However the Proposed Development will yield pupils equivalent to just over half a 1 form-entry school which in itself would require only 0.68 hectares, This would clearly be an unsatisfactory hybrid facility so the costs, including the land costs, of the full 1 form-entry school will be split between the parties on an agreed pro-rata basis and or the land cost of providing the full 1 hectare site of the primary school will be offset against contributions to pre-school and secondary education.
6.5.18. In early 2014 the Department for Education published revised space standards for schools, including extensions to existing schools. This has resulted in a reduction of circa 4% for primary schools and 15% for secondary schools.
6.5.19. It is clear that financial/in-kind developer contributions are necessary because the existing schools infrastructure does not have surplus capacity. The provision of an on-site 1 form-entry primary school to serve this development and to meet some pupil demand from elsewhere in the area would both address the education requirement and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Environmental Statement 85
6.5.20. ffects on Primary Education in the area will be Major, Long-term, Positive. Effects on Secondary Education will be Moderate, Long-term Positive.
Health Care
6.5.21. The development is likely to generate additional demand for health care facilities locally. Given the population of the development in the context of the planned expansion of Grantham and a consequential increase in its overall population, the impact on Secondary and Tertiary healthcare provision is likely to be marginal. The principal impact will be on Primary Healthcare provision locally and on specific facilities. At the time of the drafting of this Chapter, the precise impact and the consequences thereof are subject to further discussion with the NHS South West Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group. However, demand from the development is unlikely to require dedicated on-site facilities.
6.5.22. Effects on Health Care provisions are likely to be Minor, Short-term, Neutral.
Community Facilities, including Sport, Leisure and Recreation
6.5.23. The Proposed Development will generate a requirement for additional public open space (comprising: sports pitches; children’s play facilities; and, informal recreation space) and indoor community assembly facilities to meet the needs of the new residents. As a starting point and in accordance with good practice, such provision should be made within the Site and/or within 480 metres/10 minutes-walk.
6.5.24. Adopted standards, as encompassed by saved policies of the South Kesteven Local Plan (see Chapter 5.0 – Planning Policy Context) and as reflected in Paragraph 7.2 of the South Kesteven Open Space Study (2009) suggest the following requirements:
Table 6.15: Open Space Requirements for the Development
Category of Open Space Standard (has. per 1,000 Minimum population) Requirement (Population of 1320)
Informal Green Space/ 2 2.75 natural green space
Environmental Statement 86
Outdoor Sports Space 1 1.38
Other Open Space 0.8 0.21
Play Equipped Space 0.15 0.21
Young People’s Space 0,15 0.28
Allotments 0.2 0.41
Parks 0.3 5.23
*Rounded up Table 6.16: Proposed Open Space Provision (hectares)
Category of Open Minimum Proposed Open Space Requirement Space Provision (Population of 1320)
Informal Green Space/ 2.75 11.82 natural green space
Outdoor Sports Space 1.38 1.77
Play Equipped Space 0.21 0.21
Young People’s Space 0.21 0.21
Allotments 0.28 0.34
Parks 0.41 0.81
Total 5.23 15.16
6.5.25. The South Kesteven Open Space Study (see 6.4.6.9 above) also sets out the standards for provision of built facilities:
Sports Halls:
1 x 4-court hall (594 m2) per 14,000 persons (or 42.43 m2 per 1000 persons). Theoretical requirement from the Proposed Development = 56 m2
Swimming Pools:
Environmental Statement 87
1 x 4-lane x 25 metre pool (213 m2) per 23,000 persons (or 10.27 m2 per 1000 persons). Theoretical requirement from the Proposed Development = 13.6 m2
Synthetic Turf Pitch (STP):
1 x full size STP (6,426 m2) per 20,000 persons (or 321.3 m2 per 1000 persons). Theoretical requirement arising from the development = 424.2m2
Small Community Halls:
1 venue (500 m2) per 2000 persons (or 250 m2 per 1000 persons). Requirement arising from the development = 330m2
6.5.26. It is considered that the requirement in terms of Sports Halls, Swimming Pools and a Synthetic Turf Pitch is de minimis, especially in the context of the excellent provision at The Meres. The Synthetic Turf Pitch requirement also needs to be considered in the context of the ‘over provision’ of open space, including playing fields, in the Proposed Development. In any event, amenity considerations suggest that a STP would be inappropriate on the Application Site, especially if floodlit, because of its landscape and visual impact. A joint use community hall is proposed as part of the proposed primary school development.
6.5.27. The effects on Sport, Leisure and Recreation receptors will be Moderate/Major, Long- term, Positive.
Economic Impacts
6.5.28. There will be benefits to the Town in terms of spending by the developer during the construction phase and households in the proposed development post completion occupation. Direct spending will trickle down through the local economy by the multiplier effect. Beneficiaries of this expenditure will be:
the local supply chain during the construction phase; and.
Following the first house occupations:
Local Shops;
Environmental Statement 88
Local Services and facilities;
Local suppliers of goods and services;
The Local Authority through Council Tax and charged services + New Homes Bonus if the scheme is extended beyond 2015/16.
6.5.29. The Regional Snapshot for the East Midlands (2003/4 - 2005/6 [source – ONS]) estimates that the average household expenditure in the East Midlands is £413 per week, or £21,476 per year, per household.
6.5.30. The Proposed Development would generate a total household expenditure of 550 X £21,476 = £11,812,000 per annum. Not all of this expenditure will disbursed in Grantham of course and a discounting factor would need to be applied therefore. However, on the assumption that households relocating to the development from another home within Grantham would be replaced by another household, the expenditure can be regarded as a net gain to the local economy.
6.5.31. Existing jobs locally are likely to be sustained and new jobs created. Predicting and precisely quantifying job retention/growth from new development is notoriously difficult. Employment will be generated amongst construction workers and tradesmen during the build-out phase – some 8 years. From the first housing completions jobs will be sustained or new jobs created amongst household and domestic services providers and maintenance and repair services. New employment will also be created in the shops in the Neighbourhood Centre and in the new Primary School.
6.5.32. Overall effects the local economy as a ‘receptor’ will be Moderate, Long-Term, Positive.
Local Shopping
6.5.33. It has noted in Section 6.4 above that the part of Grantham in which the Application Site lies is, in the professional judgement of the Authors under-provided with local convenience shopping to meet the day-to-day needs of the community.
Environmental Statement 89
6.5.34. This is likely to be leading to avoidable trips, probably predominantly by car, to satisfy these needs. These trips are intrinsically unsustainable. The Proposed Development and the additional population it will accommodate has the potential to exacerbate this problem.
6.5.35. A commercial neighbourhood centre, comprising a small supermarket and some unit shops is proposed in sustainable relationship with the rest of the development and accessible by a range of transport modes. It will be able to serve both the residents of the new development and those of neighbouring parts of the Town, thereby reducing the need to travel and the frequency of trips, especially by the private motor car by both existing and new residents.
6.5.36. The effects on local day-to-day shopping in this part of Grantham will be Major, Long-term, Positive across the area subject to those effects.
6.6. Measures intended to avoid any adverse socio-economic impacts and residual effects
Introduction
6.6.1. At 6.5.1.2 reference has been made to a number of embedded elements, including a primary school, community hall, neighbourhood shopping centre and open space, which are integral to it and, through their inclusion prevent adverse impacts arising. Similarly a Section 106 Planning Obligation is proffered which, because it is required by the provisions of the development plan, must also be regarded as being integral to the proposals and not as necessary mitigation.
6.6.2. These measures are ones that would have been required to mitigate any adverse social economic effects had they not been already included in the scheme. These effects would have related to: affordable housing; local education provision; primary health care; outdoor sport recreation and leisure facilities; community assembly provision; and, the (increased) demand for local shopping facilities in the context of a current deficiency. In light of the comprehensive character of the Proposed Development the need for measures to avoid adverse socio-economic impacts is a
Environmental Statement 90
purely theoretical one, therefore and, accordingly, this Section is included purely to maintain consistency of this ES with the normal format of such statements.
Affordable Housing
6.6.3. The widely recorded need for a significant increase in affordable housing in South Kesteven District Council’s administrative area generally and in Grantham in particularly has been noted in the assessment of baseline conditions above.
6.6.4. The Applicants have agreed arrangements for the provision of affordable housing in accordance with identified needs and with prevailing planning policy with the Local planning Authority and this is reflected in a Section 106 Agreement Draft Heads of Terms submitted with the Application to which this Statement relates.
6.6.5. The Developer will also provide for a range of sizes and prices of market housing on the site, responding to perceived deficiencies in the market at present.
Education
6.6.6. The Proposed Development has the potential to put pressure on local schools.
6.6.7. The primary vehicle for preventing this theoretical outcome is the provision of a site for a 1-form entry primary school on the Application Site, together with contributions for Primary, Secondary and Sixth Form Education in accordance with the formulae set out above. Since a full 1-form entry school exceeds what is required to accommodate the number of primary school children generated by the Proposed Development, there is a net benefit to the community/Education Authority which would be offset against other education contributions. These contributions will be delivered through the medium of the Section 106 Planning Obligation. (See Draft Heads of Terms). The primary education contribution will be directed to the new on- site primary school. The secondary and sixth form education contributions will be directed to the nearest Secondary School – the Priory Ruskin Academy. The Planning Obligation will be structured so that needed education infrastructure is delivered in a timely and efficient fashion so as to minimise stress on existing education provision, at the discretion of the Education Authority.
Environmental Statement 91
Primary Health Care
6.6.8. The Proposed Development would lead to an increase in the demand for healthcare services generally. This increased demand has the potential to place additional pressure on primary healthcare services locally.
6.6.9. The Applicants are willing to agree with the responsible NHS Trust the extent of these potential impacts and appropriate measures to address them. If necessary, such measures will be provided for in the Section 106 Agreement.
Outdoor Sport, Recreation and Leisure
6.6.10. The development generates a need for on-site provision of sports pitches, play space and other open space to meet the sport and open-air recreation needs of the new community. The minimum requirement is set out in Table 6.15 above and the actual provision in Table 6.16.
6.6.11. Thus, it can be seen that the development meets at least the minimum standard in all categories, but overall, substantially exceeds the policy requirement, especially in relation to natural green space. No mitigation
Community Assembly
6.6.12. The proposed development in itself generates a requirement for an indoor community assembly facility. However, the local area is already deficient in such facilities.
6.6.13. By agreement with the Education Authority which has wide experience of such arrangements throughout Lincolnshire, the new primary school will include a joint use school/community hall. This is a sustainable solution that makes efficient use of limited public and private resources.
Local Shopping
6.6.14. In Section 6.4 above the deficiency in local shopping and the unsatisfactory consequences of that both at present and after the Proposed Development had been implemented were the issue not addressed is highlighted.
Environmental Statement 92
6.6.15. However, the Proposed Development includes a Neighbourhood Centre, next to the proposed Primary School and Community Hall, on the proposed extended bus route through the Application Site and within convenient walking and cycling distance, not only of the whole of the new development, but also of the existing residential suburbs to the south.
6.7. Indirect and cumulative impacts and impact interactions
6.7.1. It is generally recognised that it is difficult to define indirect and cumulative impacts and impact interactions. The definitions of these three types of impact overlap. It is also difficult to identify and measure them in the context of socio-economic impacts.
6.7.2. Due to the scale and location of the Proposed Development relative to those other developments referred to in Table 16.1, indirect, cumulative socio-economic impacts and impact interactions would be limited and where they do occur are likely to be diffused across the rest of the Grantham Urban Area.
6.7.3. There are likely to be some indirect and cumulative impacts and impact interactions with other development on population, housing and, the economy.
6.7.4. Other Socio-Economic effects arising from the development as identified above will be strongly localised.
6.7.5. In the professional judgement of the Author’s therefore these impacts will be Negligible/Minor, Short-term and Positive. They are entirely consistent with the growth agenda for Grantham, including the provisions of the development plan and with policy in the Framework.
6.8. Summary
6.8.1. The Proposed Development overall results in a positive effect on relevant socio- economic receptors. These positive effects range from Negligible through Minor and Moderate to Major.
Environmental Statement 93
6.8.2. The Major Positive effects – relating to the School, Community Hall, Neighbourhood Shopping Centre are likely to be localised to this part of Grantham as are the Moderate Positive effects in terms of Open Space.
6.8.3. No adverse socio-economic effects are predicted.
Environmental Statement 94
7.0 Landscape and Visual
7.1. Introduction
Background
7.1.1. This assessment defines the existing landscape and visual baseline environments; assesses their sensitivity to change; describes the key landscape and visual related aspects of the proposed development; describes the nature of the anticipated change upon both the landscape and visual environments; assesses the effects during construction, the period following completion prior to the maturing of proposed planting (short to medium term) and once the proposed planting is mature (long term).
The Site and Proposals
7.1.2. Figure 7.1 places the Proposed Development within its local context and illustrates designations within 5km of the Application Site. The Application Site comprises of a number of agricultural fields used for arable in the west and pasture in the east upon undulating landform that slopes to watercourses located to the south and through the east of the Application Site.
7.1.3. The proposal is for a residential development of up to 550 dwellings together with a primary school, areas of open space and associated infrastructure.
7.2. Assessment Methodology
Overview
7.2.1. The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition 2013 (GLVIA 3) is the primary guidance in respect of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, published by the Landscape Institute (LI) and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) in 2013. The methodology set out below is informed by and closely follows the guidance within this document. At paragraph 1.1 GLVIA3 states that:
Environmental Statement 95
“Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is a tool used to identify and assess the significance of and the effects of change resulting from development on both the landscape as an environmental resource in its own right and people’s views and visual amenity.”
7.2.2. Sections 2.20-2.22 of the same guidance indicate that the two components (assessment of landscape effects, and assessment of visual effects) are “related but very different considerations”.
The Study Area
7.2.3. It is accepted practice within landscape and visual assessment work that the extent of the study area for a development proposal is broadly defined by the visual envelope of the proposed development site and the anticipated extent of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) arising from the Proposed Development itself. In this case a study area of 5km has been proposed to SKDC as being appropriate to cover all potentially material landscape and visual impacts. Correspondence with SKDC regarding the study area, methodology and viewpoints is included at Appendix 7.2. On 18 February 2015, the case officer at the time, Tony Boswell, confirmed that the photopanels/montages presented to English Heritage on 12th January 2015 ‘ought to suffice’, which only illustrated the views from Bellmount Tower (viewpoint 1) and South Avenue (viewpoint 3). However, the full 14 viewpoints (1 to 14) within the 5km study area, as proposed to SKDC on 24 September 2014, have been used to inform this assessment, with site assessment and photography undertaken early March 2015 to illustrate winter views (i.e. leaves off trees).
Introduction
7.2.4. The methodology has 4 key stages, which are described in more detail in subsequent sections, as follows:
Baseline - includes the gathering of documented information; scoping of the assessment and agreement of that scope with the client, relevant consultees, EIA coordinator and planning authority; site visits and initial reports to client and/or EIA coordinator of issues that may need to be addressed within the design.
Environmental Statement 96
Design - input into the design / review of initial design / layout / options and options for avoidance of impact.
Assessment - includes an assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the scheme, requiring site based work and the completion of a full report and supporting graphics.
Cumulative Assessment - assesses the effects of the Proposed Development cumulative and/or in combination with other developments.
7.2.5. The design and assessment stages are necessarily iterative, with stages overlapping in parts. Further detail regarding the assessment stages and preparation of visualisations is provided in Appendix 7.1. The assessment method draws upon the established Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute’s GLVIA3 and Countryside Agency methodology (Landscape Character Assessment Guidance, 2002) and other recognised guidelines, in particular Scottish Natural Heritage’s ‘Visual representation of Wind Farms Best Practice Guidance’ (2006, albeit published in 2007 – relevant to the production of ZTVs) and the Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 - Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment.
Assessment Terminology and Judgements
7.2.6. A full glossary is provided in Appendix 7.3. The key terms used within assessments are:
Susceptibility and Value - which contribute to Sensitivity;
Scale, Duration and Extent - which contribute to the Magnitude of effect; and
Significance.
7.2.7. This assessment identifies landscape and visual receptors and judges the likely effects from the Proposed Development using the methodology outlined below and at Appendix 7.1. Landscape receptors are defined as “the constituent elements of the landscape, its specific aesthetic or perceptual qualities and the character of the landscape in different areas” (GLVIA, 3rd Edition, para 3.21). Visual receptors are “the
Environmental Statement 97
different groups of people who may experience views of the development” (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 6.3).
7.2.8. Susceptibility is assessed for both landscape receptors such as designated areas and landscape character areas, and for visual receptors (people). It indicates the ability of a defined landscape or visual receptor to accommodate the proposed development "without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies." (GLVIA, 3rd version, para 5.40). A description of how susceptibility is evaluated for each receptor type is included below. It is rated on the following scale:
High - undue consequences are likely to arise from development of the nature proposed
Medium - undue consequences may arise from development of the nature proposed.
Low - undue consequences are unlikely to arise from development of the nature proposed.
7.2.9. Susceptibility of landscape character areas is influenced by their characteristics and is frequently considered (though often recorded as 'sensitivity' rather than susceptibility) within documented landscape character assessments and capacity studies.
7.2.10. Susceptibility of designated landscapes is influenced by the nature of the special qualities and purposes of designation and/or the valued elements, qualities or characteristics, indicating the degree to which these may be affected by the development proposed.
7.2.11. Susceptibility of accessible or recreational landscapes is influenced by the nature of the landscape involved; the likely activities and expectations of people within that landscape and the degree to which those activities and expectations may be unduly affected by the development proposed.
Environmental Statement 98
7.2.12. Susceptibility of visual receptors is primarily a function of the expectations and occupation or activity of the receptors (GLVIA 3rd version, para 6.32).
7.2.13. Landscape Value is "the relative value that is attached to different landscapes by society" (GLVIA, 3rd version, page 157). It is rated on the following scale:
National/International - Designated landscapes which are nationally or internationally designated for their landscape value - including National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, World Heritage sites; Heritage Coast and National Scenic Areas.
Local - Locally or regionally designated landscapes (e.g. Area of High Landscape Value, Regional Scenic Areas); also areas which local evidence indicates as being more valued than the surrounding area.
Community - 'everyday' landscape which is appreciated by the local community but has little or no wider recognition of its value.
Limited - despoiled or degraded landscape with little or no evidence of being valued by the community.
7.2.14. Sensitivity is rated within the range of High-Medium-Low-Negligible and is assessed by combining the considerations of susceptibility and value described above. Table 7.1 below illustrates the judgement process for landscape receptors.
Table 7.1: Sensitivity
Susceptibility
High Medium Low
National/International High High-Medium Medium
Local/District High-Medium Medium Medium-Low
Community Medium Medium-Low Low Value Limited Low Low- Negligible Negligible
Environmental Statement 99
7.2.15. For visual receptors; judgements of susceptibility and value are closely interlinked considerations; for example the most valued views are likely to be those which people go and visit because of the available view – and it is at those viewpoints that their expectations will be highest. For this reason, the sensitivity of visual receptors is rated in a single step process which combines both factors as follows:
High – visitors to valued viewpoints which people might visit purely to experience the view, e.g. promoted or well-known viewpoints, key designed views; panoramic viewpoints marked on maps.
High-Medium –people in locations where they are likely to pause to appreciate the view, such as at home, along Public Rights of Way, from local waypoints such as benches; or at key views to/from local landmarks. Visitors to attractions or heritage assets where views are an important contributor to the experience would also fall into this category.
Medium – travellers using cycle routes or identified scenic road routes. Visitors staying within an area such as at caravan or camping sites.
Medium-Low – users of most road and rail routes and rural, outdoor workers.
Low – Those with limited opportunity to enjoy the view due either to the speed of travel (on motorways and trunk roads); or because their attention is elsewhere e.g. those engaged in work or sporting activities.
7.2.16. Scale of effect is assessed for all landscape and visual receptors and identifies the degree of change which would arise from the development. It is rated on the following scale:
Large – Total or major alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be fundamentally changed.
Medium - Partial alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be noticeably changed.
Environmental Statement 100
Small – Minor alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be largely unchanged despite discernible differences.
Negligible – Very minor alteration to key elements, features, qualities or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be fundamentally unchanged with barely perceptible differences.
7.2.17. Duration of effect is assessed for all landscape and visual receptors and identifies the time period over which the change to the receptor as a result of the development would arise. It is rated on the following scale:
Permanent – the change is expected to be permanent and there is no intention or scope for it to be reversed.
Long-term – the change is expected to be in place for 10-25 years and will be reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe.
Medium-term – the change is expected to be in place for 2-10 years and will be reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe.
Short-term – the change is expected to be in place for 0-2 years and will be reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe.
7.2.18. Most effects will be Long term or Permanent; however Medium or Short term effects may be identified where proposed planting is proposed or local factors will result in a reduced duration of effect (for example where maturing woodland will screen views in future). The effects arising from the construction of the development will usually be Short term.
7.2.19. The Extent of effects is assessed for all receptors and indicates the geographic area over which the effects will be felt. This is rated as follows:
Limited – site, or part of site, or small part of a receptor area (< approx. 10%).
Localised – site and surroundings up to 2km, or part of receptor area (up to approx. 25%).
Environmental Statement 101
Intermediate – up to approx. 2-4km, or around half of receptor area.
Wide – beyond 4km, or more than half of receptor area.
Use of viewpoints in assessing scale, duration and magnitude of effects on visual receptors
7.2.20. The representative viewpoints are used as ‘samples’ on which to base judgements of the scale of effects on visual receptors. As stated at paragraph 7.1.4, SKDC had notice of the proposed viewpoints in order to agree the locations. No adjustments or request for additional viewpoint locations were requested by SKDC. Viewpoints 1 to 14 represent views that are experienced by a range of different types of visual receptors. The scale of effect is assessed at representative viewpoints, but duration and extent are judged only when assessing impacts on the visual receptors.
7.2.21. For specific viewpoints, duration and extent are assessed, with extent reflecting the extent to which the development affects the valued qualities of the view from the specific viewpoint. For example a very distant development would typically be judged to have a Limited extent of effect on a 360 degree panoramic view; but might be judged to have a greater extent if it appeared within the focal area of a channelled or designed view.
7.2.22. The Magnitude of effect is rated within the range of High-Medium-Low-Negligible and is informed by combining the scale, duration and extent of effect. The diagram below illustrates the judgement process.
Diagram 7.1: Magnitude
Environmental Statement 102
7.2.23. Where the Scale of effect is judged to be Negligible the Magnitude is also assumed to be Negligible and no further judgement is required.
7.2.24. Significance indicates the importance or gravity of the effect. The process of forming a judgement of significance of effect is based upon the assessments of magnitude of effects and sensitivity of the receptor to come to a professional judgement of how important this effect is. This judgement is illustrated by the diagram below:
Diagram 7.2: Significance
Environmental Statement 103
(based on EIA significance evaluation matrix, IEMA Special report 2011)
7.2.25. By way of example, a Major effect may occur where a development which changes an extensive area, such as a wind farm, is proposed in a designated landscape, such as a National Park, or a location where a large number of visual receptors have prolonged viewing opportunities, such as from a neighbouring residential area.
7.2.26. In comparison, a Minimal effect may occur where a development which does not change an extensive area, such as an urban development project, is proposed in a landscape that not valued for its scenic quality, such as a brown-field site, or a location where visual receptors have no interest in their view, such as from a neighbouring industrial area.
7.2.27. Effects that are Major-Moderate or Major are considered to be significant and are thus “likely to influence the eventual decision”. Effects of Moderate significance or
Environmental Statement 104
less are “of lesser concern” (both quotations from GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 3.35). It should also be noted that whilst an effect may be significant, that does not necessarily mean that such an impact would be unacceptable, or should necessarily be regarded as an “undue consequence” (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 5.40)).
7.2.28. Where intermediate ratings are given, e.g. “Moderate-Slight”, this indicates an effect that is both less than Moderate and more than Slight, rather than one which varies across the range. In such cases, the higher rating will always be given first; this does not mean that the impact is closer to that higher rating, but is done to facilitate the identification of the more significant effects within tables.
Positive/Negative/Neutral
7.2.29. Effects are defined as adverse, neutral or positive. Neutral effects are those which overall are neither adverse nor positive, but may incorporate a combination of both.
7.2.30. The decision regarding the significance of effect and the decision regarding whether an effect is beneficial or adverse are entirely separate. For example, a rating of Major and Positive would indicate an effect that was of great significance and on balance positive, but not necessarily that the proposals would be extremely beneficial.
7.2.31. Whether an effect is Positive, Neutral or Negative is identified based on professional judgement. GLVIA 3rd edition indicates at paragraph 2.15 that this is a “particularly challenging” aspect of assessment, particularly in the context of a changing landscape.
Landscape Designations
7.2.32. In considering the effects on designated areas, a number of factors need to be considered. The effects on the component landscape character areas and the effects on views from within and towards the designated area need to be understood. These effects are then considered in light of the documented “special qualities”, valued elements or characteristics, and the purposes of the designation in order to arrive at a judgement of the effects on the designated landscape or landscape element.
Environmental Statement 105
Residential Amenity
7.2.33. Effects on the residential amenity of existing dwellings caused by new residential development are not assessed because it is quite normal and acceptable to have views of residential development from existing houses and gardens.
Distances
7.2.34. Where distances are given in the assessment, these are approximate distances between the nearest part of the Application Site and the nearest part of the receptor in question, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Distances to existing residential properties are given to the dwelling (not the garden) and rounded to the nearest 10m.
7.3. Planning Policy/Legislative Context
7.3.1. Refer to Chapter 5 on Planning and Policy Context for general planning policy that applies to the Application Site and the surrounding area and to Appendix 7.4 for planning policies and documents that are relevant to the assessment of landscape and visual amenity.
7.4. Baseline Conditions
Introduction
7.4.1. An overview of the baseline study results is provided in this section with the full baseline description of the individual landscape and visual receptors being provided alongside the assessment from section 7.6 for ease of reference.
7.4.2. This section provides a review of the key local guidance documents and identifies those landscape and visual receptors which merit detailed consideration in the assessment of effects, and those which are ‘scoped out’ from further assessment as effects that “have been judged unlikely to occur or so insignificant that it is not essential to consider them further” (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 3.19).
7.4.3. Both this baseline section and the effects section describe landscape character and visual receptors before considering designated landscape. It is common for
Environmental Statement 106
designations to encompass both character and visual considerations within their special qualities or for the purposes of designation. It therefore makes a more natural reading sequence to draw together those aspects of character and views which relate to the designation if they have been described earlier in the chapter.
Site and Context
7.4.4. Figure 7.1 places the Proposed Development within its local context. The Application Site is located immediately north of the existing northern edge of Grantham, west of Manthorpe. The ECMRL forms the western boundary of the Application Site with land rising significantly beyond to the village of Great Gonerby found further to the west. The northern boundary of the Application Site is defined by the line of electricity pylons that cross north-west through the Application Site towards a sub-station just north of the bridged railway crossing, along with a section of Belton Lane to the north-west. Beyond Belton Lane to the north is Belton Woods Golf Course. The eastern boundary of the Application Site is generally defined by the A607 (High Road), excluding St John’s church of Manthorpe and Manthorpe Grange. The Registered Historic Park and Garden of Belton House is located east of the A607.
7.4.5. Figure 7.2 illustrates the topography within the Application Site and the surrounding area. From this plan, it is apparent that Grantham sits within a ‘bowl’ lying on average at 55m AOD surrounded to the east, south and west by rising topography reaching on average 120m AOD. The villages of Great Gonerby and Barrowby are found upon hill tops to the west of Grantham and are characterised by their church spires. The Application Site itself lies at the foot of Gonerby Hill and ranges in elevation from below 50m to approximately 68m AOD, the high point being a crown of land in the northern part of the site. Running Furrows, a tributary of the River Witham, flows south-west to north-east across the eastern part of the Application Site. A tributary to Running Furrows (Gonerby Brook) is found along the southern boundary of the Application Site. The Application Site has a gently undulating landform with land sloping down to the south towards Gonerby Brook, as well as to the east and west either side of Running Furrows.
Environmental Statement 107
7.4.6. As illustrated by the aerial photograph on Figure 7.5, Running Furrows divides character within the Application Site between large scale arable fields to the west bounded by well maintained hedgerows and medium scale pasture fields to the east bounded by overgrown hedgerows and frequent hedgerow and field trees. The south of the Application Site is strongly influenced by the existing urban edge of Grantham, which consists of a modern housing development, and has little visual connection with the wider countryside to the north as views are restricted by rising Application Site topography.
Zone of Theoretical Visibility Study
7.4.7. A Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) study was generated based on the Building Heights & Density Parameters Plan (Figure 2.3). The ZTV is shown on Figure 7.3 and indicates areas of theoretical potential visibility for the Proposed Development, modelled at the building heights as stated in the Parameters Plan (Figure 2.3) ranging from 9m, 10.5m and 12m high. The analysis was carried out using a bare ground topographic model (i.e. without visual barriers such as settlements, woodlands and other vegetation).
7.4.8. The ZTV study was used to aid the identification of those receptors that are likely to be most affected by the Proposed Development and those that may be scoped out. However, it is important to note that areas shown as having potential visibility may have visibility of the development screened by local features such as settlements, woodland, trees, hedgerows, embankments or buildings.
Extent of Theoretical Visibility
7.4.9. The ZTV for the Proposed Development shows that theoretical potential visibility is generally confined to approximately 1km to the west and north-west of the Application Site defined by the rising topography associated with Gonerby Hill. Moving to the south-west, a patch of potential visibility is indicated north of the A52 (Barrowby Road) as ground levels rise around Rectory Farm. Theoretical visibility is more extensive to the east and south-east, reaching up to 3km from the Application Site where land rises associated with the escarpment to the east of Grantham. Distant potential visibility extending beyond 5km is illustrated on rising land to the
Environmental Statement 108
south of Grantham and also to the north and north-east generally following the A607, where theoretical visibility follows the valley floor of the River Witham.
Extent of Actual Visibility
7.4.10. As noted above, areas shown as having theoretical visibility may have visibility of the development screened by local features such as settlement, woodland, trees, hedgerows, embankments or buildings. From site observation, it is apparent that such features play a significant screening role in the area around the Application Site so that the anticipated extent of actual visibility is considerably more limited than the ZTV, as annotated on Figure 7.3 as the ‘Zone of Visual Influence’.
7.4.11. Site observations confirm that extensive vegetation within the wider landscape significantly reduces the extent of visibility towards the Application Site from that illustrated by the ZTV. Across the study area vegetation cover is extensive; a number of woodland blocks to the north of Grantham, field boundaries are typically formed from large, mature hedgerows with frequent hedgerow trees and there is extensive tree cover within settlements, particularly so within Grantham. Realistically, views of the Proposed Development would generally be confined to the east facing slope of Gonerby Hill, land immediately north of the Application Site boundary (south of Belton Woods Golf Course, before spilling over the A607 into a relatively contained part of Belton Park and within public open space immediately south of Manthorpe Grange.
7.4.12. Further afield, actual visibility is limited to areas of higher ground that are not affected by tree cover, such as along the eastern escarpment near Bellmount Tower in Belton Park; to the west of Londonthorpe; a section near Harrowby Lane and Hall’s Hill to the south-east; and rising ground north of the A52 (Barrowby Road). Views towards the Proposed Development from the latter would be filtered by intervening vegetation and seen directly beyond the existing settlement.
7.4.13. From field analysis, actual visibility is largely contained within 3km of the Application Site. As a result, any landscape or visual receptors beyond 3km are unlikely to receive any scale of effect greater than Negligible. Therefore, the study
Environmental Statement 109
area for the remainder of this assessment is focussed within 3km of the Application Site.
Landscape Character
7.4.14. Paragraphs 5.13-5.15 of GLVIA, 3rd edition indicates that landscape character studies at the national or regional level are best used to “set the scene” and understand the landscape context. It indicates that Local Authority Assessments provide more detail and that these should be used to form the basis of the assessment of effects on landscape character – with (appropriately justified) adaptation, refinement and interpretation where required.
7.4.15. Only those character areas within 3km of the Application Site are included in this assessment, as local character areas beyond 3km are unlikely to experience more than Negligible effects on character as discussed at paragraph 7.4.13. Thus relevant assessments are:
National Character Areas (NCAs)
East Midlands Region Landscape Character Assessment (2010)
South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007)
Grantham Townscape Assessment (2007)
The Historic Landscape Characterisation Project for Lincolnshire (2011)
South Kesteven District Council Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study (2011)
Belton House and Park Setting Study and Policy Development (2011)
National Character Areas
7.4.16. The Application Site is situated within NCA 48: Trent and Belvoir Vales, which is described as a gently undulating and low-lying landform with low ridges dividing shallow valleys and arable farming being the dominant land use (extract of NCA at Appendix 7.5 in Volume II of ES). Predominantly rural with the exception of the busy market towns and cities in the area, which include Grantham. The Application
Environmental Statement 110
Site and surrounding area is fairly typical of the NCA, albeit that the landform surrounding Grantham provides a distinctive ‘bowl’ topography. There are 2 other NCAs located within the 5km study area, as identified in the Character of England: Landscape, Wildlife & Natural Features (2005). These are NCA 47: Southern Lincolnshire Edge and NCA 75: Kesteven Uplands.
7.4.17. Given the scale of the NCA, and the presence of more detailed character areas at a local level, effects on this NCA are not assessed further.
East Midlands Region Landscape Character Assessment
7.4.18. The East Midlands Region Landscape Character Assessment provides a broad scale understanding of the landscape within the region, setting out regional character types rather than character areas and provides the context for understanding the landscape within the study area. The Application Site is located within 4a Unwooded Vales, described as extensive low lying rural landscape with expansive long distance and panoramic views from higher ground on the margins giving a sense of visual containment. The Application Site and surrounding area generally is in keeping with the key characteristics of the character type.
7.4.19. However, given the presence of more detailed character areas at a local level, the regional character assessment is not assessed further.
South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007)
7.4.20. The South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (SKLCA) provides a district scale assessment of landscape character, forming part of the district’s Local Development Framework. This assessment aims to:
‘…provide a bench mark document against which future trends can be measured … provide a tool to guide future development pressures and to ensure that these are in harmony with prevailing landscape character, local distinctiveness, and a sense of place.’
7.4.21. The SKLCA has identified seven landscape character areas. Of these, four character areas lie within the 3km study area, as shown on Figure 7.6 and listed below:
Grantham Scarps and Valleys (0km, Site within)
Environmental Statement 111
Harlaxton Denton Bowl (2.7km, south west)
Trent and Belvoir Vale (2.75km, north west)
Southern Lincolnshire Edge (3km, east)
Based on the ZTV and observations on site, it is unlikely that there would be any areas of notable visibility of the Proposed Development within any of the character areas except for Grantham Scarps and Valleys; these areas are unlikely to experience significant effects as a result and they are therefore not considered further. Grantham Scarps and Valleys area contains the Application Site and is considered in detail from paragraph 7.6.5.
Grantham Townscape Assessment
7.4.22. The Grantham Townscape Assessment was produced to inform future decisions about development within and to the edges of the town of Grantham and surrounding villages such as Barrowby, Great Gonerby and Manthorpe. It aims to define the identity of Grantham in terms of people and place, and how this in turn contributes to its ‘sense of place’ and local distinctiveness.
7.4.23. With respect to this LVIA, the key elements of this critical analysis and assessment within the Townscape Assessment include:
Key views to landmark buildings and heritage assets (historic buildings or places such as parks which have heritage values)
7.4.24. This townscape assessment has identified 17 character areas, 15 of which are located with 3km of the Application Site, and included in Appendix 7.5. Due to the detailed nature of the townscape character areas provided, this report will be used for the basis of assessing settlements at paragraph 7.6.27. However, it is unlikely that the Proposed Development will be visible beyond a Negligible effect from all of the 17 character areas. Only where the character areas are not screened by the intervening built infrastructure and local vegetation within settlements are effects likely to be more than Negligible. Therefore, the following three character areas will be included for assessment at para 7.6.27 regarding effects on settlements which are expected to
Environmental Statement 112
be above Negligible due to their proximity to the Application Site and potential visibility of the Proposed Development (extracts of character areas at Appendix 7.5 in Volume II of ES):
Character Area 06: Northern post-war residential suburbs
Character Area 12: Great Gonerby Village and Environs
Character Area 13: Manthorpe Estate Village
7.4.25. Character Area 17: Landscape Fringes covers a series of open countryside areas around Grantham and is broken down into six sub-categories. The following four sub-areas are found within the 3km study area:
Character Area 17a: Area to the west of Manthorpe and south of Belton Lane (covers the Application Site)
Character Area 17b: Northwest Quadrant (Poplar Farm, Boundary Farm and Rectory Farm)
Character Area 17c: Land east of Barrowby (including A1 transport corridor)
Character Area 17f: Hall’s Hill, Harrowby
7.4.26. Based on the ZTV and observations on site, it is unlikely that there would be any areas of notable visibility of the Site from within CA17c: Land east of Barrowby; it is unlikely to experience significant effects as a result and it is therefore not considered further. The remaining CA17 character areas will be used to assist with assessing landscape character in detail, alongside SKDLCA.
The Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) Project for Lincolnshire (2011)
7.4.27. This study provides a detailed assessment ‘to categorise and characterise the landscape of the county with specific reference to its development over time’. Whilst this study is more recent and provides a greater level of detail on the historic landscape than the previously discussed SKDLCA through determining historic landscape character areas and zones, the latter does also acknowledge the characterising effect of historic features. In combination with its examination of the
Environmental Statement 113
contemporary landscape, SKDLCA provides a more useful baseline for assessing the effects of the Proposed Development overall. As a result HLC areas and zones will not be considered in detail within this assessment.
South Kesteven District Council Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study (2011)
7.4.28. David Tyldesley and Associates were commissioned by SKDC to assess the edges of larger built settlements within the Council’s boundaries with the aim of identifying the most appropriate directions for future housing and employment growth within the district.
7.4.29. The study defines 13 sites on the edge of Grantham, of which G2A and G2B cover the Application Site. The sensitivities of these sites are illustrated in Figure 15 of the capacity study at Appendix 7.5. G2A and G2B are defined as having Low to Medium and Low landscape capacity for development respectively. This study will be considered within the assessment from paragraph 7.6.5 used alongside the SKDLCA to assist with determining sensitivity of the landscape.
Belton House and Park Setting Study and Policy Development (2010)
7.4.30. Atkins were commissioned by SKDC and The National Trust to define and describe the setting boundary of Belton House and Park; and to inform the need for, and consent of, any new LDF policy for the setting of Belton House and Park (extracts of Figures and text from study found at Appendix 7.5 in Volume II of ES).
7.4.31. This study defines the sensitivity to change of the setting of Belton House and Park, and therefore will be considered from paragraph 7.6.62 of this assessment to assist with assessing effects on the Registered Historic Park and Garden of Belton House.
Visual Receptors
7.4.32. Visual receptors are “the different groups of people who may experience views of the development” (GLVIA, 3rd edition, para 6.3). In order to identify those groups who may be significantly affected the ZTV study and baseline desk study and site visits have been used.
Environmental Statement 114
7.4.33. The different types of groups assessed within this report encompass residents within settlements; people using key routes such as roads, cycle ways or long distance paths; people within accessible or recreational landscapes; people using Public Rights of Way; and people visiting key viewpoints. In dealing with Public Rights of Way and local roads, receptors are grouped into areas where effects might be expected to be broadly similar, or areas which share particular factors in common (e.g. routes within an area of designated landscape). The ZTV studies, baseline desk study and site visits have been utilised to identify those groups that may be significantly affected by the Proposed Development.
7.4.34. As previously discussed in paragraph 7.4.13, site observations have shown that the visual effects of greatest significance are unlikely to occur much beyond 3km from the Application Site due to limited visibility of the Proposed Development. Only those receptors within this distance are identified below.
7.4.35. Representative viewpoints have been selected to assist with assessing the effects on visual receptors.
Settlements
7.4.36. Figure 7.1 shows the pattern of the settlement within the study area. The Application Site is located to the northern edge of Grantham. Elsewhere within the study area, settlement is fairly limited beyond the outskirts of Grantham, comprising only a few individual dwellings, hamlets and villages.
7.4.37. The following settlements lie within approximately 3km from the Application Site:
Grantham (including Manthorpe) (0m, south and south east)
Belton (1.4km, north east)
Great Gonerby (735m, west)
Syston (2.3km, north)
Barrowby (3km, south west)
Londonthorpe (3.1km, east)
Environmental Statement 115
7.4.38. Of the above, the ZTV study shows that all of the settlements except for Barrowby would experience some visibility of the Proposed Development. Field observations confirm that there is little to no visibility of the Application Site from Belton and Syston. This is due to a combination of intervening localised vegetation and topography, particularly from the heavily wooded area of the Belton Woods Golf Course and Belton Park. Therefore Barrowby, Belton and Syston are excluded from further detailed assessment.
The remaining settlements listed above are assessed further from para 7.6.27.
Conservation Areas
7.4.39. Four conservation areas have been identified within 3km of the site, as illustrated by Figure 7.1:
Belton Conservation Area
Great Gonerby Conservation Area
Manthorpe Conservation Area
Grantham Conservation Area
7.4.40. As stated at paragraph 7.4.38, there is little to no visibility of the Application Site from Belton due to intervening localised vegetation and topography, particularly within Belton Woods Golf Course and Belton Park. Therefore the three remaining Conservation Areas within Great Gonerby, Manthorpe and Grantham will be given consideration within the assessment of the settlement as a whole. In terms of Cultural Heritage reference should be made to Chapter 9 for details of effects on the historic setting of Conservation Areas.
Roads and Rail
Key Routes
7.4.41. The following main road and rail routes pass within 3km of the site:
A607 (0m, east)
East Coast Main Line (0m, west)
Environmental Statement 116
A52 (1.7km, south)
A1 (2.5km, west)
7.4.42. The ZTV study indicates that all of these routes would theoretically experience some visibility of the Proposed Development along a part of the route. However, site observations have shown that in reality, it would be likely that there would little to no visibility of the Application Site from the A1 or A52. This is due to a combination of roadside vegetation, hedgerows, and the built form of Grantham filtering views towards the Application Site. Therefore, these two routes are not assessed in further detail.
7.4.43. The remaining routes listed above are assessed further from para 7.6.39.
Local Roads
7.4.44. The general prevalence of mature roadside hedgerows and hedgerow trees within the study area, combined with topography, largely prevents anything but short distance views from local minor roads. However, roads on elevated locations travelling in the direction of the Application Site make views more likely. The following local roads pass within 3km of the Application Site within the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) as illustrated on Figure 7.3 and will be considered in detail from para 7.6.44:
Belton Lane (0m, north)
Londonthorpe Lane/High Road (2.5km, east)
Harrowby Lane (2.5km, south east)
7.4.45. In addition to those listed above, there are numerous roads within the various settlements within 3km. These are considered in the assessment of those settlements, where applicable.
Summary
Environmental Statement 117
7.4.46. In summary, effects on the following road and rail routes are considered in from para 7.6.39:
A607 (0m, east)
East Coast Mainline (0m, west)
Belton Lane (0m, north)
Londonthorpe Lane/High Road (2.5km, east)
Harrowby Lane (2.5km, south east).
Harrowby Lane (2.5km, south east).
Recreational Routes
Long Distance Walking Routes
7.4.47. Ordnance Survey mapping does not indicate any Long Distance Walking Routes within 3km of the Application Site.
National and Regional Cycle Routes
7.4.48. The following national and regional cycle routes lie within the study area, as shown on Figure 7.4:
National Cycle Route 15 (550m, south)
National Byway (540m, east)
Grantham’s local cycle links (160m, north and 210m, south)
7.4.49. National Route 15 follows the River Witham into the centre of Grantham before heading out of the 3km study area along the A607. It has been identified that little to no visibility of the Proposed Development will be possible from these locations due to intervening built form associated with the town therefore this is not assessed further. The same is found for Grantham’s Local Cycle Links, from which although they are located more frequently within the town, intervening built form and topography generally prevent views towards the Application Site. The Local Cycle Link to the north of the Site along the A607 has the majority of views screened by
Environmental Statement 118
intervening vegetation associated with Belton Woods Golf Course with only the very southern end of the route at Belton Lane having views towards the Proposed Development, therefore this receptor group is not assessed further due to this extremely limited visibility.
The ZTV study indicates that there would be patches of visibility from the National Byway route along the elevated landform to the east of Belton Park. However, field observations have indicated that intervening vegetation associated with the Woodland Trust sites and Belton Park itself screen views towards the Site. Therefore, the National Byway Route is not assessed further in this report.
Public Rights of Way
7.4.50. Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within 3km of the Application Site are shown on Figure 7.4. The PRoWs have been grouped as follows for the purpose of this assessment:
PRoW through south of Application Site (Belt 2/2).
PRoWs between East Coast Main Line and Great Gonerby (Belt 2/2, GtGo 4/2, GtGo 3/2, Belt 4/1).
PRoW and permissive footpath west of Londonthorpe (Lond 2/1, Lond 3/1#1).
PRoWs upon Hall’s Hill (Gran 10/1, Gran 10/2, Gran 10/3, Gran 9/2).
7.4.51. Effects on these groups are assessed from para 7.6.49.
Accessible and Recreational Landscapes
7.4.52. Within 3km of the Application Site, there are no areas of Common Land.
7.4.53. Belton House and Park is located 300m east of the Application Site which is a National Trust property providing open access to the historic estate from the north of Grantham at the junction of Belton Lane/Londonthorpe Lane and for members and the paying public at the entrance in Belton. The ZTV on Figure 7.3 indicates that there would be a significant area of the Park that would potentially have views towards the Application Site. However, field observations indicate that a much
Environmental Statement 119
reduced area of the Park would have visibility towards the Proposed Development. Notwithstanding, this accessible and recreational landscape is assessed at section 7.6.56.
7.4.54. As illustrated on Figure 7.4, there are three areas of Open Access Land, as identified under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. These are Londonthorpe Wood (1.8km, east); Alma Wood; and the land to the west of it east of Alma Park Industrial Estate (2.2m, south east). All these areas are identified as Nature Reserves. The ZTV identifies that there is potential visibility from some of these locations, but field observations have established that little to no actual visibility is available due to on site vegetation and intervening vegetation and built form. Therefore, effects on these areas of Open Access Land are not assessed further.
7.4.55. There is a fishing lake within 3km of the Application Site called The Lake at Syston Park (2.65km, north east). The ZTV study indicates there would be some theoretical visibility from this facility. However, aerial photography indicates that views from The Lake would be restricted by localised trees and vegetation which enclose the facilities. Therefore, it is not assessed further.
Specific Viewpoints
Ordnance Survey mapping does not indicate any panoramic viewpoints within the 3km study area and no promoted viewpoints have been identified.
Landscape Designations and Value
Designated Landscapes
Historic Parks & Gardens
7.4.56. Figure 7.1 illustrates the location of Belton House and Park in relation to the Application Site (300m, east). The ZTV study and field observations have confirmed that there would be visibility from some areas of the park. Therefore, this designated landscape is assessed from para 7.6.62.
Environmental Statement 120
Local Landscape Value
7.4.57. Within 3km of the Application Site, there are a number of features that contribute to the value of the local landscape. These include Public Rights of Way, nature reserves, National Trust properties and Registered Parks and Gardens. None of the features except for Belton House (and its Historic Park and Garden) are considered to be of greater value than the surrounding area or would, for any reason, increase in value beyond a Community Value (as defined at para 7.2.11).
7.4.58. Belton House and Park are nationally valued, as recognised by Historic England in its designation as a Registered Historic Park and Garden, and are judged to be of National Value (as defined at para 7.2.11). Effects on views from both Belton House and Bellmount Tower are assessed from para 7.6.58, as well as areas within Belton Park where the Proposed Development might be visible.
Site Fabric
7.4.59. The Site comprises a number of large scale arable fields and medium to small scale pasture fields. The former are found in the west of the Application Site, with the latter in the east, adjacent to Manthorpe. These fields are separated by the watercourse of Running Furrows that flows from the existing northern edge of Grantham through the eastern third of the Application Site in a north-easterly direction before crossing the A607 and joining the River Witham beyond. A tributary to the Running Furrows, Gonerby Brook, is found along the southern edge of the Application Site, following the existing northern edge of Grantham, flowing from near Great Gonerby in the west.
7.4.60. The arable and pasture fields are enclosed by hedgerows and occasional hedgerow trees. Hedgerows around the arable fields are generally closely maintained and relatively low in height, with the hedgerows associated with the pasture fields generally taller and gappy.
7.4.61. A number of mature trees are found within the Application Site, with most located along the Application Site boundary, along hedgerows or the watercourses. A tree survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) to BS5837 [2012] has been
Environmental Statement 121
undertaken by Arboricultural & Woodland Consultancy Service and is located at Appendix 7.7. The results of the tree survey indicate that the majority of trees within the Site are either Grade B or C (trees of moderate to low quality and value). Twelve trees have been assessed as being of Grade A (trees of high quality and value) with 6 assessed of being Grade U and needing to be removed. The Grade A trees are generally found along High Road, in the northern section of Running Furrows, in the western section of Gonerby Brook and the individual tree south of Belton Lane. Six of the Grade A trees are also identified as veteran trees, meeting Natural England’s definition of this term. A small linear area of woodland is found along Gonerby Brook to the west of the Application Site.
7.4.62. Mature and veteran trees along High Road (A607) create a parkland character into and out of Manthorpe, which contribute to the setting of the settlement, as well as the approach to Belton House and Park. The survey recommends succession planting along High Road to ensure the long-term survival of this treed approach.
7.4.63. A woodland and a number of individual trees within the Application Site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) as detailed within Appendix 7.8 as of 30th April 2015. The individual trees covered by the TPO are generally found to the east of the Application Site between Running Furrows and High Road (A607) with the exception being an isolated tree north of the Application Site, south of Belton Lane. The woodland covered by the TPO is located in the south-west of the Site covering the trees between the East Coast Main Line and the existing urban edge of Grantham continuing east along Gonerby Brook up to the end of Wensleydale Close.
7.5. Development Proposal
The Proposal
7.5.1. The Proposed Development will comprise the following elements as described in more detail in the Design and Access Statement (DAS) that are relevant to this assessment:
1) Up to 550 dwellings comprising buildings with a maximum height of up to 9m within the majority of the Proposed Development, with buildings of a
Environmental Statement 122
maximum height of up to 10.5m in the core of the Application Site (including a single-form entry primary school) and buildings associated with the Neighbourhood Centre of up to 12m in height as illustrated on the Parameter Plan (Figure 2.3). The Proposed Development would be accessed by Longcliffe Road, Rosedale Drive and Belton Lane.
2) A mix of dwelling types and sizes for both affordable and market residents providing a safe and well laid out addition to the local neighbourhood.
3) Public open space within the Proposed Development, the larger areas of which are located towards the eastern edge of the Application Site, adjacent to Manthorpe. At the centre of the Application Site there is a proposal for a central ‘civic’ open space, designed to provide new public views of the spires of St John’s church in Manthorpe and St Wulfram’s church in Grantham.
4) Retained public rights of way access through the Application Site. The creation of a new north-south cycle route that provides a link between the cycle way along the A607 and along Longcliffe Road. A new footpath link is also proposed that connects the existing public footpath south of the Application Site to the public footpath north of the Application Site that crosses through Belton Woods Golf Course.
5) Retention and management of the majority of existing hedgerows contained within and that border the Application Site, with details of the management operations to be agreed as part of the detailed landscape proposals.
6) Mixed native woodland and woodland edge planting (up to 50m deep) to the western and northern edge of the Proposed Development, softening the scale of the development and/or screening the majority of proposed housing from view from landscape to the west and north-east.
7) Proposed acoustic bund and fence along East Coast Main Line following western boundary of Application Site. Bund to be planted with mixed native woodland and woodland edge species in accordance with Network Rail specifications.
Environmental Statement 123
Design Response to Green Infrastructure
7.5.2. With reference to Grantham Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011) prepared by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of SKDC, there is a desire to create a 'Grantham Green Loop' that crosses through the Application Site east-west.
7.5.3. A comprehensive green infrastructure network is proposed as part of the Proposed Development, taking its lead from the existing features within the Application Site and surrounding area. The following measures have been taken to ensure effective delivery of green infrastructure within the Application Site:
A green corridor along the existing public footpath running east-west within the south of the Application Site is proposed not only to accommodate a cascade of Sustainable Urban Drainage for the Application Site, but also to ensure a substantial area of accessible natural greenspace providing for informal leisure activities, in accordance with the 'Grantham Green Loop'
Sufficiently large buffers have been provided to the existing watercourses and retained hedgerows within and along the boundaries of the Application Site to retain their effectiveness as ecological corridors.
To the north and western edges of the Proposed Development, blocks of mixed native woodland and woodland edge planting are proposed not only to assist with screening the proposed buildings, but also to contribute to the wooded setting of the landscape and offset the dominance of the electricity pylons that cross the Application Site.
To the north-west of the Application Site near to the access off Belton Lane, a community orchard and allotments are proposed, along with new specimen oak planting within species-rich grassland.
Further contributions are made to the green network by ensuring that all retained hedgerows are given sufficient buffers and are gapped up to sustain landscape character and ecological habitats. Veteran trees within the Application Site and along High Road (A607) will have succession trees planted to ensure the long-term survival of the wooded approach to and from Manthorpe. An additional hedgerow with hedgerow trees (oaks) would also be
Environmental Statement 124
planted north of the Proposed Development along an historic field boundary currently no longer in existence.
Proposed sports provision north of existing public open space at Glaisdale/Ryedale Close and west of St John's Church car park. The latter proposed for a cricket ground with associated pavilion.
Design Response to Local Guidance Documents
7.5.4. SKDLCA and Grantham Townscape Assessment both make recommendations as to how to approach development within Grantham Scarps and Valleys and CA17a (Area to the west of Manthorpe and south of Belton Lane) respectively. The following illustrates how the Proposed Development is in accordance with the guidelines:
Protect and enhance woodlands, field boundaries, hedgerow trees and where found watercourses - The majority of on-site vegetation is retained as well as enhanced through new planting.
Soften harsh urban edges with new broad-leafed woodland planting - Significant areas to the north, north-east and west of the Application Site are proposed for new woodland and tree planting that will not only serve to screen the majority of views of the Proposed Development, but will also help screen existing views to the northern urban edge of Grantham from certain locations.
Avoid built development encroaching on the high scarp slopes, or 'skylining' - The Application Site, albeit located on slightly raised ground to the north, is located within the floor of the Grantham bowl and therefore does not encroach on the high scarp slopes or ridgelines associated with the high ground and escarpments around Grantham.
Maintain a varied urban edge with fringes of countryside extending into proposed development - Retained hedgerows and Running Furrows are features that extend into the Application Site. These features along with associated buffer landscape and open space ensure that the urban edges are fragmented and that countryside flows through into the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 125
Consider opportunities for enhanced access to the countryside around the edge of town - Proposed footpath and cycle links connect the existing northern edge of Grantham, through the development, to existing footpaths and cycle paths to the north of the Site (Belton Woods and A607). In addition, informal routes are proposed around the periphery of the Proposed Development overlooking retained agricultural fields north of the Application Site.
Promote street trees to accentuate principal routes and reinforce green corridors to the river valley and existing footpaths, lanes and roads - The DAS illustrates that street trees and other tree planting within public open spaces will be key in creating an attractive place to live, as well as helping to stitch the Proposed Development into the surrounding landscape and Application Site features.
Reinforce key views to the town's heritage assets - The DAS illustrates how the Application Site can be designed to embrace the local landmarks around the Application Site by aligning roads and vistas to focus on the spires of St John's church at Manthorpe and St Wulfram's church in Grantham. Key view lines intersect at the neighbourhood centre, the heart of the Proposed Development.
Retain the open setting of Manthorpe and St John's Church - The Proposed Development has been sympathetically designed to avoid any residential form within close proximity to Manthorpe or St John's in order to retain the open setting. The proposed cricket ground and pavilion would be designed to be in keeping with the vernacular and scale of the settlement and would be an appropriate use within the immediate setting of Manthorpe.
7.5.5. In addition to the above, CA13 - Manthorpe within Grantham Townscape Assessment recommends that 'No new building should exceed two storeys in height and much use of the attic spaces should be made in any new design'. This has been acknowledged within the Parameters Plan (Figure 2.3) where residential development within the parcel proposed immediately west of Manthorpe Grange, would not exceed 9m in height (2 storeys). The DAS provides further detail on the design for the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 126
Construction
7.5.6. The total construction period is estimated at 102 months (8.5 years) from 2016 to 2024. The phasing of the Proposed Development is illustrated on Figure 2.6 which indicates that development will start in the far western and eastern plots, before then moving into the two central development parcels, from west to east. Where the phasing has been subdivided, development is proposed moving south to north. This phasing strategy ensures that the most visually sensitive receptors to the Proposed Development (e.g. Belton House and Park) are affected more towards the end of the construction period where the northern edge of the built development would become perceivable.
7.5.7. Woodland and individual native tree planting within species rich grass as illustrated on the Landscape Parameter Plan (Figure 2.5) will be implemented at the outset of Phase 1 of the Proposed Development, alongside surface water attenuation swales and ponds. This strategy ensures that the maximum time during construction (i.e. 8 years) is used to establish the planting before completion of the Proposed Development, enabling it to perform as effective a screening role as possible by the time of completion of the Proposed Development.
For assessment purposes, the planting will have had 8 years of growth upon completion (Medium-term) with tree/woodland heights reaching 5-6m, After 23 years of growth (8 years during construction and 15 years post-completion), tree/woodland heights would reach (conservatively) 10-12m for Permanent effects. The exception to this would be the low native woodland planting under the electricity pylons, which will need to remain at around 6m in accordance with National Grid guidelines. This will be maintained by specifying woodland edge species such as Hawthorn, Hazel etc rather than taller tree species (e.g. Oak, Horse Chestnut etc.).
7.5.8. The CoCP (Appendix 2.1) produced by the Applicants provides a detailed description of the construction period of the Proposed Development. The following are relevant in terms this assessment:
Environmental Statement 127
The main site compound will be located at the Belton Lane access, with a second located within the Proposed Development itself. It is assumed that the compound will include site offices, car parking, materials store. Once construction is complete, the compound will be removed and landscaped to proposed masterplan (i.e. community orchard, allotments and individual trees in species rich grass).
The public right of way that runs through the south of the Application Site will be kept open where possible during the works, fenced off from the works, unless it is more appropriate to provide an alternative. Any diversion of the public footpath would be carried out at the outset of the construction period, subject to the necessary consent.
Construction traffic will use the Belton Lane access only for delivering and removing material from the Application Site.
Where necessary, topsoil will be stripped and stored on the Application Site in accordance with Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (2009). Topsoil mounds will be located away from the northern edge of the development site (i.e. highest parts of the Application Site) and not in close proximity to the Manthorpe Conservation Area. The height of topsoil mounds will be limited in order to reduce visual effects.
Measures will be undertaken to avoid creating a dust nuisance.
Light pollution will be reduced by minimising lighting within the Application Site with minimum intensity. External lighting will be switched off outside working hours and any security lighting will only operate when activated by movement sensors. All temporary lighting will be in accordance with ‘Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light’ published by the Institution of Lighting Engineers.
Environmental Statement 128
7.6. Potential Effects
Introduction
7.6.1. This section sets out the effects that the Proposed Development would have on both landscape and visual receptors.
7.6.2. Effects are assessed during construction, with construction activity affecting only localised areas at any given time. Key potential impacts during the construction phase might include the visual effect of site vehicles and construction traffic, within the Application Site and in surrounding areas; other components typical of construction activities, including workers' accommodation, stockpiles of materials, lighting of specific areas, such as construction compounds; and gradual modification of landscape character as part of a phased programme of works. Effects during construction would be Short-to Medium term and temporary and, therefore, limited.
7.6.3. As planting matures and the development is increasingly screened and integrated with its surroundings, effects would reduce; but would be Permanent.
7.6.4. Effects are therefore assessed:
In the Short and Medium-term, during construction and before new planting has fully matured.
In the Long-term and Permanent once planting has matured.
Effects on Landscape Character
7.6.5. The Application Site spans a number of arable and pasture fields that slope to watercourses along the southern edge or within the east of the Application Site, with a localised high point in the north, south of Belton Lane. These fields are bounded either by low maintained hedgerows (in the west) or more over-grown hedgerows and hedgerow trees (in the east). Existing housing abuts the southern edge of the Application Site which has an urbanising effect on the south of the Application Site, particularly as views out to the wider countryside to the north are limited by rising topography. Beyond this, the settlement of Grantham extends to
Environmental Statement 129
the south, with Manthorpe to the east, the spire of St John's being a local landmark across most of the Application Site, particularly to the east. The character of the immediate surrounding landscape is either rural (to the west), historic parkland (Belton Park) or a golf course (Belton Woods).
7.6.6. In respect of the Proposed Development particular considerations that arise in relation to landscape character are:
Physical changes to landscape fabric of the Application Site
Integration of the development with the surrounding landscape patterns, structure and townscape of Grantham and Manthorpe;
The degree to which opportunities are taken to enhance character where condition is poor, or preserve character where condition is good.
7.6.7. The Proposed Development would involve the permanent loss of the majority of two arable fields (western part of Application Site) through the creation of a residential development and associated open space; around half of one arable field (immediately west of Running Furrows) and the majority of one pasture field (immediately east of Running Furrows) through the creation of a residential development and associated open space. A further two fields of pasture (west of Manthorpe) would become public open space. As a result, land use within these fields would change, although the Proposed Development would largely be contained within the existing pattern and framework of fields and field boundary vegetation, with the exception of the northern boundary of the Proposed Development. The majority of existing mature trees and hedgerows within and bordering the Application Site would be retained where they are in good condition, and further planting would be provided around the periphery. Notably this would include relatively extensive new tree/woodland planting to the north and west of the Application Site.
7.6.8. The only other effects would be impacts on views from areas of landscape outside the Application Site. At close proximity, the Proposed Development would be a readily discernible change in the landscape. However, from further afield it will be
Environmental Statement 130
seen as a relatively modest extension to existing settlement in the area. Over time (beyond the Medium term), as planting matures the Proposed Development would become less visible from the surrounding landscape, becoming more integrated within the existing landscape and settlement. Beyond the Application Site itself there would be very limited views of the Proposed Development from the areas where it is likely to have any characterising influence. This is particularly true immediately to the north where tall, dense hedgerows and trees/woodland north of Belton Lane provide heavy screening of the Application Site from beyond.
7.6.9. Although many landscape features would be retained, including the majority of hedgerows and trees, and planting is proposed to reinforce existing vegetation to screen development, there would be Permanent, Large scale changes to the character of the part of the Application Site proposed for housing. The part of the Application Site proposed for public open space would also experience Permanent landscape effects although these would tend towards Medium scale as the difference between farmland and parkland is not such a fundamental change.
7.6.10. Changes to the character of the landscape outside the Application Site itself would be Permanent and Limited to an area of Medium scale effects occurring to the west of the Application Site upon the rising slopes of Gonerby Hill and within the remnants of arable and pasture fields to the north of the Proposed Development. Small scale effects spill out across the A607 (High Road) towards the River Witham up to the South Avenue within Belton Park. As planting matures along the north and western boundaries, landscape effects will reduce to Small west of the Application Site (at lower levels), and to Small to Negligible east of the Application Site.
7.6.11. The scale and extent of landscape effects in the Medium-term as described above is illustrated on Figure 7.6.
7.6.12. Descriptions for each of the assessed landscape character areas are briefly summarised below, along with further observations from site based work.
Environmental Statement 131
Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity
7.6.13. The diagrams within Appendix 7.5 from the South Kesteven District Council Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study (LSCS) illustrate the sensitivity to housing development of the sites surrounding Grantham. As can be seen from the diagrams, the Application Site falls within G2A (west of Running Furrows) and G2B (east of Running Furrows).
7.6.14. G2A comprises the three medium scale arable fields in the west of the Application Site, separated by low trimmed hedgerows and is judged in the LSCS to have a landscape and settlements character sensitivity of Moderate to High; a visual sensitivity of High leading to an overall landscape sensitivity of High. However, landscape capacity is judged at being Low to Medium as 'on balance a slightly higher capacity has been allocated to reflect the less distinctive break between town and countryside and the less distinctive … scenic value than is evident in Site G1 [south of Great Gonerby].' The study recommends that a belt of vegetation along the north of the development is planted to avoid significant impact on the setting of Belton Park. It also recommends that development should not breach the 65m contour within the Application Site. That being said, the maximum height within the Application Site only reaches to around 67.5m AOD, approximately 2.5m above the recommended limit. There appears to be no evidence within the document that supports specifically why the 65m contour level within the Application Site should be the limit to development. With reference to the summary of assessment of landscape effects at section 7.6.23, it can be demonstrated that the Proposed Development, which is partly located above the 65m contour within the Application Site, will only result in localised effects which apart from the land directly affected by the Proposed Development are not significant in EIA terms.
7.6.15. The LSCS states that the smaller more intimate areas of G2B within the east of the Application Site, encompassing the relatively flat grassland lying between Running Furrows and the A607 that wrap around Manthorpe, provide a landscape and settlement character sensitivity of Moderate to High; a visual sensitivity of High leading to an overall landscape sensitivity of High and a landscape capacity of Low.
Environmental Statement 132
This lower capacity reflects this area's more intimate, mature character and presence of locally important features and parkland setting.
7.6.16. The majority of the Proposed Development is located within G2A with only limited built development located in G2B, which is located west of Manthorpe Grange and would have a close visual relationship with the Proposed Development west of Running Furrows. Both areas are judged by the LSCS to have a landscape sensitivity of High but it is acknowledged in the LSCS that G2A has slightly greater capacity for development.
South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment
Grantham Scarps and Valleys
7.6.17. This local character area (LCA) occupies the majority of the study area and extends beyond to just over 5km to the south. Characteristic features of the LCA are noted as:
Built development in Grantham is generally on the lower lying land in the valleys
Steep scarp slopes to the east and south, with woodland or pasture cover
Generally medium-scale arable fields, with relatively few hedgerows trees to the west and north
Small-scale hedged pasture fields with hedgerow trees to the east and south
Attractive parkland with attractive woodland and parkland trees at Belton
Small villages, separated from Grantham town by narrow areas of countryside.
7.6.18. The study area is typical of the LCA. The LCA concludes that the sensitivity of the area would range from Low to High. The LCA goes on to identify where the sensitivities of the LCA vary on Figure 17 (refer to Appendix 7.5) which illustrates that the Application Site and the area extending to the north is of a Medium sensitivity with the landscape to the west up to Great Gonerby being of Medium- High sensitivity and the majority of remaining landscape within the area north of Grantham being a High sensitivity. This is in conflict with the judgement provided within LSCS which provides a High overall landscape sensitivity to the Application
Environmental Statement 133
Site (albeit that it acknowledges that the west of the Application Site has a greater capacity for development).
7.6.19. Taking into account the findings of the LSCS and SKLCA, it is considered for the purpose of this assessment that the LCA is of a High-Medium susceptibility to the Proposed Development. The Registered Historic Park and Garden of Belton Park in the north-east of the LCA indicates that it is more highly valued than the surrounding area whereas the rest of the LCA is generally of an 'everyday' landscape appreciated by the local community. For the purposes of this assessment, it is on balance considered that the LCA is of Local/District value. Overall, the LCA is therefore considered to be of High-Medium sensitivity to the Proposed Development.
7.6.20. As described previously, effects on the Application Site itself would be Permanent and ranging between Large and Medium scale over a Limited extent of the LCA within the study area; these would be no greater than Medium magnitude and Major-Moderate significance. These would be Negative as a result of the loss of a rural part of the character area becoming part of a settlement.
7.6.21. Medium scale effects would extend across the fields to the west of the Proposed Development up to Great Gonerby upon the rising slopes of Gonerby Hill overlooking the Application Site, and across the remaining fields north of the Application Site up to Belton Lane, as illustrated on Figure 7.6 in the Medium-term. This would be across a Localised extent of the LCA resulting in effects of Medium to Low magnitude and Moderate significance. These would be Neutral considering the urban context of Grantham and the Site being on the lower lying ground. With maturing of planting along the western edge of the Site. The scale of effects on the lower slopes of Gonerby Hill will be reduced to Small and Permanent. However, the scale of effect will remain at Medium towards the higher ground of Gonerby Hill where the LCA overlooks the Application Site, and within the fields north of the Site, therefore overall significance remains at Moderate and Neutral.
7.6.22. Small scale Medium term effects would extend across the A607 into the fields to the north-east of the Application Site as illustrated on Figure 7.6. This again would be
Environmental Statement 134
over a Localised extent of the LCA resulting in Negligible magnitude and thus Slight significance and Neutral. Permanent effects would see the maturing of planting along the northern edge and north-eastern corner of the Application Site, further reducing the scale of effect resulting in Slight to Minimal significance and Neutral.
7.6.23. Medium term and Permanent effects on the overall LCA would be the same and would be Negligible magnitude, Minimal significance and Neutral.
Summary
7.6.24. Effects on landscape character resulting from the development would generally be confined to within the Application Site itself and in a localised area to the north, north-east and west of the Proposed Development. Effects on the Application Site itself would be Major-Moderate and Adverse but beyond the Application Site boundary, reduce to Moderate and then Slight and Neutral in the Medium-term and Moderate to Minimal and Neutral for Permanent effects.
Visual Effects
Visual Aids
7.6.25. Photographs and photomontages are shown on figures supporting this LVIA at Volume III of the ES. Photomontages have been produced for viewpoints 1, 3, 4 and 11 at Year 1 after completion and Year 15 after completion (see Figures 7.22 to 7.33). The viewpoint description, description of effects and scale of effect for each viewpoint (see Figure 7.4 for locations) is set out on the relevant photograph panel (Figures 7.7 to 7.21). As part of this assessment, the change in view at night is also considered with reference to a Lighting Assessment undertaken regarding the Proposed Development at Appendix 7.6.The scale of effect at each viewpoint is summarised in Table 7.2 below:
Environmental Statement 135
Table 7.2 - Summary of scale of effects on viewpoints
Viewpoint Distance, Scale of effect Direction Short to Long-term to Medium- Permanent term
1. Bellmount Tower 2.8km, Small Small to north-east Negligible
2. Belton House rooftop 1.4km, Small to Negligible north Negligible
3. South Avenue, Belton Park 600m, Medium to Small east Small
4. Belton Lane, Great Gonerby 890m, west Medium Medium to Small
5. Pennine Way, Grantham 1.9km, Negligible Negligible south-west
6. Public footpath at Hall’s Hill 2km, Medium to Small south-east Small
7. Permissive footpath, 3km, Small Negligible Londonthorpe east
8. Local road between Belton 3km, Negligible Negligible and Barkston Heath north-east
9. Longcliffe Road, Grantham 70m, Large Large south
10. Belton Lane 0m, north Large Large
11. High Road (A607)/Belton 140m, Medium Medium to Lane junction north-east Small
12. High Road (A607) 0m,east Medium Small
13. St John’s Church car park, 0m, Large to Large to Manthorpe south-east Medium Medium
14. Public footpath within 0m, Large Large Application Site south
Environmental Statement 136
7.6.26. Each of the viewpoints is a 'sample' of the potential effects, representing a wide range of receptors - including not only those actually at the viewpoint, but also those nearby, at a similar distance and direction.
7.6.27. From these viewpoints it can be seen that (in the Medium-term):
The extent of Large scale visual effects, where the Proposed Development would form a major alteration to key elements, features, qualities and characteristics of the view such that the baseline will be fundamentally changed, would generally be limited to locations within or immediately adjacent to the Application Site.
Medium scale visual effects are limited to those areas from where the Proposed Development is visible within 1km of the Application Site.
Medium to Small scale visual effects are limited to those areas from where the Proposed Development is visible between 500m to 2km of the Application Site.
Small scale visual effects are limited to those areas from where the Proposed Development is visible within 3km of the Site, generally located upon an elevated, but distant location.
Settlements
7.6.28. This assessment focuses primarily on effects on the settlement as a whole, and particularly public areas. Residents and visitors within settlements are assessed to be of High-Medium sensitivity.
Grantham (including Manthorpe) (0km, south)
7.6.29. The large town of Grantham has developed from the historic core at a crossing point of the River Witham within the 'bowl' of the adjacent scarps. This historic core is outlined by the Conservation Area within the centre of the town (refer to Figure 7.1) which has no visibility towards the Proposed Development due to intervening buildings and vegetation. As time has moved on, the settlement has expanded reaching the lower slopes of the scarps to the east and travelling up the higher slopes of the scarps to the west (e.g. Gonerby Hill Foot, Green Hill and Earlesfield). The Application Site is located to the north of Grantham adjacent to a series of large
Environmental Statement 137
urban extensions mostly dating from the 1970s, 80’s and 90s at a medium density with some pockets of older terraced housing1. This more recent development of Grantham coalesces with Manthorpe, such that it becomes part of the urban area of Grantham. Therefore, Manthorpe is assessed as part of Grantham.
7.6.30. Historically Manthorpe was part of the Belton estate and has a distinctive use of a Low and High Road and a simple linear plan form2. The majority of Manthorpe is included within a Conservation Area, excluding Manthorpe Grange but including St John’s Church and grounds adjacent to the Application Site’s eastern boundary (refer to Figure 7.1). The open setting of Manthorpe within the east of the Application Site is highlighted within the Grantham Townscape Assessment as important to be retained, and also provides the setting to the Conservation Area. Paragraph 9.6.60 of the Built Heritage Chapter states there are views of the church spire from the west and north, in open land outside of the Conservation Area. These views are not considered to be significant and this part of the setting has been urbanised by settlement.
7.6.31. The Application Site is to be located off Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive which are proposed to be extended north into the Application Site. There would be open views into the Application Site from the roads and properties along these routes, as at viewpoint 9, as well as properties that back onto the Application Site and the public open space off Ryedale Close, experiencing both Medium-term and Permanent effects which would be Large scale. Views would, however, be confined to this Limited extent and so would be of a Medium magnitude and Major-Moderate significance. As open views of fields would be lost and generally replaced by a housing development and associated infrastructure, these effects would be Negative.
7.6.32. The Proposed Development locates residential buildings west of Manthorpe Grange and proposes public open space (and an associated cricket pavilion) closest to Manthorpe Conservation Area. There would be views from the western edge of Manthorpe to the public open space within the east of Application Site, with views
1 Grantham Townscape Assessment, CA06c Manthorpe Residential suburbs, 2011 2 Grantham Townscape Assessment, CA13 Manthorpe Village, 2011
Environmental Statement 138
towards the upper storeys of proposed housing west of Manthorpe Grange, as at viewpoint 13. The proposed built form would be consistent with existing modern housing associated with Rosedale Drive to the south. Therefore views from the western edge of Manthorpe abutting the Application Site boundary, would have Medium–term and Permanent effects being of the same scale at Large to Medium. Views would be confined to this Limited extent and so would be of a Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate significance. As the immediate open setting of Manthorpe will be retained with a backdrop of modern housing, these effects would be Neutral.
7.6.33. The northern edge of Gonerby Hill Foot would have views from upper floors towards the Proposed Development. Due to the elevated location of the visual receptors, both Medium-term and Permanent effects would be the same and would be Medium scale. Views would be confined to this Limited extent and so would be of a Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate significance. As views towards open fields would be lost and replaced by a housing development, these effects would be Negative.
7.6.34. Elsewhere in the settlement views of the Proposed Development would be much more constrained due to intervening topography, built form and vegetation as illustrated by viewpoint 5. Therefore beyond the northern edge of Grantham and western edge of Manthorpe, effects on the settlement as a whole would be Minimal.
Great Gonerby (735m, west)
7.6.35. Great Gonerby is also a village that formed part of the Belton estate and developed as an agricultural settlement on Gonerby Hill to the north-west of Grantham. The church spire of St Sebastian’s provides a distinctive landmark in the surrounding landscape. Post war expansion subsequently occurred to the east, south and west3. Great Gonerby’s Conservation Area is located to the west of the village (refer to Figure 7.1) and has no visibility towards the Proposed Development. There would be elevated views into the Application Site from the eastern edges of the village and, as at viewpoint 4, the Medium-term effects would be Medium scale. Views would,
3 Grantham Townscape Assessment, CA12 Great Gonerby Village and Environs, 2011
Environmental Statement 139
however, be confined to this Limited extent and so would be of a Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate significance. As open views of fields would be lost and replaced by a housing development, these effects would be Negative.
7.6.36. As planting matures along the western edge, upon the acoustic bund, development within the west of the Application Site would be softened and/or screened, but views towards development within the centre of the Application Site, albeit softened by street tree planting, will be available. Therefore the Permanent scale of effect remains at Medium, resulting in a Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate significance. As views of open fields would be lost and replaced by a housing development and associated woodland and tree planting, these effects would remain Negative.
7.6.37. Elsewhere in the village there are unlikely to be any views of the development at all and so, outside the areas noted above, effects on Great Gonerby would be Minimal.
Londonthorpe (3.1km, east)
7.6.38. Londonthorpe is a village that was included within the Harrowby estate located upon the elevated landform of the scarp located to the east of Grantham. From this village, there would be elevated, distant views towards the Proposed Development from the western edge of the settlement and, as at viewpoint 7, the Medium-term effects would be Small scale. Views would be confined to this Limited extent and so would be of Low-Negligible magnitude and Slight significance. As there are existing views to the northern edge of Grantham, as well as Great Gonerby and Gonerby Hill Foot and the pylons through the Application Site within the available view, these effects would be Neutral.
7.6.39. As planting matures along the northern edge of the Application Site, views towards the Proposed Development will be softened and screened, creating a wooded link between Brickkiln Plantation and trees associated with the River Witham. Therefore Permanent effects would be of Negligible scale and magnitude resulting in a Minimal significance.
Environmental Statement 140
7.6.40. Elsewhere in the village there are unlikely to be any views of the development at all and so, outside the areas noted above, effects on Londonthorpe would be Minimal.
Roads and Rail
7.6.41. No road or rail routes within the study area are identified as being of increased sensitivity to the Proposed Development, as set out at 7.2.14. The A607, although a main road, is a single carriageway as it passes through the study areas and vehicles travel at relatively low speeds in comparison to major trunk routes. On this basis, all road routes are assessed to be of Medium-Low sensitivity. The East Coast Main Line that passes the Application Site is also assessed to be of Medium-Low sensitivity as although trains can pass by at speed resulting in a lower sensitivity, some trains are slowing down or speeding up to/from Grantham therefore passengers will have more time to view the Application Site.
A607 (0km, east)
7.6.42. This route runs north-south through the study area, passing through the centre of Grantham before heading in a south-westerly direction towards Harlaxton. The ZTV illustrates potential visibility of the Proposed Development beyond Barkston from the north of Grantham , over 5km from the Application Site. In reality, views would be much more limited due to a high degree of roadside vegetation, extensive vegetation associated with Belton Woods Golf course, Belton Park and Syston Park in the intervening landscape. To the south of Manthorpe, there are unlikely to be any views at all from this road due to the built form of Grantham. Therefore the only stretches of the A607 where there are opportunities to view the Proposed Development are perpendicular to the direction of travel immediately adjacent to the Application Site boundary (travelling north and south) and up to 200m north of the Application Site when travelling south (although this distance would be reduced in summer when vegetation is in leaf). From this location, as at viewpoints 11 and 12, Medium-term effects would be of a Medium scale. As views towards the Application Site are Limited to a confined stretch of the road, the effects would be of Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate-Slight significance. As the views will be of the hard urban edge of Grantham advancing northwards up to the line of the pylons
Environmental Statement 141
becoming the local skyline in the middle distance, albeit it softened slightly by the proposed planting, effects will generally be Negative.
7.6.43. As planting matures along the northern edge and north-west corner of the Proposed Development, views towards the new edge of Grantham will be softened and screened, creating a green edge to the town. Therefore the scale of effect will reduce slightly to Medium-Small, the greater effect being to the north where the scale of the development is more evident across the north of the Application Site. As a result, Permanent effects would be of Low-Negligible magnitude and Slight significance. These effects will be Neutral as the proposed planting will stitch the Proposed Development in with the existing trees and woodland in the surrounding context of the Site.
East Coast Main Line (0km, west)
7.6.44. This route runs north-south through the study area, passing through the centre of Grantham with the train station located at Spittlegate. The railway line passes along the western boundary of the Application Site with the line being upon an embankment to the south transitioning to cutting where it then passes under Belton Lane to go through Peascliffe Tunnel to the north of the Application Site. The ZTV indicates that there would be views from the railway line from Peascliffe Tunnel in the north through to the town centre of Grantham. However in reality, views would be limited to the section of track on an embankment to the northern edge of Grantham to where the trains are in cutting, just south of Belton Lane. Views would be perpendicular to the direction of travel and are currently of open countryside into the Application Site, leading to the existing urban edge of Grantham. Application Site topography prevents views to St John’s church at Manthorpe.
7.6.45. From this location, views would be of the construction and completion of an acoustic bund and associated fence in the Medium-term, preventing longer views into the Application Site, with the Permanent view being of planting associated with this bund maturing and providing an increased vertical barrier, but being a softer, green edge to the Application Site. Potential views to the rooftops of residential development beyond may be available above the bund and acoustic fence
Environmental Statement 142
in the Medium-term, but would be screened from view in Permanent effects. Therefore effects would be the same at both durations and would be of a Large scale. As views are confined to a Limited stretch of the railway line, the effects would be of Medium magnitude and of Moderate significance. As open views of fields would be lost and replaced by an acoustic bund/fence and associated planting, these effects would be Negative.
Belton Lane (0km, north)
7.6.46. This route runs east-west immediately to the north of the Site running from the A607 in the east to Great Gonerby and the B1174 in the west. The route runs along the lower lying ground associated with the Witham valley in the east before rising up Gonerby Hill to meet Great Gonerby at the top. The ZTV indicates that there would be extensive views towards the Proposed Development along the majority of the road up until reaching the centre of Great Gonerby. In reality, views are only glimpsed east of the railway through and above roadside vegetation, perpendicular to the direction of travel both east and west, such as at viewpoint 10. Application Site topography generally screens the scale of development to the east and central parts of the Application Site. The bridge over the railway line has high brick wall parapets which prevent the majority of views from vehicle passengers across the Application Site, despite the bridge being hump-backed over the track. Roadside vegetation west of the railway line continues south of the road, therefore only glimpsed and filtered views are only available through this vegetation, generally travelling in an easterly direction. From higher up Gonerby Hill, close to Great Gonerby, elevated views are available in the direction of travel when heading east that face directly into the Application Site, such as at viewpoint 4. The proposed access from Belton Lane towards the Proposed Development is to be located east of an existing field access, resulting in the loss of a section of hedgerow (up to 120m in total) to allow visibility splays at the new junction. This access will also be the construction access for the Application Site and will therefore have associated construction traffic and compound at this entrance to the Proposed Development. In the Short to Medium-term, the scale of effect will be Medium and of Localised extent, resulting in Medium magnitude and a Moderate significance. Where visible,
Environmental Statement 143
views of open fields will be replaced with housing, which along with the new access to the road will therefore have a Negative effect.
7.6.47. As planting matures, views to the new built edge of the Proposed Development, particularly to the west and northern edge of the Proposed Development will be screened, notably from views east of the railway where ground levels are lower. Replacement hedgerows associated with the new junction with Belton Lane will have established, continuing the roadside vegetation along this route. Elevated views from near Great Gonerby travelling in an easterly direction will be softened by the proposed planting, but the planting will not screen the scale of development. Therefore the scale is Medium-Small for Permanent effects of a Localised extent, resulting in a Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate-Slight significance and remaining Negative.
Londonthorpe Lane/High Road (3km, east)
7.6.48. This local road extends from Grantham (south of Belton Park) within the lower ground associated with Grantham and travels in an easterly direction, up the scarp, through Londonthorpe and towards the B6403 (High Dike) on the plateau. The ZTV indicates pockets of visibility west of Londonthorpe Wood and west of the village of Londonthorpe. In reality, visibility is Limited to the section of road west of Londonthorpe travelling in a westerly direction only, where roadside and intervening vegetation allows glimpsed views from an elevated position towards the Application Site, similar to Viewpoint 7. The scale of effect in the Medium-term is Small resulting in a Negligible magnitude and Minimal significance. Permanent effects will see the maturing of planting along the northern edge of development, thereby screening built form and stitching the Application Site into the surrounding landscape. The scale of effect will therefore reduce and remaining at a Minimal significance.
Harrowby Lane (2.5km south-east)
7.6.49. This local road extends from within Grantham (south of Belton Park) within the lower ground associated with Grantham and travels in an easterly direction through the eastern suburb of the town before travelling up the scarp and towards the B6403
Environmental Statement 144
(High Dyke) on the plateau. The ZTV indicates a pocket of visibility north-east of Harrowby Hall on the steeply rising slope of the scarp overlooking Grantham. In reality, there are extremely Limited filtered views towards the Application Site through roadside vegetation channelled along the road itself travelling in a westerly direction only. As the Site is viewed beyond the existing settlement of Grantham, the Proposed Development would appear as a modest extension to the town. Therefore scale of effect is Small for both Medium-term and Permanent effects resulting in Negligible magnitude and a Minimal significance.
Recreational Routes
7.6.50. The Public Rights of Way (PRoW) assessed here are all judged to be of High-Medium sensitivity to the Proposed Development as views of the surrounding landscape are likely to be an integral part of the user experience.
PRoW through south of Application Site (0km, south)
7.6.51. Close distance views from this footpath (Belt 2/2), as at Viewpoint 14, occur throughout the length of the route, , which passes through the Application Site from Manthorpe in the east to the underpass associated with the ECML in the west. During construction, it is likely that this route will either need to be temporarily closed or diverted (subject to consent) whilst construction works of the infrastructure to the Proposed Development are carried out. On completion, to the far east of the route, the scale of effects will be lower as existing fields are changed to sports fields and species rich grassland, thereby maintaining the openness of the path. Moving further west, the path will cross the proposed access from Rosedale Drive with new housing rising above the retained hedgerow directly to the north before crossing an improved bridge over Running Furrows. The path will then bridge over an attenuation basin with proposed residential buildings located immediately to the north once landing on the western edge of the bridge. The path will then continue along a green corridor including a cascade of attenuation basins to the south with proposed housing to the north as far as the western boundary of the Application Site. Hedgerows retained running north-south and their associated landscape buffers will allow more distant views facing north through the Proposed
Environmental Statement 145
Development. The path will cross the main access into the Application Site at Longcliffe Drive. Overall the scale of effect along this route would be Large and generally Wide in extent for both the Medium-term and Permanent effects resulting in High magnitude and a Major significance. As views across open fields to the north of the footpath will be replaced with housing, the majority of effects would be Negative.
PRoW between East Coast Main Line and Great Gonerby (50m, west)
7.6.52. Close to middle distance views from the footpaths south of Belton Lane(Belt 2/2, GtGo 4/2, GtGo 3/2) between Great Gonerby and the railway occur at extremely Limited locations along the routes due to intervening vegetation within field boundaries and along the paths themselves, which follow a localised valley associated with Gonerby Brook. However, the footpath north of Belton Lane (Belt 4/1), travelling north-east from Great Gonerby towards Peascliffe Farm follows the edge of the slope of Gonerby Hill until meeting the line of electricity pylons where the path then travels north away from the edge of slope towards the north of Peascliffe Plantation. This PRoW has clear elevated views in close proximity to Great Gonerby facing south-east towards the Site and the existing urban edge of Grantham before intervening hedgerow vegetation, topography, and eventually woodland, screen views. Therefore, only a Limited section of this route has views towards the Proposed Development.
7.6.53. Views from footpaths south of Belton Lane are generally narrow and filtered and only available when travelling in an easterly direction towards the western edge of the Proposed Development. In views from the footpath immediately west of the railway, the proposed bund along the western edge of the Application Site will start to screen views into the Application Site. In views higher up Gonerby Hill, along footpaths both north and south of Belton Lane, , as at viewpoint 4, views towards the wider scale of the development will be available, although more distant. Therefore the scale of effect from this group of footpaths in the Medium-term is generally Large-Medium resulting in a magnitude of Medium and a significance of Major-Moderate. As the views of the Proposed Development would replace open fields, the effects would generally be Negative.
Environmental Statement 146
7.6.54. As planting matures along the western boundary, views towards the Proposed Development from the footpath west of the railway will be screened, whereas views from the footpaths north and south of Belton Lane will still have distant elevated views across the Application Site, albeit that proposed planting will soften and partially screen the Proposed Development, reducing the overall scale to Medium for Permanent effects with an even further Limited extent. The effects would be of a Medium-Low magnitude and Moderate significance and on balance remaining Negative.
PRoW west of Londonthorpe (3km, east)
7.6.55. Two public footpaths along with a permissive footpath are found to the western edge of Londonthorpe that travel in a generally westerly direction towards Belton Park and Londonthorpe Wood. These footpaths are located upon the rising scarp located to the east of Grantham and therefore when travelling in a westerly direction have glimpsed and occasionally filtered elevated views through intervening field boundary and woodland vegetation towards the Application Site. The ZTV indicates pockets of visibility across all three footpaths, but in reality, visibility is extremely Limited to the permissive footpath, as at Viewpoint 7, and the PRoW immediately south in close proximity to Londonthorpe due to intervening vegetation. As the view is distant, the scale of effect in the Medium-term is Small resulting in a Negligible magnitude and Slight significance. As the Proposed Development will be seen against the existing edge of Grantham, effects will generally be Neutral. Permanent effects will see the maturing of planting along the northern edge of development, thereby screening built form and stitching the Application Site into the surrounding landscape. The scale of effect will therefore reduce, causing the significance to reduce to Minimal and Neutral.
PRoW at Hall’s Hill (2km, south-east)
7.6.56. A number of public footpaths cross the north-east facing slopes of the rising scarp known as Hall’s Hill. These footpaths generally follow mature hedgelines, which prevent the majority of views out. However, to the north of the hill, footpaths follow north of the hedgelines and allow open, panoramic views across the town of
Environmental Statement 147
Grantham including views towards the Application Site, as at Viewpoint 6. The Application Site is viewed from an elevated position meaning that the full scale of development will be clear, albeit at distance, and beyond the existing settlement of Grantham. Therefore, the Proposed Development would result in a Medium-Small scale of effect for Medium-term effects across an Intermediate extent resulting in Medium magnitude and a Moderate significance. As the foreground of the view is across the town of Grantham, extension of settlement into the Application Site along the perceived valley floor would be Neutral.
7.6.57. As planting matures within the green corridor south of the Application Site, as well as street trees within the Proposed Development, built form within the Application Site will be softened, helping to stitch the development into the landscape. However, the overall scale of development will still be discernible, albeit at distance. As a result, the scale of effect will reduce to Small leading to Permanent effects of Low magnitude and Moderate-Slight significance and Neutral.
Accessible and Recreational Landscapes
7.6.58. Visitors to attractions or heritage assets are assessed here to be of High-Medium sensitivity to the Proposed Development as views of the surrounding landscape are likely to be an integral part of the user experience.
National Trust Belton House and Park
7.6.59. Figure 7.3 illustrating the ZTV indicated that a significant area of the Park had potential visibility towards the Proposed Development. As illustrated from viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 from within the Park, visibility towards the Application Site is in reality limited. Tree cover associated with Belton Park and the River Witham precludes views from Belton House itself (viewpoint 2). Views from Bellmount Tower (viewpoint 1) and the surrounding landscape upon the rising scarp have panoramic views across Belton Park towards the Application Site in the distance, along with the existing edge of Grantham. The most visible parts of the Application Site are to the north-east, with the line of electricity pylons visible along the northern edge of the Application Site. Moving west towards lower ground within the deer park of Belton House, views towards the Site become obstructed by
Environmental Statement 148
woodland and tree planting within the Park meaning that only glimpsed, infrequent opportunities to view the Application Site and Development Proposals are available through the majority of the Park. Moving further west towards South Avenue, vegetation starts to reduce near to the River Witham and the A607/Belton Lane junction, allowing small pockets of medium distance visibility between intervening parkland trees towards the Application Site, as illustrated at Viewpoint 3.
7.6.60. As visibility towards the Proposed Development is Limited, the scale of effect would not exceed Medium in the Medium-term resulting in Low magnitude and Moderate- Slight significance. As the view will only be of a sliver of development extending across the Application Site, along the perceived lower ground associated with the visible existing edge of Grantham, the effects will generally be Neutral.
7.6.61. As planting matures along the northern edge of the Application Site, views towards the built edge of the Proposed Development would be softened and the built development would be screened from view, creating a wooded edge that stiches the Application Site into the surrounding landscape context. Therefore, the scale of effect will reduce, not exceeding Small, resulting in Permanent effects of Negligible magnitude, Minimal significance and Neutral.
Specific Viewpoints
7.6.62. No specific viewpoints have been identified that require specific assessment.
Designated Landscapes
Belton House Grade I Registered Historic Park and Garden
7.6.63. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens are designated based on the heritage value of the landscape, so is not assessed in the same way that landscape designations are considered. NPPF states at paragraph 132 that ‘the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset [should be given] great weight [which] can be harmed or lost through … development within its setting’. As the Proposed Development does not directly impact on the designation, it is the setting of Belton House and Park that needs to be assessed. However, this assessment does not judge whether the historic setting of the Belton House and Park
Environmental Statement 149
would be affected by the Proposed Development, as this is provided at Chapter 9 of the ES on Cultural Heritage. Instead, this assessment looks at how views from within the designation towards the Application Site would change, and also how views approaching Belton House and Park from the study area would potentially alter.
7.6.64. The ‘Belton House and Park Setting Study and Policy Development’ local guidance document prepared on behalf of SKDC and the National Trust (2010) looks to identify what parts of the surrounding landscape contribute towards the setting of the Historic Park and Garden. For this study a number of key viewpoints were used within the park and in the surrounding area to understand which parts of the local area have intervisibility with the designation, and therefore may contribute towards the setting of the heritage asset.
7.6.65. Viewpoints 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 of this LVIA generally match the assessed views A, B, E, H/G and M within the setting study, the latter of which identified that there was visibility towards the Application Site from all these locations. From the ZTV model (Figure 7.3) and field observations, there would appear to be inaccuracies on the figures within the setting study that illustrate visibility from the aforementioned assessed viewpoints. For instance, Viewpoint 1 at Bellmount Tower and associated photomontages of this assessment illustrate that the western half and the far south- east of the Application Site are screened by Application Site topography, with fields to the north-east of the Application Site presenting the most visible area of landscape in close association with the Application Site. Whereas Figure 11 of the setting study illustrating visibility from Bellmount Tower (point E) shows the opposite with no visibility to the north-east of the Site and visibility in the west and south-east. Further inaccuracies on the basis of assessment for this setting study have been identified (which are outlined in this assessment), which as a consequence means that sensitivities to differing scales of development judged from Section 3 (p.19) and on Figure 15-Elements of the setting of Belton House will be used cautiously as part of this assessment.
Environmental Statement 150
7.6.66. As illustrated from viewpoints 1, 2, 3 and 8, visibility towards the Application Site is limited from within the designation. Tree cover associated with Belton Park and the River Witham precludes views from Belton House itself (viewpoint 2) and along the local road to the north of the designation rising up the scarp (viewpoint 8). Views from Bellmount Tower (viewpoint 1) and the surrounding landscape upon the rising scarp have panoramic views across Belton Park towards the Application Site in the distance, along with the existing edge of Grantham. The most visible parts of the Application Site are to the north-east, with the line of electricity pylons visible along the northern edge of the Application Site. Moving west towards lower ground within the deer park of Belton House, views towards the Site become obstructed by woodland and tree planting within the Park meaning that only glimpsed, infrequent opportunities to view the Application Site and Development Proposals are available through the majority of the designation. Moving further west towards South Avenue, vegetation starts to reduce near to the River Witham and the A607/Belton Lane junction, allowing small pockets of medium distance visibility between intervening parkland trees towards the Application Site, as illustrated at Viewpoint 3.
7.6.67. Outside the designation, the approach along Belton Lane and the A607 towards Belton House and Park are assessed within the setting study. Viewpoint 4 illustrates that views towards the park are narrow along the direction of travel facing east due to roadside vegetation. Moving further east along Belton Lane going down the hillside, views to the Park are restricted further by intervening vegetation and slightly rising topography. To the far east of Belton Lane, once over the slight raised ground, views into the Park are more readily available, although still within a narrow field of view due to tall vegetation to the north of the road associated with Belton Woods Golf Course, and lower roadside hedgerows to the south. As discussed at para 7.6.44, views into the Application Site itself from Belton Lane are glimpsed through gaps or filtered through or above roadside vegetation. Views along the A607 are generally limited to gaps in roadside vegetation or estate walls facing perpendicular to the direction of travel as passing immediately by Belton Park. Therefore the field of view towards the Park is very narrow from the A607.
Environmental Statement 151
7.6.68. Within the setting study at Figure 15, the Application Site is covered partly by Element 1, with the exception of the north-east of the Application Site, and partly by Element 3, generally found offset by 500m from Belton Lane and the A607. Element 1 is described as being ground visible from Belton House roof, Bellmount Tower and point D, H and L. As discussed above, the Application Site is only partly visible from Bellmount Tower (viewpoint 1) and is not visible from Belton House rooftop or points D, H or L. Therefore only the north-eastern parts of the Application Site should be covered under Element 1. Element 3 is described as being areas visible from the key approach points, I, J, K and M and routes 1-9. The extent of visibility of Element 3 is in reality more constrained in close proximity to the Application Site to gaps in roadside vegetation. In addition, it is assumed that the significance of this visibility on Figure 15 should be where there is intervisibility with Belton Park and the approach road. However, if this is the case, then much of Element 3 should be removed within the west of the Application Site.
7.6.69. In accordance with the setting study at Chapter 3, the Proposed Development is a Medium-Sized Development (‘group of 50 houses or more…below the size that would require the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999’, section 3.3, p.21). The setting study judges that the Application Site would be ‘Exceptionally Sensitive’ within Element 1 and ‘Sensitive’ to Element 3. As described above at para 7.6.63, with Element 1 and 3 amended to actual intervisibilty with the designation, the Proposed Development generally keeps to areas outside of the visible setting of Belton Park, with the exception of land in the central section of the northern edge of the Site. Following the above analysis, it is judged that the sensitivity of the viewpoints within Belton Park Historic Park and Garden to the Proposed Development is on balance High. As visibility towards the Proposed Development is Limited, the scale of effect would not exceed Medium in the Medium-term resulting in Low magnitude and Moderate significance. As the view will only be of a sliver of development extending across the Application Site, along the perceived lower ground associated with the visible existing edge of Grantham, the effects will generally be Neutral.
Environmental Statement 152
7.6.70. As planting matures along the northern edge of the Application Site, views towards the built edge of the Proposed Development would be softened and screened from view, creating a wooded edge that stiches the Application Site into the surrounding landscape context. Therefore, the scale of effect will reduce, not exceeding Small, resulting in Permanent effects of Negligible magnitude, Slight significance and Neutral.
Site Fabric
7.6.71. A number of landscape features, comprising parts of the Application Site’s physical fabric, would be modified or removed, as follows:
The defunct, species-poor hedgerow (approximately 200 linear metres) that runs parallel to the public footpath, immediately west of Running Furrows will be removed.
Running Furrows would be improved and enhanced for ecology and hydromorphology by removing scrub on one side of the stream, as well as creating a two-tiered bank for marginal vegetation and creating pools and riffles within the watercourse itself. This will not only have benefits for wildlife, but will also improve the amenity for proposed residents.
A few gaps (approximately 170m in total) would be made in the hedgerows within the western half of the Site, and along Belton Lane to allow for vehicular and pedestrian access.
Approximately a 20m wide working corridor removing woodland trees associated with Gonerby Brook will be required to gain access from Longcliffe Road into the Application Site, affecting the TPO as described from section 7.6.72 below.
One Grade B tree and two tree groups (no. 91, 92 and 101) along with two groups of Grade C trees/mixed scrub (no. 42 and 75) will potentially need to be removed in order to allow the Proposed Development (as referred to in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) by Arboricultural & Woodland Consultancy Service at Appendix 7.8). Further avoidance of impact works to
Environmental Statement 153
BS5837 would be required to safeguard trees to be retained as outlined within the AIA.
The replacement of low ecological value arable fields and grazed fields with residential land, public open space and water attenuation areas.
7.6.72. All individual trees covered with a TPO will be retained and protected from the Proposed Development, and where appropriate, will have succession planting located nearby in order to maintain the wooded setting of Manthorpe for future generations. It is assumed that a working corridor of approximately 20m wide will be needed in order to extend Longcliffe Road to provide access to the Application Site. A number of woodland trees associated with the TPO that affects the Application Site will therefore need to be removed within this corridor in order to allow this access. The exact number of trees to be removed will not be known until detailed design has been undertaken but, as far as possible, existing trees associated with the woodland will be retained and protected from the Proposed Development.
7.6.73. Therefore a small number of trees associated with the woodland protected by a TPO will be negatively affected by the Proposed Development. However it is proposed that approximately 2ha of new native woodland is planted, along with numerous individual native trees in species rich grass and street trees associated with the Proposed Development, therefore substantially increasing the level of tree cover within the Application Site and would be a benefit to the Application Site and the local area.
7.7. Residual Effects
7.7.1. Through an iterative design process, the landscape proposals have been developed alongside proposals for built development, thereby minimising and where possible avoiding landscape and visual impacts. Effects described in Section 7.6 take into account the landscape measures embedded within the design and, as such, the residual effects will be the same. .
Environmental Statement 154
7.7.2. Effects described in Section 7.6 are summarised in Table 7.3. Significant effects are underlined. For receptors where the significance of effects varies, the distribution of effects is summarised.
7.8. Impact Interactions
7.8.1. No other topic assessments have been used to assess the Landscape and Visual impacts .
7.8.2. A high level lighting assessment at Appendix 7.6 has been used to provide a baseline and potential effects of lighting within the Proposed Development upon representative viewpoints. This assessment is used to support the description of the view and the scale of effect for each viewpoint illustrated on Figures 7.7 to 7.21 in Volume III.
7.9. Summary
7.9.1. This assessment defines the existing landscape and visual baseline environments; assesses their sensitivity to change; describes the key landscape and visual related aspects of the Proposed Development; describes the nature of the anticipated change upon both the landscape and visual environments; assess the magnitude and significance of the changes in the Medium-term, during construction and before new planting has matures, and Permanently, once planting has matured.
7.9.2. The Proposed Development will take place within a number of arable and pasture fields, four of which would largely become housing development and the rest becoming informal or formal public open space. Existing mature trees and hedgerows within and bordering the Application Site would generally be retained (with the exception of a total loss of up to approximately 390m of hedgerow and approximately a 20m wide corridor of woodland trees to be removed in order to allow the access into the Application Site from Longcliffe Road, the latter covered by a TPO) where they are in good condition, with new planting being added to help integrate the development into the existing settlement and local landscape context. Proposed woodland and tree planting along the north and western edge and north- eastern corner of the Proposed Development will assist with softening and screening
Environmental Statement 155
the new built edge of development. Not only will this planting replace vegetation to be removed but will greatly benefit the Application Site and local area with new publicly accessible and varied landscape compared to the current relatively sterile and inaccessible farmland.
7.9.3. Effects on landscape character are limited to the host LCA, Grantham Scarps and Valleys, and these would be very localised. The effects would be at most Major- Moderate and Negative and would vary within the Application Site itself from Large to Medium scale as a result of the establishment of housing and parkland/public open space respectively. Outside the perimeter of the Application Site, landscape effects would be limited to the fields north, north-east and west of the Proposed Development where they would be Moderate and then Slight and Neutral in the Medium-term and Moderate to Minimal and Neutral for Permanent effects. Outside of these areas, landscape effects would be Negligible.
7.9.4. Visual effects are likewise very constrained and localised, with the most affected receptors being the northern edge of Grantham (Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive estates) and users of PRoWs within or immediately adjacent to the Application Site. Outside the immediate vicinity of the Application Site, there would generally be limited visibility of the Proposed Development generally being seen only from elevated locations on the rising scarp to the edges of Grantham. These receptors outside of the Application Site would not experience effects greater than Moderate and Negative, including those within Belton Park.
7.9.5. The effects identified within this assessment associated with the Proposed Development are predominantly localised and would be expected on any greenfield housing site. With reference to the cumulative assessment in Chapter 16, the Application Site performs better in landscape and visual terms than NWQ Phase II. NWQ Phase II would have a much higher level of impact to the landscape character of Grantham Scarps and Valleys by developing on the upper slopes of the scarps/hills of Grantham, and would therefore be more visible compared to the Application Site, which is located on lower ground and is consistent with existing settlement pattern.
Environmental Statement 156
7.9.6. In conclusion, the Proposed Development would minimise impacts on Belton House and Park and enhance the existing relatively sterile agricultural landscape through public open space provision, woodland, tree and hedgerow planting, as well as wetland habitat creation and improvements to the Running Furrows. Therefore with reference to the 3rd bullet point to paragraph 7 of the NPPF, the Proposed Development would be ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’ and would be a sustainable development in terms of its environmental role in relation to landscape and visual receptors.
Statement of Significance
7.9.7. As set out in the assessment methodology, effects that are Major-Moderate or Major are judged to be significant. Effects of Moderate significance or less are judged to constitute additional considerations. It should be noted that whilst an effect may be significant, that does not necessarily mean that such an impact would be unacceptable.
7.9.8. The findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment indicate that significant (as outlined at paragraph 7.2.27) Permanent effects would arise as follows:
Effects on landscape character within the Application Site itself.
Effects on views from the existing northern edge of Grantham, generally associated with Longcliffe Road estate.
Effects on views from the public footpath crossing the south of the Application Site.
7.9.9. Medium-term effects that are significant (as outlined at paragraph 7.2.26) would arise as follows:
Effects on views from PRoWs between the East Coast Main Line and Great Gonerby
7.9.10. Effects on the receptors assessed above are summarised in Table 7.3 with significant effects underlined. For receptors where the significance of effects varies, the
Environmental Statement 157
distribution of effects is summarised. Effects are given during construction, before the proposed planting has matured, and once the proposed planting has matured unless specifically stated.
7.10. References 1) The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013.
2) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency, 2002.
3) Visual representation of Windfarms - Good Practice Guidance, Scottish Natural Heritage, March 2007.
4) Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 - Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment.
5) European Landscape Convention, 2000.
6) Character of England Landscape, Wildlife and Cultural Features Map, Natural England, 2005.
7) South Kesteven Core Strategy Develpoment Plan Document, 2010
8) South Kesteven Local Plan, 1995
9) East Midlands Region Landscape Character Assessment, Natural England, LDA Design, 2010
10) South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment, South Kesteven District Council, FPCR, 2007
11) Grantham Townscape Assessment, South Kesteven District Council, Forum Heritage Services, Context4d, Eaton Waygood Associates, 2007
12) The Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) Project for Lincolnshire, English Heritage and Lincolnshire County Council, 2011,
13) South Kesteven District Council Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study, South Kesteven District Council, David Tyldesley and Associates, 2011
Environmental Statement 158
14) Belton House and Park Setting Study and Policy Development, South Kesteven District Council and National Trust, Atkins, 2010
15) Grantham Green Infrastructure Strategy, South Kesteven District Council, Chris Blandford Associates, 2011
Environmental Statement 159
Table 7.3: Summary of Effects
Receptor Comments Distance/ Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Positive/ Direction Neutral/ Negative
Landscape Character
Grantham Scarps and Within the Site 0km High- Medium Major- Negative Valleys Medium Moderate
Fields north and west of Site Medium- Moderate Neutral Low
Fields east of A607 – Medium-term Negligible Slight Neutral
Fields east of A607 – Permanent Negligible Slight- Neutral Minimal
Overall effects on the character area Negligible Minimal Neutral within the study area
Settlements
Grantham Northern edge of Grantham (Longcliffe 0m, south High- Medium Major- Negative Road) Medium Moderate
Western edge of Manthorpe Medium- Moderate Neutral
Environmental Statement 160
Receptor Comments Distance/ Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Positive/ Direction Neutral/ Negative Low
Northern edge of Gonerby Hill Foot Medium- Moderate Negative Low
Overall effects on Grantham Negligible Minimal Neutral
Great Gonerby Eastern edge of Great Gonerby 735m, west High- Medium- Moderate Negative Medium Low
Overall effects on Great Gonerby Negligible Minimal Neutral
Londonthorpe Western edge of Londonthorpe – 3.1km, east High- Low- Slight Neutral Medium-term Medium Negligible
Western edge of Londonthorpe – Negligible Minimal Neutral Permanent
Overall effects on Londonthorpe Negligible Minimal Neutral
Roads and Rail
A607 Stretch north-east of Site – Medium- 0m, north- Medium- Medium- Moderate- Negative term east Low Low Slight
Environmental Statement 161
Receptor Comments Distance/ Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Positive/ Direction Neutral/ Negative
Stretch north-east of Site – Permanent Low- Slight Neutral Negligible
East Coast Main Line Stretch along western boundary of Site 0m, west Medium- Medium Moderate Negative Low
Belton Lane Stretch between A607 and eastern edge 0m and Medium- Medium Moderate Negative of Great Gonerby – Medium-term beyond, Low north Stretch between A607 and eastern edge Medium- Moderate- Negative of Great Gonerby – Permanent Low Slight
Londonthorpe Stretch immediately west of 3km, east Medium- Negligible Minimal Neutral Lane/High Road Londonthorpe Low
Harrowby Lane Stretch immediately east of Grantham 2.5km, Medium- Negligible Minimal Neutral south-east Low Overall effects on Harrowby Lane Negligible Minimal Neutral
Recreational Routes
PRoW through south of Overall effects on route 0km, south High- High Major Negative Site Medium
Environmental Statement 162
Receptor Comments Distance/ Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Positive/ Direction Neutral/ Negative
PRoWs between East Overall effects on group – Medium- 50m, west High- Medium Major- Negative Coast Main Line and term Medium Moderate Great Gonerby Overall effects on group – Permanent Medium- Moderate Negative Low
PRoWs west of Overall effects on group – Medium- 3km, east High- Negligible Slight Neutral Londonthorpe term Medium
Overall effects on group – Permanent Negligible Minimal Neutral
PRoWs on Hall’s Hill Overall effects on group – Medium- 2km, south- High- Medium Moderate Neutral term east Medium
Overall effects on group – Permanent Low Moderate- Neutral Slight
Accessible and Recreational Landscapes
National Trust Belton Overall effect on Park – Medium-term 300m, north- High- Low Moderate- Neutral House and Park east Medium Slight
Overall effect on Park - Permanent Negligible Minimal Neutral
Environmental Statement 163
Receptor Comments Distance/ Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Positive/ Direction Neutral/ Negative
Specific Viewpoints
None assessed
Landscape Designations
Belton House Overall visual effect on landscape 300m, north- High Low Moderate Neutral Registered Historic Park designation – Medium-term east and Garden Overall visual effect on landscape Negligible Slight Neutral designation - Permanent
Environmental Statement 164
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 165
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 166
8.0 Ecology
8.1. Introduction
8.1.1. This chapter presents the approach and findings of the assessment of potential effects on Ecology. The chapter presents the methodology followed, and provides a review of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and surrounding area. The chapter then presents the results of the assessment of the effect of the Proposed Development on the ecological baseline in order to determine the anticipated magnitude and significance of effect. Mitigation measures are presented and discussed to minimise the negative effects of the Proposed Development during construction and operational phases to an acceptable level.
8.1.2. This assessment has been undertaken by BSG Ecology on behalf of the Applicant.
8.1.3. This assessment is set within the relevant planning and legislative context applicable to ecological and nature conservation resources (as set out in Section 8.3) in order to determine the implications of the identified effects.
8.1.4. The Proposed Development is described in more detail in Chapter 2. The areas referred to by the terms “Application Site”, “study area” and “desk top study area” are defined below.
Environmental Statement 167
8.2. Assessment Methodology
Consultation
8.2.1. Consultation was undertaken with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust between October 2014 and June 2015 in respect of the scope of survey work proposed and undertaken. On the advice of Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust the semi-improved grassland within the study area was assessed against the Lincolnshire Local Wildlife Site selection criteria.
8.2.2. Consultation was also undertaken with Natural England in October 2014 and June 2015 in respect of the extended phase 1 habitat survey and draft non-technical summary for this chapter.
The Application Site
8.2.3. The Application Site occupies an area of 37.82 ha, as shown on Figure 1.1.
The study area
8.2.4. The study area occupies an area of 53.92 ha situated on the northern edge of the Grantham urban area, centred at OS grid reference SK916 382. The study area boundary is shown in blue in the Ecology Extended Phase 1 Habitats Survey Results Plan in Figure 8.2 at the end of this chapter. Two ponds (Ponds 1 and 2) are included within the assessment, and shown on Figures 8.1 and 8.2, but are located outside of the study area.
The desk top study area
8.2.5. The desk top study area extends to 2km in radius from the centre of the study area OS grid reference SK916 382. This is shown on Figure 8.2.
Sources of Information
8.2.6. Data searches and a desk top study were undertaken in August 2014. The following sources of information/organisations were consulted:
1) Previous studies of the Application Site were undertaken by Wardell Armstrong in 2008 and 2009 on behalf of the Applicant/HPC Homes Ltd. This
Environmental Statement 168
included an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey as well as survey work for great crested newt Triturus cristatus and bats.
2) Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GLNP) in respect of existing ecological data provision.
3) Lincolnshire Bird Club (LBC) in respect of bird records.
8.2.7. An extended phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken by BSG Ecology in August 2014. Additional ecological survey (for bats, white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes, and great crested newt Triturus cristatus,) was carried out between September 2014 and April 2015. Figures illustrating the key desk top study and the survey results are included at the end of this chapter. The methods and results of the surveys are summarised in this chapter of the ES. Technical survey reports are contained in Appendices 8.1 to 8.4.
Desk top study
8.2.8. Aerial photographs and 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey maps of the desk top study area were reviewed to characterise the habitats present within and surrounding the study area, to evaluate the ecological context of the study area within the surrounding landscape, and to identify ponds within 500m of the study area boundary.
8.2.9. The desk top study included a data trawl through Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership (GNLP) and Lincolnshire Bird Club (LBC). Records were provided in August 2014. As part of the search with GNLP, records were requested relating to the presence of any protected species or designated statutory or non-statutory sites of conservation value (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Local Wildlife Sites) within a 2km radius from the centre of the study area. Similarly bird records were requested from LBC within 2km of the centre of the study area.
8.2.10. A summary of the key records obtained by the desk top study are presented in Figure 8.1 at the end of this chapter.
Environmental Statement 169
Field survey
8.2.11. The study area has been subject to on site ecological survey work in 2014 and 2015 using standard methodologies wherever possible according to the habitat or biotic group (as detailed in the relevant sections below). This includes the following work:
4) Phase 1 habitat survey;
5) Badger Meles meles survey;
6) Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index survey;
7) Great crested newt presence/absence survey;
8) White-clawed crayfish survey;
9) Bat activity survey;
10) Assessment of the habitats for their suitability to support water vole Arvicola amphibius, otter Lutra lutra, nesting birds, bats and reptiles; and
11) Invasive species survey (Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera.
8.2.12. Details of the survey methods are included within the technical survey reports in Appendices 8.1 to 8.4 and are summarised in the following subsections.
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
8.2.13. An extended phase 1 habitat survey was carried out in August 2014. Further survey work was carried out in September 2014 to characterise ponds to the north and south of the study area (as detailed in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey report in Appendix 8.1).
8.2.14. The Application Site was walked over and the habitats were described using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2010), the habitats present were mapped and where appropriate, target notes were made of habitats or any features of particular interest (see Appendix 8.1). As part of the extended component of the phase 1 habitat survey, the study area was checked for evidence of protected species as outlined below.
Environmental Statement 170
Bats
8.2.15. Trees were inspected from the ground to assess their potential to support roosting bats and an assessment of the bat roosting potential of the church immediately next to the study area was also made by carrying out an external inspection of the church from the ground. These assessments were made with reference to sections 8.2.5 and table 8.3 of Chapter 6 of the current good practice guidance (Hundt, L. 2012).
Badger
8.2.16. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey searches were made for evidence of badger Meles meles. An additional search for evidence of badger was also made in October 2014. The survey methodology broadly followed the methods set out in Cresswell et al (1990).
White-clawed crayfish
8.2.17. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey the sections of the Running Furrows watercourse and Gonerby Stream within the study area were assessed for their potential to support white-clawed crayfish. The assessment of features within the watercourses and their suitability for white-clawed crayfish broadly followed the methods set out in Peay (2003).
Water vole
8.2.18. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey and the white-clawed crayfish survey the sections of the Running Furrows watercourse and Gonerby Stream within the study area were assessed for their potential to support water vole. The survey methods were designed with reference to the Water Vole Conservation Handbook (Strachan et al, 2011).
Otter
8.2.19. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey and the white-clawed crayfish survey the sections of the Running Furrows watercourse and Gonerby Stream within the study area were assessed for their potential to support otter. The survey methodology broadly followed the methods set out in Kruuk et al (1986).
Environmental Statement 171
Reptiles
8.2.20. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey the study area was assessed for its potential to support reptiles.
Birds
8.2.21. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey potential nesting habitats for breeding birds were identified.
Invasive non-native species
8.2.22. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey the study area was searched for the presence of invasive non-native plants such as Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam.
Great crested newt
8.2.23. During the extended phase 1 habitat survey, the study area was assessed for its potential to support great crested newt, and an assessment was undertaken of Ponds 1 immediately next to the study area and Pond 2 140m to the north of the study area respectively for their potential to support this species. These ponds are indicated on Figure 8.1.
8.2.24. The ponds were assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) scoring method (Oldham et al., 2000), which is a quantitative means of evaluating habitat quality for great crested newt measured over ten indices. The HSI provides a numerical index between 0 and 1 where scores closer to 0 indicates very poor habitat with minimal probability of great crested newt occurrence, and scores closer to 1 representing suitable habitat with a high probability of occurrence (ARG UK, 2010).
Bat survey
8.2.25. Bat activity within the study area was surveyed using two methods: walked transects and remote survey.
8.2.26. Three evening walked transect surveys were carried out, one in August and two in September 2014. The walked transect survey methods were designed with reference
Environmental Statement 172
to Chapter 7 and Table 7.2 of the current good practice guidance (Hundt, L. 2012) for large sites of low habitat quality. The study area covers 53.92 ha and one transect route adequately covered the bat emergence period and period of most intense foraging activity when invertebrate prey are most abundant (Altringham 2003) which typically lasts for approximately 2-3 hours after sunset.
8.2.27. The transect route was designed to sample areas likely to be well used by bats (e.g. hedgerows and watercourses) and areas of lower habitat quality (open arable fields and improved pasture). The route was walked in opposite directions on the first two visits and started from the centre of the transect route (commencing with stop 6) on the third transect visit to ensure different areas of the Application Site were sampled at different times.
8.2.28. The remote survey, which involves the deployment of remote (static) bat detectors, enables data to be gathered continuously over multiple nights. This method can help to identify the presence of species present at low frequency and provide additional data to support the findings of the walked transects. SM2 remote bat detectors were deployed at two fixed points for five recording periods between August and October 2014 (48 nights recording in both locations in total). Sample points chosen were situated in different areas of the study area close to habitats considered likely to be used by foraging or commuting bats (e.g. hedgerows and watercourses). The location of the detectors is detailed in the bat activity survey report in Appendix 8.2.
8.2.29. All bat calls recorded on the detectors were analysed using “Analook” software to confirm the species of bats encountered during the surveys. Wherever possible the calls were identified to species level.
White clawed crayfish survey
8.2.30. The sections of the Running Furrows and Gonerby Stream watercourses which lie within the study area were surveyed for white-clawed crayfish in September 2014. The survey used hand searching/stone turning, inspection of banks for crayfish burrows, netting through aquatic vegetation and night-time torch survey techniques (Peay 2003). Four 50m sections of the Running Furrows were surveyed. The Gonerby
Environmental Statement 173
Stream was surveyed at a number of points along its length (due to fallen trees impeding movement up the watercourse). The location of 50m survey sections and sample points are detailed in the white-clawed crayfish survey report in Appendix 8.3.
Great crested newt survey
8.2.31. No ponds are present within the study area. Pond 1 is immediately adjacent to the southern study area boundary, six further ponds were identified within 500m of the northern study area boundary. One of these ponds, Pond 2, is within 140m of the northern study area boundary; the remaining five ponds are 360m or more away. The locations of Ponds 1 and 2 are detailed in the extended phase 1 habitat survey report in Appendix 8.1.
8.2.32. Pond 1 and 2 (i.e. those ponds within 250m) have been subject to a Habitat Suitability Index assessment (HSI) (Oldham et al., 2000) for great crested newt in September 2014.
8.2.33. A HSI assessment is a quantitative measure of habitat quality which gives a score between 0 and 1, derived from an assessment of habitat variables known to influence the presence of newts such as pond size, water quality, shade, presence of aquatic vegetation and fish. Scores closer to 1 indicate ponds with greater suitability, for example, a HSI score above 0.7 indicates good quality habitat, while HSI scores below 0.5 indicate poor quality habitat.
8.2.34. Following the HSI assessment, Pond 2 was ruled out from further consideration due to its poor potential to support great crested newt, distance (190m) from the Application Site boundary and poor terrestrial habitat connectivity with the Application Site. Pond 1 (which is contiguous with the southern Application Site boundary) was subject to presence/absence survey for great crested newt in mid- April 2015.
8.2.35. The presence absence/survey involved the collection of water samples on 16 April 2015 for environmental DNA (eDNA) testing at a recognised laboratory. The collection of water samples and laboratory testing were undertaken in accordance
Environmental Statement 174
with the procedure recognised by Natural England for this technique (Biggs J et al 2014). In addition one survey visit was undertaken immediately following water sample collection using night-time torch surveying and bottle trapping methods following standard survey methodology (English Nature, 2001).
8.2.36. Further presence/absence survey visits were considered unnecessary further to receipt of the eDNA results.
Survey and assessment guidance
8.2.37. The following guidance documents are of particular relevance and have been referred to when gathering additional baseline data and carrying out the assessment:
1) ARGUK (2010) Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (ARGUK Advice Note 5). Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the UK (ARGUK).
2) Biggs J et al (2014). Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.
3) Cresswell, W. & Whitworth, R. (2004) An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus. English Nature Research Reports Number 576
4) English Nature (2001) Great crested newt mitigation guidelines.
5) Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys – Good practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.
6) IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.
7) JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
8) Oldham, R.S. et al., (2000), Evaluating the suitability of habitat for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). The Herpetological Journal, Vol 10
Environmental Statement 175
9) Peay S (2003). Monitoring the White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 1, English Nature, Peterborough.
Study Area
8.2.38. The ecological study area occupies an area of 53.92 ha. The study area and Application Site boundaries are shown on Figure 8.2 at the end of this chapter. Two ponds were included outside of these boundaries as described above and indicated in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 at the end of this chapter.
8.2.39. The technical survey reports in Appendices 8.1 to 8.3 reflect the study area boundary.
Assessment Process
8.2.40. The assessment within this chapter follows the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom developed by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM July 2006), which is recognised as current good practice for ecological assessment. The objective of the Guidelines is to promote a scientifically rigorous and transparent approach to Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), as a key component of EIA. The Guidelines comprise advice on good practice in four key areas of EcIA:
Identifying and evaluating ecological features;
Characterising and (where possible) quantifying effects and assessing their significance;
Minimising negative effects and maximising benefits through the Proposed development design process;
Identifying legal and policy implications and their consequences for decision- making.
8.2.41. The IEEM Guidelines (IEEM 2006) recognise that ecological evaluation is a ‘complex and subjective process’ but describes key considerations that should be taken into account when ‘applying professional judgement to assign values to ecological
Environmental Statement 176
features and resources’. These include consideration of: geographic frame of reference; site designations and features; biodiversity value; large populations or important assemblages of species; potential value, secondary or supporting value. Social/community value and economic value are not considered in this chapter.
8.2.42. In order to determine the potential for ecological effects and the significance of effects, the following process, adapted from the IEEM guidance, is used to assess each ecological feature. This process consists of the following steps:
Evaluate features to a geographical scale;
Identify and characterise ecological effects;
Determine confidence in assessment of ecological effects;
Determine significance of effects; and
Determine confidence in significance assessment.
8.2.43. These five steps are described in turn below.
Evaluation
8.2.44. A key consideration in assessing the effects of any development on flora and fauna is to define the habitats and species that should be considered as part of a detailed assessment. It is impractical to consider every species and habitat that may be affected and it is necessary to focus on ecological receptors of a higher value. The IEEM guidance describes setting a “threshold value” and that “effort must be focused on those features or resources that are sufficiently important to merit more detailed consideration”. The approach that is taken through this EcIA process is to identify ecological receptors above a threshold value that would trigger a potential policy response and, separately, to consider the legal protection of species.
8.2.45. In order to evaluate the importance of ecological receptors identified in the desk top study and field surveys, a set of standard measures are outlined in guidance produced by IEEM (2006); these measures have been used where relevant to the Proposed Development. For each site, habitat and species/assemblage, a summary grade is determined using the levels of value recommended in the guidance. This
Environmental Statement 177
places the importance of each receptor in a geographical context, using the following hierarchy:
1) International;
2) UK;
3) National (England);
4) Regional (East Midlands);
5) County (Lincolnshire);
6) District (South Kesteven);
7) Parish (e.g. Belton and Manthorpe, Great Gonerby); or
8) Site - all land within the Application Site boundary or which is within the immediate zone of influence only (the extent of influence varies according to the receptor, for example the immediate zone of influence for great crested newt extends to 250m, beyond the Application Site).
8.2.46. Where possible, formal criteria are used to set receptors of conservation importance within this geographical context. For example, the Guidelines for the Selection of Biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Nature Conservancy Council, 1989) can be used to assess receptors at the national level. Similarly, published guidelines for the selection of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) are normally used to assess receptors at the county level. The Lincolnshire LWS selection criteria for grassland were used to assess if the species-poor semi-improved grassland within the Application Site conformed to the selection criteria for grassland LWS within Lincolnshire (GNLP 2013).
8.2.47. The use of such published criteria in this assessment does not imply that a site or receptor that meets the criteria should or would be designated as a SSSI or LWS. One reason for this is that many other factors, such as management practicalities, are considered prior to designation. The criteria are only used in this document to set the value of a receptor in the geographical context laid out above.
Environmental Statement 178
8.2.48. For additional background, there are a number of other frameworks that can be used to help place designated sites, habitats or species into the geographical hierarchy in evaluation terms. These include the legislation and policies listed below:
International law – EU Birds and Habitats Directives;
National law – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act), Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006; (NERC Act);
National policy and criteria – National Planning Policy Framework, ODPM Government Circular 06/2005, England Biodiversity Strategy, UK Birds of Conservation Concern; and
Local policy – Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan, Natural England Landscape Character Network, Lincolnshire, Local Wildlife Site Guidelines for Greater Lincolnshire.
Identification of Impacts and Ecological Effects
8.2.49. In addition to evaluating the importance of the ecological receptors identified, this section characterises predicted potential ecological effects arising from the Proposed Development, taking into account incorporated design measures but prior to the identification of any mitigation measures. It does so by assessing the anticipated effects for each key ecological receptor in light of the available information. Professional judgement is used to determine whether the effects related to these are expected to be ecologically significant.
8.2.50. The predicted effects may be direct or indirect in nature and may occur in one or more of the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. The effects identified to be acting on each ecological feature are assessed (where appropriate and possible) in terms of the factors listed below:
Direction (positive, negative or neutral effect);
Magnitude (the amount or level of effect);
Extent (area in hectares, linear metres, etc.);
Environmental Statement 179
Duration (in time or related to species life-cycles);
Reversibility (i.e. is the effect permanent or temporary);
Timing and frequency (e.g. related to breeding seasons); and
Cumulative effects (between effects from a number of sources, or in combination with other developments).
8.2.51. These factors provide a means of characterising the effects on the receptors identified, thereby allowing the significance of an effect to be assessed.
8.2.52. For the purpose of this chapter, the short-term and medium-term effects during the construction phase are defined as those effects that come about due to construction and last for or up to, approximately, a maximum of eight and a half years years; long- term effects during the construction and operational phases are those that could potentially last throughout the construction period and potentially into the operational phase. However, it should be noted that these terms are considered in the assessment relative to each habitat or species affected and their respective successional processes. For example, six weeks for one species may represent a single generation time period, but for another it may be a few weeks in a life lasting several years.
Confidence in Ecological Impacts
8.2.53. Where possible, levels of certainty are given to indicate the likelihood that both the predicted activity/impact and the associated ecological effect would occur. The IEEM guidance suggests using a scale to identify the levels of confidence arrived at by professional judgement. The following four point scale has been used to identify and apply levels of confidence at all stages of the assessment:
Near Certain or Very High Level of Confidence
Likely or High Level of Confidence
Unlikely or Low Level of Confidence
Very Unlikely or Very Low Level of Confidence
Environmental Statement 180
Determination of Significance
8.2.54. IEEM guidance states that impacts or effects should be determined as being significant when they have a negative or positive effect “on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical area”. The geographical significance of effect is given for each receptor in the assessment process.
8.2.55. The IEEM guidance also states that “A significant negative impact on a feature of importance at one level would be likely to trigger related planning policies and, if permissible at all, generate the need for development control mechanisms, such as planning conditions or legal obligations, as described in those policies”. The likelihood of triggering planning policy and development control mechanisms has been considered in the assessment process.
8.2.56. The IEEM guidance recommends that “the concept of ‘conservation status’ is used to determine whether an impact on a habitat or species is likely to be ecologically significant”. Where the conservation status of a given species or habitat is known, such information is used in the assessment process.
8.2.57. There are a number of ecological receptors associated with the Proposed Development that have been identified as having site level effects and above that have been taken forward through the full assessment. This is because, taking the IEEM guidance together with a reasoned professional judgement on the outcome of the effects, there is a need to identify mitigation or enhancement due to the conservation significance or planning status of the receptor, such as hedgerows. The mitigation and enhancement measures proposed are considered proportionate and fit for purpose and link in positively with the landscape measures.
Site Integrity
8.2.58. The integrity of a site or ecosystem is defined in Governmental guidance1 (ODPM Circular, 2005) as “the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its
1 ODPM (2005). Biodiversity And Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within the Planning System, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO), London
Environmental Statement 181
whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified”. This definition applies easily to designated sites, which normally have well-defined reasons for classification and explicit conservation objectives (normally set out in a site ‘citation’). However, for sites which have not been designated, the ecologically important characteristics of the area require judgement and background information to provide the necessary context. In determining the significance of any potential effects, a site can be considered to have integrity (or ‘favourable condition’) when its ecological function remains whole, it continues to meet its conservation objectives and it retains the ability to recover from disturbance and to evolve in ways favourable to conservation with a minimum of external management support2.
Confidence in Significance Assessment
8.2.59. A level of certainty is assigned to indicate the confidence placed in the assessment of effect significance. The four-point scale identified in Paragraph 8.2.49 above is used for this step.
Assumption and Limitations
8.2.60. All baseline ecological survey work described has been carried out between August 2014 and April 2015. Given the character of habitats within the Application Site this is not considered to be a constraint in terms of habitat survey. Survey work for nesting birds has not been undertaken as agreed further to consultation with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust regarding the scope of ecological survey effort for the Proposed Development, see section 8.2. An habitat assessment was undertaken which has allowed the potential value of the Application Site for nesting birds to be evaluated and assessed and appropriate mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures subsequently identified.
2 European Commission (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC, European Communities, Belgium.
Environmental Statement 182
8.2.61. Field margins were in the process of being cut during the field survey on the 14 August 2014. This is not however assessed to be a significant constraint as only a small percentage of the field margins had been cut prior to being assessed. Crops had been harvested prior to the 14 August 2014 field survey. This is not assessed to be a significant constraint to the characterisation of habitats as the botanical interest of the arable fields is considered likely to have been reflected in the species present within the field margins.
8.2.62. The area of semi improved grassland in the south-east of the Application Site had been cut approximately two weeks prior to the survey visit on the 14 August 2014. This is not considered to have been a significant constraint as it was possible to make an assessment of this field from the species remaining and those present in the uncut field margins around the field.
8.2.63. Other than the area in the vicinity of the proposed access point to the Application Site on Longcliffe Road, the density of vegetation within the woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream constrained the comprehensive ground inspection of trees within the woodland for bat roosting potential. As this woodland will be retained as part of the Proposed Development this is not considered to be a significant constraint.
8.2.64. One of the two static bat detectors used in the bat survey failed to function correctly on the first three of the five survey periods and was therefore replaced. This is not assessed to have been a significant constraint to the survey as good practice guidance (Hundt, L. 2012) recommends that for large sites (>15ha) of low habitat quality that automated surveys are carried out at one location per transect for three periods of four nights each. Static detector deployment took place for five periods at two locations, while one of the static detectors failed to function at one of the locations for three of the five periods, the number of locations, recording periods, and number of nights recorded (i.e. at one location two periods of four or more nights were recorded, and at the other five periods of four or more nights were recorded, giving 48 nights in total) exceeded that recommended by BCT survey guidelines. In
Environmental Statement 183
addition, data from both transects and later automated survey periods are available to enable characterisation of the value of the Application Site for bats.
8.2.65. All bat survey work described has been carried out between August and October 2014. Survey during spring was not undertaken as recommended in the BCT survey guidelines (Chapter 7 and Table 7.2 Hundt L 2012) due to the date of commission. To address the seasonal survey constraint, however, additional survey effort was expended during the August to October period, with for example additional automated detector deployment. The August to October period is a key period with the highest levels of bat activity in the active season. Given the survey results obtained and the assessment of the habitat quality as low for bats, the lack of a spring survey is not considered to be a significant constraint. It has been possible to evaluate and assess the Application Site for bats and identify appropriate mitigation/compensation measures as necessary.
8.2.66. Ponds more than 250m from the Application Site were ruled from further investigation for their suitability for great crested newt as where suitable habitat is present, great crested newts typically occur at highest densities close to breeding ponds (i.e. within 50m); very few occur at greater distances (Cresswell & Whitworth, 2004) and it is acknowledged that mitigation at more than 250m away from a breeding pond is not effective. It was therefore assumed that any great crested newt population centred on ponds more than 250m from the Application Site would be unlikely to be affected by the Proposed Development.
8.2.67. During the white-clawed crayfish survey, access to the upper middle section of the Running Furrows was limited by the density of bankside and aquatic vegetation present, access along the Gonerby Stream was obstructed by fallen trees and density of vegetation growing on the banks of the stream, access was therefore made at a series of points along the Gonerby Stream. Neither of these is assessed to have been a significant constraint to the survey as sufficient access was achieved to undertake the survey methods and achieve confidence in the results obtained.
Environmental Statement 184
8.3. Planning Policy/ Legislative Context
8.3.1. There are a number of national and local policies that relate to nature conservation and ecology within the planning process and that are relevant to this assessment. Reference to these provides an indication of the likely requirements and expectations of statutory authorities and others in relation to planning applications and nature conservation and ecology within an administrative area. There are also legislative requirements that developments are required to meet. The following paragraphs identify the relevant national and local planning policies and then set out the legislation relevant to the Proposed Development.
Legislative Context
8.3.2. The following pieces of legislation have been taken into account in the production of this chapter:
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended): consolidates all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and Wales. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. Under the Regulations, competent authorities i.e. any Minister, government department, public body, or person holding public office, have a general duty, in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the EC Habitats Directive.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on all public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity, and requires the secretary of state to identify a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England and which should therefore be a material consideration in planning decisions, in accordance with the NPPF and the Government Circular 06/2005.
Environmental Statement 185
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides for the notification and confirmation of SSSIs, provides protection to all wild birds and special protection for certain species of birds, animals and plants listed in the Schedules of the Act.
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 protects badgers and their setts. The legislation was introduced for welfare, rather than conservation, reasons.
The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (as amended) makes provision for the protection of wild mammals from certain cruel acts.
Planning Policy
South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010)
8.3.3. The South Kesteven Core Strategy (2010) is the extant Development Plan for South Kesteven, setting out the strategic planning policies for development of land in the district between 2006 and 2026. Policies relating to ecology are detailed below.
Core Strategy Policy EN 1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District
8.3.4. South Kesteven’s Landscape Character Areas are identified on a map within the Core Strategy. The study area is located within the Landscape Character Area identified as Grantham Scarps and Valleys.
8.3.5. Policy EN 1 states that: “…Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration.
8.3.6. All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to:
statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets
local distinctiveness and sense of place
historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape
Environmental Statement 186
the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces
the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings
the condition of the landscape
biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape
public access to and community value of the landscape
remoteness and tranquillity
visual intrusion
noise and light pollution
Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council
impact on controlled waters
protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas)
South Kesteven District Council Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document (2014)
8.3.7. South Kesteven District Council adopted the Site Allocation and Policies DPD (SAP DPD) in April 2014. This DPD now forms part of the Development Plan for the District.
8.3.8. Policy SD 1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development states that: “When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work pro-actively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.
Environmental Statement 187
Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Where there are no policies relevant to the application, or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise - taking into account whether:
any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole;
or specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted”.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
8.3.9. The Government published the Framework on 27 March 2012. This document includes the Government’s national planning policy guidance on the protection of biodiversity.
8.3.10. The Framework recognises the need of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, of which there are three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The Framework sets out the role that the planning system has to play in the protection of biodiversity in relation to the natural environment. The following section details the most relevant biodiversity guidance to the Proposed Development.
8.3.11. Paragraph 109 states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
Environmental Statement 188
minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”.
8.3.12. Paragraph 118 states that “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:
If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;
opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”.
8.3.13. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) Circular 06/2005 supports the Framework by providing guidance on the application of the law in relation to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. The guidance proposes to ensure that planning decisions are based on up-to-date information and ensure the maintenance, enhancement, restoration or addition of biodiversity within the Proposed Development design and ensure planning decisions prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests.
National Planning Practice Guidance
8.3.14. The on line Planning Practice Guidance (DCLG, 2014 via GOV.UK) includes specific guidance in respect of the natural environment and the contribution that is to be made by the planning system.
8.3.15. Paragraph: 008 (Reference ID: 8-008-20140306) states: “Local and neighbourhood plans and planning decisions have the potential to affect biodiversity or geodiversity
Environmental Statement 189
outside as well as inside designated areas of importance for biodiversity or geodiversity. Local planning authorities and neighbourhood planning bodies should therefore seek opportunities to work collaboratively with other partners, including Local Nature Partnerships, to develop and deliver a strategic approach to protecting and improving the natural environment based on local priorities and evidence. Equally, they should consider the opportunities that individual development proposals may provide to enhance biodiversity and contribute to wildlife and habitat connectivity in the wider area.”
8.3.16. Paragraph 8 also advises: “In considering how development can affect biodiversity, and how biodiversity benefits could be delivered through the planning system, it is useful to consider:
The policies and commitments in Biodiversity 2020
The contents of any existing biodiversity strategies covering the relevant local or neighbourhood plan area and any local biodiversity action plans
The potential effects of a development on the habitats or species on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 section 41 list (in Biodiversity 2020)
Whether an ecological survey is appropriate
The factors listed in guidance on local ecological networks that supports National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 117
The statutory obligations in regard to international and national designated sites of importance for biodiversity must also be considered
8.3.17. There are several other relevant paragraphs in respect of the consideration of biodiversity and the natural environment in the planning system, the principles of which are summarised below:
Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 8-016-20140612 How should biodiversity be taken into account in preparing a planning application?
Environmental Statement 190
Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 8-017-20140306 How can development not only protect but also enhance biodiversity?
Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 8-018-20140306 What questions should be considered in applying policy to avoid, mitigate or compensate for significant harm to biodiversity?
Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 8-019-20140306 Does compensation reduce the need for green infrastructure within a development?
Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 8-020-20140306 Where significant harm to biodiversity is unavoidable, how can mitigation or compensation measures be ensured?
8.3.18. Full details of these paragraphs and the links to other sections of the on-line guidance can be located at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/natural- environment/biodiversity-ecosystems-and-green-infrastructure/
England Biodiversity Strategy
8.3.19. The England Biodiversity Strategy replaces the previous UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), which set out the UK strategy to conserve native species and habitats, to which the UK government is committed following the signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.
8.3.20. The England Biodiversity Strategy provides a comprehensive picture of how the UK Government is implementing international and EU commitments. It sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade. It was published in 2011 and covers the period 2011 to 2020.
8.3.21. Species and habitats of principal importance are those described on the England Biodiversity List that are required to be published by the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Species and habitats of principal importance are referred to as “priority species” and “priority habitats” in the Framework (Paragraph 117).
Environmental Statement 191
8.3.22. Planning authorities have a duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act to have regard to species and habitats of principal importance in exercising their functions including development control and planning. Priority habitats descriptions (BRIG, Ed Ant Maddock 2011), originally defined within the UK BAP, are considered in this chapter to relate to habitats of principal importance.
8.3.23. Habitats and species of principal importance considered within this Chapter are as follows:
1) Hedgerows;
2) Woodland;
3) Arable field margins;
4) Lowland meadows;
5) Bats;
6) White-clawed crayfish;
7) Water vole;
8) Otter;
9) Birds;
10) Great crested newt; and
11) Reptiles.
Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (2011)
8.3.24. Local Biodiversity Action Plans identify local priorities which contribute to the delivery of national biodiversity objectives. The Lincolnshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) was published in 2011 and covers the period 2011-2020. The plan delivery is co-ordinated by Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership. The plan includes specific action plans for habitats and species with national plans and also includes action plans for locally significant habitats and species.
8.3.25. The Lincolnshire LBAP habitats and species relevant to this chapter are as follows:
Environmental Statement 192
1) Hedgerows and hedgerow trees;
2) Lowland mixed deciduous woodland;
3) Arable field margins;
4) Lowland meadows;
5) Traditional orchards;
6) Rivers, canals and drains;
7) Ponds, lakes and reservoirs;
8) Bats;
9) White-clawed crayfish;
10) Water vole;
11) Farmland birds;
12) Urban birds;
13) Newts; and
14) Invasive non-native species.
Environmental Statement 193
8.4. Baseline Conditions
8.4.1. This section sets out the approach to, and findings of, the baseline ecological survey work and desk top study. It then goes on to assess the value of the identified ecological resources, in terms of their geographic context (see section 8.2). The assessment of value for ecological resources is undertaken for ecological resources within the Application Site (as described in Chapter 2) as distinct from the study area.
General Description of the Application Site
8.4.2. The following description provides contextual information regarding the Application Site and study area. Reference has been made to the study area where appropriate for specific receptors such as watercourses, otter, water vole and great crested newt.
8.4.3. The Application Site and study area are indicated on Figures 8.1 and 8.2. The study area is located on the northern edge of the Grantham urban area, Lincolnshire. The central grid reference for the study area is SK916382. The study area entirely encompasses the Application Site. The only difference however is that the northern boundary of the study area extends beyond the Application Site boundary up to Belton Lane.
8.4.4. The southern and western boundaries of the Application Site and study area are contiguous. The eastern study area boundary in common with the east Application Site boundary is defined by High Road (A607). The east study area boundary extends further north to the junction of High Road with Belton Lane compared to the east Application Site boundary which extends a few metres north of the running furrows.
8.4.5. Land encompassing a residential property (Manthorpe Grange) and a church (Parish Church of St John the Evangelist) adjacent to the south-east part of the study area is excluded from the study area and Application Site.
Environmental Statement 194
8.4.6. The study area comprises mixed farmland with two watercourses. The Running Furrows watercourse runs through the study area from south-west to north-east. The Gonerby Stream and associated woodland runs along the southern boundary of the study area until its confluence with the Running Furrows watercourse within the study area. To the west of the Running Furrows watercourse the study area is composed of arable farmland with predominantly species-poor hedgerows with occasional associated hedgerow trees and dry ditches. An area of improved and species-poor semi-improved grassland lies to the east of the Running Furrows with species-poor hedges and frequent hedgerow and field trees. An area of tall ruderal vegetation is present in the south-west corner of the study area. Field margins of varying widths are present around some of the arable fields.
8.4.7. Ecological features are considered in the following order:
Protected sites – both statutory (e.g. SSSI) and non-statutory (e.g. LWS/SNCI) protected sites.
Habitats – including a description of both the terrestrial and aquatic habitats present within the Application Site.
Protected or otherwise notable species – this includes consideration of those species protected under UK or EU legislation (e.g. great crested newt, bats, and badger) and species of principal importance.
8.4.8. Ecological features that are not likely to be significantly affected are nonetheless described, or their potential presence considered, for completeness. Some such features (for instance, reptiles) have not been subject to targeted surveys on the basis that they are considered unlikely to be significantly affected.
Protected sites
Statutory designated sites
8.4.9. No statutory designated sites are present within or adjacent to the Application Site boundary.
Environmental Statement 195
8.4.10. The nearest statutory designated site (Allington Meadows SSSI) is outside the desk top study area at more than 4km from the study area (and Application Site) boundary at its nearest point.
Non-statutory sites
8.4.11. There are no non-statutory designated sites located within the Application Site boundary, two non-statutory designated sites are present adjacent to the Application Site boundary. A further two non-statutory designated sites are present within 1.3km of the study area and Application Site boundaries, refer to Figure 8.1.
8.4.12. Manthorpe Road Burial Ground Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) adjoins the south-east part of the Application Site. The SNCI is of importance for its grassland interest including meadow saxifrage.
8.4.13. Belton Park Golf Course Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is located 10m to the east of the Application Site to the east of the A607 road. The Running Furrows watercourse connects the study area (and Application Site) with the LWS. The LWS is of importance for its running and standing water, acid and neutral grassland, woodland, parkland, wetland, dead wood invertebrate fauna of regional importance and white-clawed crayfish. Belton Park Golf Course LWS was last surveyed over five days in July and August 2013, white-clawed crayfish formed part of the reason for the selection of this site as LWS in March 2014.
8.4.14. River Witham, Marston to Belton LWS adjoins Belton Park Golf Course LWS and lies 1.3km to the north of the Application Site. The LWS is of importance for its river and wetland habitats and also as a connective feature in the landscape.
8.4.15. Grantham House Grounds SNCI lies 1.3 km to the south of the Application Site. The SNCI is of importance for its grassland and pond habitats.
8.4.16. The Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership identifies LWS and SNCI and defines them in the following terms:
“Local Wildlife Sites, along with biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), are the most important places for wildlife at a local level. The GLNP seeks to identify
Environmental Statement 196
every site that satisfies the selection criteria presented in the LWS guidelines, thus recognising a comprehensive suite of sites. Sites are selected by the Nature Partnership, based on recommendations made by its expert working group known as the LWS panel and then submitted for inclusion within local authority planning policy.”
“The LWS status supersedes that of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), which were identified on the basis of local knowledge and were selected without consideration of any formal criteria. In greater Lincolnshire, the GNLP aims to assess all existing SNCIs using the criteria outlined in the LWS guidelines. To avoid confusion, until sites have been assessed against the LWS criteria they retain their SNCI status.”
8.4.17. LWS and SNCI are therefore taken to be of county importance for the purposes of this assessment. The above sites are therefore evaluated as being of interest in the county of Lincolnshire context. The deadwood invertebrate fauna of Belton Park Golf Course LWS is listed on the site citation to be of regional value and is evaluated as being of interest in the East Midlands context.
Habitats
8.4.18. The findings of the 2014 extended phase 1 habitat survey are summarised below. Refer to the extended phase 1 habitats survey results (Figure 8.2) and the extended phase 1 habitat survey report in Appendix 8.1 which shows the location and photographs of habitat features that are referred to in the descriptions below.
8.4.19. The Phase 1 habitat types that lie within the Application Site and study area are summarised and quantified as follows (greatest first):
Arable 42.0 ha within the study area, of which 26 ha lies within the Application Site;
Improved grassland 8 ha within both the study area and Application Site;
Species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland 2ha within both the study area and Application Site;
Environmental Statement 197
Broadleaved semi-natural woodland 1.3ha within both the study area and Application Site; and
Tall ruderal vegetation 0.5 ha within both the study area and Application Site.
8.4.20. Linear habitats comprise running water and hedgerows as follows:
Species poor hedgerow with trees 1060 linear metres within the study area of which 1030 linear metres lies within the Application Site;
Species poor hedgerow without trees 2960 linear metres within the study area, of which 2250 linear metres lies within the Application Site;
Species rich hedgerow with and without trees 160 linear metres within both the study area and Application Site; and
Running water 1290 linear metres within both the study area and Application Site.
8.4.21. Ponds 1 and 2, both of which are located outside of the Application Site, were also included in the survey work carried out. Pond 1 is immediately next to the southern Application Site (and study area) boundary and is approximately 200 m2. Pond 2 is within 200m of the Application Site boundary and 140m of the northern study area boundary and is approximately 2000 m2.
Arable fields
8.4.22. The Application Site contains all of one arable field and part of two others. These are of varying size, located to the west of the Running Furrows watercourse. These had been harvested at the time of the extended phase 1 habitat survey.
8.4.23. Field margins of widths between one and five metres are presented adjacent to field boundaries. Species recorded in these areas included Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, nettle Urtica dioica, false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, cleavers Galium aparine, cocks foot Dactylis glomerata, perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne, bearded couch Elymus caninus, wild oat Avena fatua, broadleaved plantain Plantago major, redshank Persicaria maculosa, great
Environmental Statement 198
willowherb Epilobium hirsutum, tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, red clover Trifolium pratense, scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum, barren brome Bromus sterilis, soft brome Bromus hordeaceus, horse-radish Armoracia rusticana, garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata, dove’s-foot cranes-bill Geranium molle, rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium, greater bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus pedunculatus, bittersweet Solanum dulcamara, mugwort Artemisia vulgaris, hairy tare Vicia hirsuta, spear thistle Cirsium vulgare, bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., bristly ox-tongue Picris echioides, common knapweed Centaurea nigra, hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium, ragwort Senecio jacobaea, broad-leaved willowherb Epilobium montanum, dog rose Rosa canina, colts foot Tussilago farfara, meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis, tansy Tanacetum vulgare, cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, soft rush Juncus effusus, hard rush Juncus inflexus, common cat’s-ear Hypochaeris radicata, nipplewort Lapsana communis, Canadian goldenrod Solidago canadensis, comfrey Symphytum sp., teasel Dipsacus fullonum, marsh thistle Cirsium palustre and burdock Arctium sp.
8.4.24. The field margins do not conform to the habitat of principal importance description for arable field margins (BRIG, Ed Ant Maddock 2011) as they do not support qualifying plant species/plant communities of interest.
8.4.25. The field margins do not conform to the description for arable field margins in the Lincolnshire LBAP which requires that the margins should be deliberately managed to benefit biodiversity.
8.4.26. As the field margins are species-poor and do not qualify as habitat of principal importance or conform to the Lincolnshire LBAP description, the arable fields within the Application Site are evaluated as being of site level conservation importance.
Environmental Statement 199
Pasture fields and other areas of grassland
Improved grassland
8.4.27. Two improved grassland fields to the east of the Running Furrows, lie within the Application Site. They support a range of typical grass and herb species including false oat grass, common sorrel Rumex acetosa, burdock Arctium sp., creeping buttercup, hard rush, soft rush, nettle, broad leaved dock, creeping thistle, meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris, dandelion Taraxacum agg., common mouse ear Cerastium fontanum, Timothy Phleum pratense, common bent Agrostis capillaris, Yorkshire fog, cock’s-foot, cow parsley, white dead nettle Lamium album, hogweed, red clover, ground ivy, teasel and ragwort.
8.4.28. The improved grassland does not conform to the habitat of principal importance description for lowland meadows and the flora recorded for this field does not conform to the selection criteria for grassland LWS within Lincolnshire. As the improved grassland habitats are species poor, these habitats are evaluated as being of negligible intrinsic botanical value and site level nature conservation importance.
Species-poor semi-improved grassland
8.4.29. One field in the south-east corner of the Application Site, supports species-poor semi-improved grassland.
8.4.30. The following species were recorded within the species-poor semi-improved grassland: red clover, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, white clover Trifolium repens, creeping buttercup, cow parsley, field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis, yarrow Achillea millefolium, false oat-grass, common bent, ragwort, common mallow Malva neglecta, red dead-nettle Lamium purpureum, common knapweed, dandelion, broad-leaved dock and common cat’s-ear.
8.4.31. The species-poor semi-improved grassland does not conform to the habitat of principal importance description for lowland meadows and the flora recorded for this field does not conform to the selection criteria for grassland LWS within Lincolnshire as such the species-poor semi-improved grassland habitat is evaluated as being of site level nature conservation importance.
Environmental Statement 200
Woodland
8.4.32. A narrow band of woodland is present within the Application Site in association with the Gonerby Stream. Ash Fraxinus excelsior, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, Leyland cypress Leylandii sp., nettle, herb-Robert, ivy Hedera helix, wood avens Geum urbanum, bramble, elder Sambucus nigra, white bryony Bryonia dioica, willow, Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera, hedge bindweed, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, pedunculate oak Quercus robur, snowberry Symphoricarpos albus, lords-and-ladies Arum maculatum, woodruff Galium odoratum, forget-me-not Myosotis sp., and ground ivy Glechoma hederacea, are present within and on the edge of the woodland.
8.4.33. The woodland conforms to the priority habitat description for lowland mixed deciduous woodland and is a Lincolnshire LBAP habitat. The quality of the habitat is considered to be low due to the limited ground flora, presence of invasive non-native species, evidence of recreational disturbance and limited evidence of management. Taking the above considerations into account, this habitat is considered to be of parish level conservation importance.
Tall ruderal vegetation
8.4.34. An area of 0.5ha of tall ruderal vegetation is present within the Application Site boundary to the south of the Gonerby Stream. Species present in the area include great willowherb, bramble, common knapweed, horsetail Equisetum sp., hedge woundwort Stachys sylvatica, rosebay willowherb, greater bird’s-foot trefoil, blackthorn, hawthorn, elder, herb-Robert Geranium robertianum, betony Stachys officinalis, white dead nettle, common sorrel, soft rush, dog rose, nettle, hogweed, spear thistle, creeping thistle, meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, and tufted hair- grass.
8.4.35. The habitat type is not listed as a habitat of principal importance or Lincolnshire LBAP habitat, and is generally prevalent in the local landscape. As such this habitat is evaluated as being of negligible nature conservation importance.
Environmental Statement 201
Field boundaries
8.4.36. The majority of field boundaries within the Application Site are formed by hedgerows. Sections of fencing are also present for example along the western boundary with the railway line. Two short sections of hedgerow (both within the Application Site boundary) have associated dry ditches which support little aquatic or marginal vegetation. The majority of the hedgerow present in the study area is continuous (3870m) rather than gappy in nature, however wide gaps are present between sections of hedgerow such as on the eastern study area (and Application Site) boundary.
8.4.37. The hedgerows appear to be subject to regular management and are typically between 2 to 3m in height and predominantly species poor dominated by hawthorn. Elder, blackthorn, dog rose, wych elm Ulmus glabra, field maple Acer campestre, field rose Rosa arvensis, honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum, dogwood Cornus sanguinea and pedunculate oak, were also recorded with three stretches of hedgerow within the study area identified as being species rich. One of these stretches, of species rich hedgerow lies within the Application Site, is 35m in length as shown on Figure 8.2.
8.4.38. Mature hedgerow trees are infrequent in the hedgerows adjoining the arable fields but more common in those adjoining the improved grassland (which lies entirely within the Application Site boundary). These include ash, pedunculate oak, sweet chestnut Castanea sativa, lime Tilia sp., sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, hawthorn, willow Salix sp., and beech Fagus sylvatica.
8.4.39. Hedgerows are a habitat of principal importance (NERC Act 2006) and Lincolnshire LBAP habitat. The species poor hedgerows within the Application Site are evaluated as being of site level nature conservation importance, the section of species rich hedgerow, and those with mature trees, within the Application Site are evaluated as being of parish level nature conservation importance.
8.4.40. Other field boundaries (fences and ditches) are assessed to be of negligible nature conservation importance.
Environmental Statement 202
Watercourses
Gonerby Stream
8.4.41. The Gonerby Stream runs from west to east along the southern Application Site boundary until it joins the Running Furrows within the study area. The stream is modified, shallow (typically 5cm depth) and is shaded by woodland on either side. No aquatic vegetation is present and bankside vegetation is limited to that associated with the woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream.
8.4.42. The Gonerby Stream within the Application Site and study area does not conform to the habitat of principal importance description for rivers (BRIG, Ed Ant Maddock 2011). The description for drains within the Lincolnshire LBAP habitat may however in principle encompass this watercourse. As such this habitat is considered to be of site level conservation importance.
Running Furrows
8.4.43. The Running Furrows watercourse runs from south to north through the eastern part of the Application Site. The watercourse is modified and shallow (typically 10cm deep). Himalayan balsam, fools watercress Apium nodiflorum, brooklime Veronica beccabunga, water figwort Scrophularia auriculata, floating sweet-grass Glyceria fluitans, watercress Nasturtium officinale, great willowherb, nettle and pendulous sedge Carex pendula, are present within the stream and on the banks. Ruderal vegetation and hawthorn scrub was also recorded on the banks of the stream.
8.4.44. The Running Furrows within the Application Site does not conform to the habitat of principal importance description for rivers (BRIG, Ed Ant Maddock 2011). The description for drains within the Lincolnshire LBAP does however encompass this watercourse and it has a more diverse vegetation in terms of species type and number and varied vegetation structure. As such this habitat is considered to be being of parish level conservation importance.
8.4.45. As referred to in Chapter 14, it is understood that the Gonerby Stream and Running Furrrows are hydrologically connected and as such consideration of downstream
Environmental Statement 203
receptors, such as white-clawed crayfish and Belton Park Golf Course LWS is necessary. These receptors are evaluated separately within this section.
Protected or otherwise notable species
Bats
8.4.46. In the desk top study area, 148 records for bats were obtained. Thirty of these are attributed to roosts. None of the records relates directly to the study area or Application Site. The nearest roost record is attributed to a 1km grid square up to 700m to the south of Application Site from 1999 attributed to an unidentified bat species with Grantham listed as the record location. The nearest records of field sightings are for a common pipistrelle bat Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii and a noctule Nyctalus noctula, all dating from 2009. The grid reference for these records overlaps with the east edge of the study area and Application Site; however the records are attributed to Manthorpe Village.
8.4.47. The most recent records date from 2012 and include unidentified bat species, pipistrelle Pipistrellus sp., common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, Daubenton's and whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus. The records are attributed to Grantham and Belton Park and include records of roosts, field sightings and grounded bats.
8.4.48. Although there are no buildings within the Application Site, 30 trees with bat roosting potential were identified during the extended phase 1 habitat survey within the study area. These trees support features such as cavities and woodpecker holes and may provide roosting opportunities for bats. Three of the 30 trees identified as having bat roosting potential were subject to further survey work for bats by BSG Ecology in September 2014, and are understood to have been felled in November 2014 (refer to Figure 8.3).Trees which may support features suitable for bat roosting are also potentially present within the woodland associated with Gonerby Stream within the Application Site. The church and dwelling beyond the eastern Application Site boundary (as described in 8.4.5) are also considered to have potential to be used by roosting bats.
Environmental Statement 204
8.4.49. The bat survey work shows that at least seven species of bats use the study area (and Application Site) for foraging and commuting. These were common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, brown long-eared, barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, and one or more species of the Myotis genus. The results of the bat survey work are contained in the Bat activity survey report in Appendix 8.2 and summarised in Figure 8.3 at the end of this chapter.
8.4.50. The majority of bat passes recorded (76.8%) originated from common pipistrelle. Soprano pipistrelle, noctule and Myotis account for approximately 5% each, approximately 2% is attributed to noctule/Leisler’s and common/soprano pipistrelle bats. Brown long-eared bat passes make up less than 1% of the bat passes recorded. Barbastelle and Nathusius’ pipistrelle each make up less than 0.5% of the bat passes recorded.
8.4.51. There is also evidence from the remote detector survey that the hedgerows within the arable part of the Application Site are used by bats as flight routes and/or for foraging. These features are used by bat species which are known to be light sensitive such as brown long-eared, barbastelle and species of the Myotis genus of bats (Bat Conservation Trust 2014).
8.4.52. Noctule, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Myotis and brown long-eared bat passes were recorded close to typical emergence and return to roost times possibly indicating the presence of a roost in the surrounding local area. Noctule bat is primarily a tree dwelling species (Hundt L, 2012) and therefore could potentially utilise trees within the Application Site for roosting.
8.4.53. Common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle are often found in relatively modern houses but may also be found in trees (Hundt L, 2012). Common and soprano pipistrelle could potentially roost within buildings in the urban area to the south of the Application Site as well as possibly the relatively older buildings to the immediate east of the study area/Application Site and trees within the study area and Application Site itself.
Environmental Statement 205
8.4.54. Brown long-eared bats are often found in older buildings with large uncluttered roof spaces (Hundt L, 2012). Brown long-eared bats could potentially roost within the relatively older church and residences to the immediate east of the study area/Application Site.
8.4.55. The Application Site falls within the distribution of four species of the Myotis genus, these are Daubenton’s whiskered Myotis mystacinus, Brandt’s Myotis brandtii, and Natterer’s Myotis nattereri (Bat Conservation Trust Website accessed 18 November 2014). Natterer’s bat has a preference for old buildings, whiskered and Brandt’s bats are found in a range of buildings but have preference for old buildings, Daubenton’s bat can use tree cavities and old stone buildings. (Hundt L, 2012). It is considered that these species could potentially roost within the relatively older church and residences to the immediate east of the study area/Application Site. Whiskered and Brandt’s’ bats could also potentially roost within buildings in the urban area to the south and Daubenton’s bat within the older buildings to the immediate east of the study area/Application Site or trees within the study area and Application Site.
8.4.56. All bats are European and UK protected species. Soprano pipistrelle, noctule, barbastelle and brown long-eared bat are listed as species of principal importance (NERC Act 2006), the Lincolnshire LBAP covers all bat species in Lincolnshire.
8.4.57. No roosts have been confirmed within the Application Site, 27 trees are present that have identified bat roosting potential. The evidence of bat foraging and movement is concentrated around hedgerows, watercourses and boundary features. The arable fields, which make up the majority of the area of the Application Site, are considered likely to provide suboptimal foraging habitats for bats. The Application Site sits within a well-connected network of hedgerows, pasture and watercourses and the bat fauna is considered likely to be representative of the wider local landscape. On this basis it is considered reasonable to assess bats to be of parish level conservation importance.
Environmental Statement 206
Great Crested Newt
8.4.58. One record for great crested newt was returned by the data trawl. This was attributed to a 2km square which overlaps with the study area and Application Site. The record dates from 1977.
8.4.59. No ponds were recorded within the study area or Application Site. Seven ponds are present within 500m of the study area. Pond 1 is immediately next to the southern study area and Application Site boundary, Pond 2 is within 140m of the northern study area boundary. Five further ponds were identified from a review of the OS map for the area within 500m of the northern study area boundary; the nearest of these is 360m from the study area. All other ponds therefore lie more than 250m from the wider study area.
8.4.60. A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of Pond 1 identified that this pond had good suitability for great crested newt. HSI assessment for Pond 2 identified that this pond had poor suitability for great crested newt.
8.4.61. The grassland, scrub, hedgerows and woodland within and adjoining the Application Site are considered to provide suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newt. The large areas of arable habitat which occupy the majority of the Application Site are considered to offer poor habitat for great crested newt.
8.4.62. Great crested newt is a European and UK protected species, a species of principal importance (NERC Act 2006) and is included in the Newts Species Action of the Lincolnshire LBAP.
8.4.63. Great crested newt was not recorded from Pond 1 to the immediate south of the Application Site by the presence/absence survey carried out which included one visit using bottle trapping, torch survey and egg searching and testing of water samples for eDNA. The eDNA test result proved to be negative for Pond 1 (ADAS, 2015). Pond 2 was assessed to have poor suitability for great crested newt.
8.4.64. Therefore while suitable terrestrial habitat is present with the Application Site for great crested newt, based on the findings of the assessment and survey of all ponds
Environmental Statement 207
within 250m, this species is considered to be absent from the study area and Application Site, see Table 8.2: Ecological receptors excluded from further assessment.
Otter
8.4.65. One record for otter was returned by the data trawl dating from 2010. The record lies 1.4km to the south of the Application Site. During the survey all of the ditches within the study area were dry and assessed as being unsuitable for otter. The Gonerby Stream and Running Furrows are assessed as being sub-optimal for otter due to their shallow depth. No evidence of otter, such as spraints, tracks or footprints, were recorded during survey work.
8.4.66. It is possible that any otter present on the River Witham could occasionally forage within the Application Site though no evidence of this was recorded. The watercourses within the Application Site were assessed to be sub-optimal for otter due to their very shallow depth. Given that these watercourses will be retained, it is considered unlikely that this species will be affected by the Proposed Development.
Water vole
8.4.67. No records for this species related directly to the study area. The most recent record is from 2003 lying 700m to the south of the study area. A record for American mink Neovison vison, 1.3km to the north of the study area was also returned. American mink is known to have a detrimental effect on water vole populations.
8.4.68. No evidence of the presence of water vole, such as burrows, droppings, tracks or footprints, was recorded during the extended phase 1 habitat survey work. All of the ditches within the study area were dry and assessed as being unsuitable for water vole. The Gonerby stream was assessed as being sub-optimal for water vole due to its shallow depth and lack of emergent vegetation for feeding purposes (Strachan et al., 2011). The Running Furrows was assessed as being sub-optimal for water vole due to its shallow depth.
8.4.69. There is no evidence that water vole is present within the study area/Application Site, see Table 8.2: Ecological receptors excluded from further assessment.
Environmental Statement 208
Birds
8.4.70. Numerous records for birds were obtained for the desk top study area from GLNP and LBC. These included 111 different bird species including 58 notable bird species. Eleven of the records provided were for a 1km grid square which overlaps the study area and Application Site. The eleven records which are attributed to the Manthorpe area include blackbird Turdus merula, collared dove Streptopelia decaocto, chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita, starling Sturnus vulgaris, swift Apus apus, whitethroat Sylvia communis, goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea, house sparrow Passer domesticus and woodpigeon Columba palumbus.
8.4.71. Nine bird species were recorded within the study area during the extended phase 1 habitat survey; these were crow Corvus corone, jackdaw Corvus monedula, goldfinch, blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus, robin Erithacus rubecula, starling, chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, dunnock Prunella modularis, and buzzard Buteo buteo.
8.4.72. The conservation status of the eleven species records for the 1km grid square which overlaps with the Application Site and the nine bird species recorded during the extended phase 1 habitat survey is set out and the species evaluated below in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Evaluation of conservation value of bird species records for the Application Site
Species Conservation status Field record from Desk top Birds Of extended phase 1 study Conservatio habitat survey record n Concern*
House Species of Principal √ Red sparrow Importance (NERC Act 2006).
Lincolnshire LBAP, urban birds Species Action Plan and associated with urban
Environmental Statement 209
Species Conservation status Field record from Desk top Birds Of extended phase 1 study Conservatio habitat survey record n Concern* Habitat Action Plans.
Starling Species of Principal √ √ Red Importance (NERC Act 2006).
Lincolnshire LBAP, farmland and urban birds Species Action Plan and associated with urban Habitat Action Plans.
Table 8.1 Evaluation of conservation value of bird species records for the Application Site (continued)
Species Conservation status Field record from Desk top Birds Of extended phase 1 study Conservatio habitat survey record n Concern*
Dunnock Species of Principal √ Amber Importance (NERC Act 2006).
Identified in Lincolnshire LBAP as being associated with urban habitat plans.
Grey wagtail N/A √ Amber
Swift Lincolnshire LBAP, √ Amber urban birds Species
Environmental Statement 210
Species Conservation status Field record from Desk top Birds Of extended phase 1 study Conservatio habitat survey record n Concern* Action Plan and associated with urban Habitat Action Plans.
Whitethroat N/A √ Amber
Blackbird N/A √ Green
Blue tit N/A √ Green
Buzzard N/A √ Green
Chaffinch N/A √ Green
Chiffchaff N/A √ Green
Collared dove N/A √ Green
Crow N/A √ Green
Table 8.1 Evaluation of conservation value of bird species records for the Application Site (continued)
Species Conservation status Field record from Desk top Birds Of extended phase 1 study Conservatio habitat survey record n Concern*
Goldfinch N/A √ √ Green
Jackdaw N/A √ Green
Robin Lincolnshire LBAP, √ Green urban birds Species Action Plan and associated with urban Habitat Action Plans.
Environmental Statement 211
Species Conservation status Field record from Desk top Birds Of extended phase 1 study Conservatio habitat survey record n Concern*
Woodpigeon N/A √ Green *Birds Of Conservation Concern, Eaton, Brown et al (2009).
8.4.73. None of the species in Table 8.1 is considered likely to use the arable or pasture habitats for nesting. Opportunities for nesting birds within the Application Site and study area (including those listed in Table 8.1) are primarily associated with the hedgerows, trees and woodland for typical farmland and woodland species. The tall ruderal vegetation area in the south-west part of the Application Site and adjoining the Running Furrows also provides potential nesting opportunities.
8.4.74. The arable fields are potentially suitable for ground nesting species such as skylark Alauda arvensis, though this species was not recorded during visits to the Application Site carried out in August and September and no desk top study records for this species were returned for the Study Area.
8.4.75. The Application Site contains habitats which are generally similar to those found more widely in the surrounding landscape with medium-large fields, a mixture of pasture and arable, hedgerow boundaries, narrow linear woodland and watercourses. The birds recorded within the Application Site or for which records were returned for the 1km grid square which overlaps with the Application Site are considered unlikely to nest with the arable crops or pasture which makes up the overwhelming majority of the Application Site. On this basis it is considered reasonable to make a precautionary assessment of birds to be of site level conservation importance.
White-clawed crayfish
8.4.76. Nineteen records for white-clawed crayfish were returned by the data trawl, these records dated from 2000 to 2013. The closest record lies on Running Furrows, 150m to the north-east of the study area/Application Site within the Belton Park Golf Course (LWS). This LWS was last surveyed over five days in July and August 2013,
Environmental Statement 212
its white-clawed crayfish population formed part of the reason for the selection of this site as LWS in March 2014.
8.4.77. All of the field ditches within the study area/Application Site were dry and assessed as being unsuitable for white-clawed crayfish.
8.4.78. White-clawed crayfish were not recorded in the Gonerby Stream or Running Furrows within the study area/Application Site by the white-clawed crayfish survey which was carried out.
8.4.79. White-clawed crayfish is a UK protected species, a species of principal importance (NERC Act 2006) and is included in the Lincolnshire LBAP with its own species action plan.
8.4.80. The downstream population of white-clawed crayfish within Belton Park Golf Course LWS is considered to be of county level nature conservation importance due to the LWS designation.
8.4.81. Given the findings of the survey, this species is considered to be absent from the study area and Application Site but present in close proximity and connected downstream on the Running Furrows. The Application Site and the Gonerby Stream and Running Furrows are considered to have potential to have influence on the status of white-clawed crayfish in Belton Park Golf Course LWS and therefore assume a higher secondary importance. The Application Site is considered to be of district conservation value for white-clawed crayfish as a result of the connection with Belton Park Golf Course LWS.
Reptiles
8.4.82. The data trawl provided four records of grass snake Natrix natrix dating from 1977. The 2km square attributed to two of the records overlaps with the study area and Application Site; it is not possible to place any significance or reliance on the date or resolution of this data.
8.4.83. The hedgerows and watercourses within the study area and Application Site provide some potentially suitable habitats for basking and foraging reptiles if present
Environmental Statement 213
including common lizard Zootoca vivipara, grass snake and slow-worm Anguis fragilis, all of which are species of principal importance. The improved and species- poor semi-improved grassland within the study area/Application Site is considered to have low suitability for reptiles, the arable area within the study area/Application Site is considered to be unsuitable for reptiles.
8.4.84. Given the above, the Application Site is considered to be of site level conservation importance, for reptiles, see excluded receptors table.
Badger
8.4.85. Seven records for badger were returned by the data trawl for the period 1977 to 2010, including one record for a sett. The 2km square attributed to one record (not attributed to a sett) partly overlaps with the study area and Application Site.
8.4.86. Survey of the study area identified a possible disused outlier sett in the south east corner of the study area (within the Application Site). This was assessed to have not been used for some time (greater than 12 months) due to the growth of bramble in front of the entrance and dead leaves within the hole.
8.4.87. A wasp nest that may have been disturbed by a foraging badger was also recorded within the Application Site suggesting that badger foraging takes place within the study area/Application Site. The lack of other field signs suggests the level of activity within the study area/Application Site is likely to be low.
8.4.88. Given the low level of evidence of badger activity the study area/Application Site is assessed to be of site level conservation importance for badger.
Other receptors: Schedule 9 Plants: Himalayan Balsam
8.4.89. Himalayan balsam was recorded along the Running Furrows watercourse and also the northern edge of the woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream both of which lie within the Application Site boundary. Himalayan balsam is listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) making it an offence to plant this species or cause it to grow in the wild. Himalayan balsam is also listed in the invasive species section of the Lincolnshire LBAP.
Environmental Statement 214
8.4.90. Given the above, the Application Site is considered to be of site level conservation importance, for Himalayan Balsam.
Environmental Statement 215
8.5. Potential Effects
8.5.1. The potential effects of the Proposed Development, taking into account incorporated (good practice) and design measures which are embedded within the design of the development are identified and described in this section.
8.5.2. These are described for each receptor (i.e. each habitat or vegetation community, species or site of interest). These effects are assessed firstly in this section, without mitigation measures and then with mitigation measures. Residual effects which are anticipated to exist following the application of mitigation measures are identified in Section 8.7.
8.5.3. The significance of any effects is assessed at an appropriate geographical level using the levels of significance derived from the IEEM guidance.
8.5.4. Ecological receptors that are to be excluded from any further assessment either due to their geographical distance, the lack of anticipated direct or indirect effects, or the receptor having low ecological value are identified.
Measures incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development
8.5.5. The following measures have been identified on the basis of forming an integral component of the Proposed Development or constitute good practice measures as part of the construction phase. These measures will be incorporated into the CoCP where appropriate and necessary.
The majority of the development will be sited within existing arable fields and between existing hedgerows.
The construction of a Pedestrian/Cycle link as described in Chapter 2 adjoining Manthorpe burial ground SNCI will be subject to a 3m stand off from the boundary hedge of the SNCI. This will be fenced and a toolbox talk given for contractors. The Pedestrian/Cycle link path will be constructed outside of the Root Protection Areas (RPA) of the trees on the boundary with the SNCI, or if within the RPA, a no-dig construction method will be used to avoid harm to
Environmental Statement 216
existing trees with reference to The British Standard BS 5837 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations (BSI, 2012).
The woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream within the Application Site will be retained and the construction of surface water attenuation features alongside the woodland will take place outside of the RPA of the woodland, or if within the RPA, a no-dig construction method will be used to avoid harm to existing trees, see above reference.
Wherever possible habitats and features of ecological value, including woodland, hedgerows, and mature trees have been avoided.
The section of species rich hedgerow within the Application Site will be retained.
The retention of trees identified to have bat roosting potential within the Application Site has been incorporated into design of the Proposed Development.
Lighting during construction and operation of the development will be directed away from trees with bat roosting potential and the church and dwelling beyond the eastern boundary which have potential to be used by roosting bats.
There will be no night-time lighting of the Running Furrows during construction or operation of the Proposed Development. Therefore the Running Furrows will be retained as a dark corridor for bat movement along the eastern side of the Proposed Development during both construction and operation.
The construction of the access to the Proposed Development from Longcliffe Road across the Gonerby Stream will include specific measures, to be detailed within a method statement, to enable the continued potential passage of otter, including during the course of construction of the highways access.
Construction compounds will be sited away from features used by bats, birds or potentially otter. Any lighting of construction compounds will also be directed away from these features.
Surface water attenuation features also form part of the design of the Proposed Development (as described in Chapter 14) which will reduce potential negative
Environmental Statement 217
effects on watercourses and will provide additional ecological habitat available for flora and fauna with appropriate management. It is also anticipated that Environment Agency good practice with respect to the quality of surface water discharges will be adhered to and that water monitoring and emergency/contingency measures with respect to water quality will be identified in a COCP.
The need for removal of hedgerow tree has been avoided and the loss of species- poor hedgerow has been minimised. Retained hedgerows will be subject to a 3m stand-off which will be fenced and included in a toolbox talk given for contractors.
The construction of the noise attenuation bund and associated woodland as described in Chapters 7 and 12 will create a dark corridor for bat movement along the western Application Site boundary.
Areas where habitat enhancement will occur (new hedgerow, woodland creation and wildflower-rich grassland creation) have been identified, see Figure 8.4.
Engineering work to the Running Furrows will include measures to enable the continued potential passage of otter during the course of work and also enhance the ecological value of the watercourse. This will include the engineering of ledges to stabilise banks and facilitate reduced future mechanical management of the banks of the watercourse. This reduced intensity, frequency and extent of watercourse management will increase the suitability of the Running Furrows for white-clawed crayfish.
Where possible, any work requiring vegetation removal or ground clearance work (particularly any work affecting hedges and trees) will be carried out between September and February, in order to avoid the bird breeding season. If any work has to take place during the bird breeding season, then the suitable nesting habitat will be surveyed for active bird nests by a suitably qualified ecologist before the work is carried out. If active bird nests are present, then work within the area supporting the nests would be delayed until nesting activity has ceased.
Environmental Statement 218
Any removal of sections of hedgerow for access or works to watercourses will take place under an ecological method statement and ecologist supervision to avoid killing/injury of reptiles in the unlikely event that they are present on Application Site.
During construction trenches left open overnight will have an earth ramp to prevent badgers becoming trapped.
A pre-construction ecological walkover survey will be undertaken prior to the commencement of each of phase of development. This survey will identify if any additional construction phase mitigation is required. Badgers will be specifically included in the walkover survey to identify any new badger activity, sett creation or re-occupation.
Construction and Operational Phase effects
8.5.6. The following paragraphs summarise the principal effects taking into account incorporated measures, referred to in the previous section. The purpose of this part of the assessment process is to establish the requirement for, and extent of, mitigation measures where necessary.
8.5.7. The construction phase is anticipated to last up to a maximum of eight and half years, and effects within this period are considered to be either short and medium term depending on the nature of activity and duration of the effect being considered. Given the duration of the construction phase, the creation of habitat features such as green corridors is included under the construction phase heading.
Construction Phase Permanent loss of 26 ha of arable and up to 0.3 ha pasture land and replacement with the Proposed Development land uses.
Permanent loss of 26 ha arable and up to 0.3 ha pasture land that provides potential nesting opportunities for ground nesting birds.
Permanent loss of up to 390 linear metres of existing species poor hedgerows that also provide nesting opportunities for farmland and woodland birds.
Environmental Statement 219
Permanent loss of up to 0.02 ha (a 20m stretch) of woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream in order to construct the access road into the Application Site from Longcliffe Road.
Short-term direct disturbance of nesting bird species in retained hedges through construction noise and movement.
Short-term direct loss of bird nesting and foraging habitat along the Running Furrows watercourse during engineering works to the watercourse. For purposes of assessment it has been assumed on a precautionary basis that the whole of the Running Furrows (600 linear metres) within the Application Site will be affected to a greater or lesser degree.
Creation of long-term bat and bird foraging areas associated with surface water attenuation features.
Medium-term direct and indirect effects on watercourses (as outlined in Chapter 14) and their associated ecology value specifically the Gonerby Stream, Running Furrows, River Witham and downstream species such as white-clawed crayfish. These effects are anticipated to last for the full duration of the construction period (rather than a limited period within the construction phase) and are therefore assessed to take place in the medium- term.
Creation of a network of at least 1 ha of wetland habitat with a dual purpose for surface water attenuation and to enhance existing ecological value of the Application Site that will act as sustainable drainage for the development.
Creation and widening of green corridors through the development, through the retention of existing hedgerows, creation of swales on either side and creation of field margins, see Figure 8.4.
Operational Phase Long-term direct and indirect negative effects on the Gonerby Stream, Running Furrows and River Witham and associated effects on downstream species specifically including white-clawed crayfish.
Environmental Statement 220
8.5.8. A reasonably high level of confidence can be applied to each of the identified ecological effects during the construction and operation phases referred to above, however, where there is uncertainty about the predicted residual effects or the certainty of success of the design based or other ecological measures, this is reflected in the confidence level given to the assessment of significance of the residual effects referred to in the following section.
Ecological receptors excluded from further assessment
8.5.9. Taking the information generated by the ecological baseline (data and field studies) together with the incorporated measures proposed to avoid effects there are a number if ecological receptors that can be excluded from further assessment. This is due to their geographical distance, the lack of anticipated direct or indirect effects, or the receptor having low ecological value are described in Table 8.2 below:
Table 8.2 Ecological receptors excluded from further assessment
Excluded receptor Relevant policy or Evaluation of Rationale legislation conservation importance
Sites of Special Wildlife and National level Allington Meadows SSSI lies Scientific Interest Countryside Act over 4km from the (SSSI) 1981 (as amended) Application Site. There are no significant effects anticipated NPPF upon this site or its reasons for designation because of the geographical separation of the Application Site from the SSSI.
River Witham, NPPF County level River Witham, Marston to Marston to Belton Belton LWS lies 1.3km from Local Plan Policy LWS the Application Site. There are no significant effects anticipated on this site or its reasons for designation because of the geographical separation of the Application Site from the LWS.
Grantham House NPPF County level Grantham House Grounds
Environmental Statement 221
Excluded receptor Relevant policy or Evaluation of Rationale legislation conservation importance Grounds SNCI Local Plan Policy SNCI lies 1.3km from the Application Site. There are no significant effects anticipated on this site or its reasons for designation because of the geographical separation of the Application Site from the SNCI.
Belton Park Golf NPPF County level Belton Park Golf Course LWS Course LWS lies 10m to the east of the Local Plan Policy Application Site. There are no significant effects anticipated on the acid and neutral grassland, woodland or parkland interest of this LWS because of the geographical separation of the Application Site from the LWS, see section 8.6 in relation to effects on white-clawed crayfish.
Belton Park Golf NPPF Regional level Belton Park Golf Course LWS Course LWS lies 10m to the east of the Local Plan Policy Application Site. There are no significant effects anticipated on the deadwood invertebrate fauna interest of this LWS because of the geographical separation of the Application Site from the LWS, see section 8.6 in relation to effects on white-clawed crayfish.
Manthorpe burial NPPF County level With incorporated design ground SNCI measures allowing for a 3m Local Plan Policy stand-off from hedgerows during construction negative effects on this SNCI will be avoided.
Arable fields N/A Site Botanical species diversity (including field limited, no rare species
Environmental Statement 222
Excluded receptor Relevant policy or Evaluation of Rationale legislation conservation importance margins) recorded. Assessed to be of site level conservation importance. No significant ecological effect is considered likely in respect of planning policy or legislative provision as a result of the loss of this habitat. See incorporated measures in respect of breeding birds and timing of works.
Improved N/A Site Botanical species diversity Grassland limited, no rare species recorded. Assessed to be of site level conservation importance. No significant ecological effect is considered likely in respect of planning policy or legislative provision as a result of the loss of this habitat. See incorporated measures in respect of breeding birds and timing of works.
Woodland NERC Act 2006 Parish Up to 0.02 ha (a 20m stretch) of woodland associated with the NPPF Gonerby Stream will be lost Local Plan Policy during the construction of the Application Site access form
Longcliffe Road. The woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream has otherwise been incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development and will be protected during the construction phase through
Environmental Statement 223
Excluded receptor Relevant policy or Evaluation of Rationale legislation conservation importance the application of good practice avoidance measures such as fencing of root protection zones. Given the very small area to be lost, this is not assessed to be a significant effect for the woodland overall. With incorporated design measures and adoption of good practice measures, other negative effects on this habitat will be avoided.
Fences and ditches N/A Site Species diversity limited, no (field boundaries) rare species recorded. Assessed to be of site level conservation importance. No significant ecological effect is considered likely.
Species rich NERC Act 2006; Parish and These features have been hedgerows, Site level incorporated into the design NPPF retained lengths of of the Proposed Development species poor Local Plan Policy and will be protected during hedgerows and the construction phase associated mature through the application of trees good practice avoidance measures such as fencing. With incorporated design measures negative effects on these habitats will be avoided.
Tall Ruderal N/A Site Species diversity limited, no vegetation rare species recorded. No significant ecological effect is considered likely in respect of planning policy or legislative provision as a result of the loss of this habitat.
Environmental Statement 224
Excluded receptor Relevant policy or Evaluation of Rationale legislation conservation importance See incorporated measures in respect of breeding birds and timing of works.
Otter The Conservation N/A The Proposed Development of Habitats and will involve engineering Species work to the Running Furrows Regulations 2010 watercourse. The habitats (as amended); within the Application Site including this watercourse Wildlife and are assessed to be sub-optimal Countryside Act for otter due to a lack of 1981 (as amended) foraging opportunities, and a NERC Act 2006; lack of cover or resting places. NPPF There is no survey or desk top study evidence to indicate the presence of this species within the Application Site. It is possible that the Running Furrows watercourse provides suitable commuting habitat for otter. Incorporated measures for the engineering work on the Running Furrows and highway access construction across the Gonerby Stream will enable continued otter passage.
Great crested newt The Conservation N/A There is no survey or desk top of Habitats and study evidence to indicate the Species presence of this species Regulations 2010 within the Application Site. (as amended); All ponds within 250m have Wildlife and been assessed for their Countryside Act potential to support this 1981 (as amended) species and Pond 2 ruled out on the basis of its poor NERC Act 2006; potential. A presence/ NPPF absence survey has been carried out on Pond 1 and the absence of this species was
Environmental Statement 225
Excluded receptor Relevant policy or Evaluation of Rationale legislation conservation importance confirmed using eDNA testing of water samples.
Water vole Wildlife and N/A Habitats within the Countryside Act Application Site are assessed 1981 (as amended) to be sub-optimal for this species. NERC Act 2006; There is no survey or desk top NPPF study evidence to indicate the presence of this species within the Application Site.
Reptiles Wildlife and Site Good practice measures Countryside Act include the removal of 1981 (as amended) sections of hedgerow for access to serve the Proposed NERC Act 2006; Development or works to NPPF watercourses under an ecological method statement and ecologist supervision to avoid killing/injury of reptiles in the unlikely event that they are present on Application Site. With incorporated measures and adoption of good practice measures negative effects on reptiles will be avoided.
Badger Protection of Site Incorporated and good Badgers Act 1992; practice measures including pre-construction surveys and NPPF good practice with respect to trenching. With incorporated measures and good practice negative effects on badger will be avoided.
Environmental Statement 226
Other Receptors excluded from further assessment: Schedule 9 Plants: Himalayan Balsam
8.5.10. In order to prevent the spread of this species within or beyond the Application Site, reference will be made to published Environment Agency guidance in order to identify if any specialist works are required and to assist the preparation of a method of working. A Himalayan balsam management plan would be developed as part of the Code of Construction Practice (which will include the preparation of an Ecological Management Plan) for the Application Site in the event that planning permission is granted for the Proposed Development.
Potential ecological effects
8.5.11. The key ecological receptors that are taken forward for assessment are listed below:
White-clawed crayfish and running water qualifying interests of Belton Park Golf Course LWS;
Species-poor semi-improved grassland;
Hedgerows;
Gonerby Stream, Running Furrows and River Witham watercourses;
Bats;
Birds; and
White-clawed crayfish.
Non-statutory sites
Belton Park Golf Course LWS
8.5.12. The Belton Park Golf Course LWS lies immediately east of the Application Site beyond High Road, and is downstream on the Running Furrows. The LWS is of acknowledged interest at the county level for its running and standing water and white-clawed crayfish interest. Surface water attenuation forms part of the design of development. Likely hydrological effects of the Proposed Development without mitigation are set out in detail within Chapter 14.
Environmental Statement 227
8.5.13. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there is potential for downstream effects upon wetland habitat and white-clawed crayfish within the LWS from changes to the water quality (including sediment deposition) and water flow regimes. It is also noted that there is potential for spread of Himalayan balsam from the Application Site. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that construction effects upon the LWS interest without mitigation are likely to be negative in the short and long term at the district level.
8.5.14. Operational Phase effects. Due to the surface water attenuation which forms part of the Proposed Development downstream effects upon wetland habitat and white- clawed crayfish within the LWS are anticipated to be reduced compared to constructional effects, however the potential for significant negative effect remains as outlined in Chapter 14. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that long- term operational effects upon the LWS interest without mitigation are likely to be negative at a district level.
Habitats
Species-poor semi-improved grassland
8.5.15. The area of species-poor semi-improved grassland within the Application Site is assessed as being of value at the site level. Development work in the area of the species-poor semi-improved grassland includes the deposition of soils yielded from excavation of land elsewhere within the Application Site (to create attenuation features within the Application Site) and the creation of sports pitches on the eastern part of the grassland, see Figure 8.4.
8.5.16. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there will be a direct effect and loss of 2ha of species-poor semi-improved grassland through the deposition of soils and creation of sports pitches. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that the construction phase effects upon the species-poor semi-improved grassland will be a permanent loss of this habitat and the effect without mitigation will be negative at the site level.
Environmental Statement 228
8.5.17. Operational Phase effects. No further effects upon the species-poor semi-improved grassland will take place during the operational phase. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon the species-poor semi- improved grassland without mitigation will be not be significant.
Hedgerows
8.5.18. The effect of the Proposed Development without mitigation will be the loss of up to 390 linear metres of species poor hedgerow, without hedgerow trees, which is assessed as being of value at the site level. The remaining 3060 linear metres of hedgerow have been incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development and will be included in a Code of Construction Practice (which will include the preparation of an Ecological Management Plan) and safeguarded during the construction phase.
8.5.19. Within the development layout, retained hedgerows are not incorporated into the curtilage of individual dwellings and therefore will not be subject to potential later removal by householders. Retained hedgerows for example form part of the internal greenspace/green corridors within the development.
8.5.20. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there will be direct effect and permanent loss of species poor hedgerow. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term construction effects upon the species poor hedgerow without mitigation will be negative at the site level.
8.5.21. Operational Phase effects. No further effects upon the hedgerows are anticipated during the operational phase. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon hedgerows without mitigation will be not be significant.
Watercourses
8.5.22. The Gonerby Stream within the Application Site is assessed as being of value at the site level, the Running Furrows within the Application Site is assessed as being of value at the parish level. Development and engineering work for surface water attenuation will adjoin the watercourses and include direct engineering work to the
Environmental Statement 229
Running Furrows. Likely hydrological effects without mitigation are set out in detail within Chapter 14.
8.5.23. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there is potential for a direct effect upon the Running Furrows by engineering works and potential hydrological effects on the Running Furrows and Gonerby Stream through changes to water flows and water quality (including sediment deposition) as outlined in Chapter 14. For purposes of assessment it has been assumed on a precautionary basis that the whole of the Running Furrows (600 linear metres) within the Application Site may be affected. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that temporary construction effects upon the watercourses without mitigation will be negative at the site level for the Gonerby Stream and at the parish level for the Running Furrows.
8.5.24. Operational Phase effects. Due to the surface water attenuation provision which forms part of the Proposed Development effects on watercourses during operation are anticipated to be further reduced compared to the construction phase. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon watercourses without mitigation will remain negative at the site level for the Gonerby Stream and at the parish level for the Running Furrows.
Protected or otherwise notable species
Bats
8.5.25. Bats within the Application Site are assessed to be of value at the parish level. The Proposed Development will involve the loss of up to 0.3 ha improved grassland and up to 390 linear metres of hedgerow, as well as the loss of 2 ha of species-poor semi- improved grassland and 26 ha of arable land which provide foraging habitats. The arable fields which make up the vast majority of the area to be lost are assessed to be suboptimal for bat foraging. The surface water attenuation features which form part of the Proposed Development will provide alternative bat foraging habitats. Bat movement recorded through the Application Site has included associations with hedge lines and the Running Furrows, this included bat species which are sensitive to artificial lighting.
Environmental Statement 230
8.5.26. Trees within the Application Site with potential to be used for bat roosting will be retained and effects on these trees, the church and dwelling beyond the eastern Application Site boundary and woodland associated with the Gonerby Stream by lighting during the construction and operational phases will be avoided by incorporated measures as described in appendix 7.6 of Chapter 7. The Running Furrows will be maintained as a dark corridor and the noise attenuation bund on the eastern boundary will create a dark movement corridor for bats as part of incorporated design measures as described in Appendix 7.6 of Chapter 7.
8.5.27. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there will be direct effect upon bats through the loss of foraging habitats, the majority of which are sub-optimal for bat foraging. The temporary loss of sub-optimal foraging habitats will however be compensated for by the creation of the surface water attenuation features which form an integral component of the Proposed Development. These will provide future optimal foraging habitat for bats. Incorporated mitigation will avoid the loss of features with bat roosting potential or impact upon these by artificial lighting. Dark movement corridors will also be maintained through the Application Site by incorporated design measures, and green corridors will be strengthened along existing hedgerows. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that, during construction, effects upon bat foraging, movement and roosting without mitigation will be neutral at the site level.
8.5.28. Operational Phase effects. No additional negative effects are anticipated upon bats during the operational phase. Impacts from lighting will continue to be avoided and dark movement corridors for bat movement along the Running Furrows and western boundary will be maintained into the operational phase as will strengthened green corridors through the Proposed Development. It is considered likely that the ecological value of the green corridors will improve during the operational phase as the habitats establish and mature as linear features for bats to use for flight lines and foraging. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that during operational long-term effects upon bat foraging, movement and roosting without mitigation will be positive at the site level.
Environmental Statement 231
Birds
8.5.29. Birds within the Application Site are assessed to be of value at the site level. The Proposed Development will involve the loss of up to 0.3 ha of improved grassland and up to 390 linear metres of hedgerow and, as well as the loss of 2 ha of species- poor semi-improved grassland and 26ha of arable land which provide nesting and feeding habitats. This will be partially compensated for by the construction of the surface water attenuation features which form part of the development design. Work will also be required to the Running Furrows watercourse and there will be a temporary loss of foraging and nesting habitats during the course of the work. Work will be carried out between September and February to avoid the bird breeding season. There is also likely to be disturbance of bird species in retained hedgerows due to noise and construction related activities in the construction phase and recreational disturbance, such as by dog walking, of all habitats used by nesting and foraging birds during the operational phase.
8.5.30. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there is potential for a direct effect upon birds through the permanent loss of nesting and foraging habitats as a direct result of the Proposed Development. The removal of these habitats would be timed so as to avoid the bird breeding season as part of incorporated measures. There is potential for localised disturbance of retained habitats during the construction phase for example through noise and vehicle movements. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that construction phase effects upon birds without mitigation will be negative at the site level for the duration of the construction period.
8.5.31. Operational Phase effects. Without mitigation the loss of 26 ha of arable habitats, 2 ha of species-poor semi-improved and up to 0.3 ha of improved grassland and up to 390 linear metres of hedgerow will remain uncompensated during the operational phase. It is also considered likely that there may be recreational disturbance of all habitats used by nesting and foraging birds during the operational phase. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon birds without mitigation will be negative at the site level.
White-clawed crayfish
Environmental Statement 232
8.5.32. White-clawed crayfish is considered to be absent from the Application Site, but is understood to be present on watercourses within Belton Park Golf Course LWS immediately downstream of the Proposed Development. There is recent evidence of the continued presence of the white-clawed crayfish population, Belton Park Golf Course LWS was last surveyed over five days in July and August 2013, white-clawed crayfish formed part of the reason for the selection of this site as LWS in March 2014. Provision for surface water attenuation forms part of the Proposed Development. Construction and engineering work for surface water attenuation will adjoin the watercourses and include direct engineering work to the Running Furrows. Likely hydrological effects without mitigation are outlined in Chapter 14.
8.5.33. Construction phase effects. Without mitigation there is potential for downstream effects upon white-clawed crayfish from changes to the water quality (including sediment deposition) and water flow regimes. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that construction phase effects upon white-clawed crayfish without mitigation are considered likely to be negative at the district level.
8.5.34. Operational Phase effects. Due to the anticipated establishment and functioning of the surface water attenuation system which forms part of the design of development downstream effects upon white-clawed crayfish are anticipated to be less than those associated with the construction phase but remain significant. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon white-clawed crayfish without mitigation are likely to be negative at the parish-district level.
Environmental Statement 233
8.6. Proposed Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement Measures
8.6.1. This section summarises the mitigation measures proposed to reduce the environmental effects on ecological receptors identified in 8.5. The mitigation measures outlined here are in addition to the incorporated design measures which are already an integral part of the development design and which have already been taken into account in Section 8.5.
8.6.2. Compensation and enhancement measures are also described in this section.
8.6.3. The significance of any effects is assessed at an appropriate geographical level using the levels of significance derived from the IEEM guidance.
8.6.4. A reasonably high level of confidence can be applied to the identified ecological effects during the construction and operation phases discussed below, however, where there is uncertainty about the predicted residual effects or the certainty of success of mitigation or other ecological measures, this is reflected in the confidence level given to the assessment of significance of the residual effects.
8.6.5. When identifying measures aimed at reducing the ecological effect of a development, it is necessary to take into account the legal protection afforded to some species. For many species this includes places of rest and shelter, as well as protection of the individuals of the species themselves. Where appropriate, guidance is provided in this section to ensure that an appropriate level of species protection is achieved as part of the development programme.
8.6.6. Ecological measures are used to address the significant effects on integrity and conservation status. Mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures are considered within this section and it is helpful to make a distinction between these terms at this stage as defined by IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM 2006):
Mitigation is considered to be the process of preventing, avoiding or minimising negative effects by: refraining from a particular action; limiting the
Environmental Statement 234
degree of action; repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; and/or providing substitute resources;
Compensation includes measures to off-set or make up for losses caused as a result of development or other change, including residual negative effects which cannot or may not be entirely mitigated;
Enhancement is defined as a new benefit to biodiversity, unrelated to any negative effect.
8.6.7. This mitigation, compensation and enhancement has been discussed and agreed with the Applicant and is used as a basis to assess potential effects on receptors and residual effects in section 8.7.
Construction Phase
Mitigation Additional hydrological mitigation measures are set out in detail within Chapter 14.
Compensation Creation of at least 2 ha species rich grassland in the south-east and north-west of the Application Site as well as in the vicinity of surface water attenuation features utilising nutrient poor subsoil’s yielded from excavations to replace the loss of 2 ha of species-poor semi-improved grassland.
Creation of at least 450m species rich hedgerow using species native to the local area to replace the loss of up to 390 linear metres of species-poor hedgerow.
Creation of 30 ground nesting bird plots in arable farmland and field margins to the north of the Application Site to replace the loss of available potential habitat for use by ground nesting birds. Alternatively an extensive grazing regime designed for ground nesting birds may also be employed in some or all of the agricultural area, which would be reseeded to create pasture under this alternative. This would include a maximum stocking rate of between 0.2 and 0.5 livestock units per hectare between March and August in any year.
Environmental Statement 235
Creation of at least 1000 linear metres of wide field margins in the arable land to the north of the Proposed Development of between 7 to 20m width, variously sown on rotation with pollen and nectar, wild bird seed, and tussock grassland seed mixes to replace the loss of available potential foraging and nesting habitats for birds.
Enhancement Creation of deciduous woodland using species native to the local area which will provide a benefit to a habitat of principal importance and Lincolnshire LBAP habitat.
Creation of at least 0.2 ha traditional orchard, will provide a benefit to a habitat of principal importance and Lincolnshire LBAP habitat.
Additional strengthening and creation of green corridors through the development, through gapping up and tree planting on retained hedgerows and creation of swales on either side, and planting of new hedgerow to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF.
Tree planting to establish the next generation of individual trees to provide long-term presence of mature trees and structure within more open habitats within the Application Site to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF.
Enhancement of existing woodland through removal and control of non-native species such as Leyland cypress and Himalayan balsam to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF.
Enhancement of ground flora in existing woodland through the use of bulbs, plug planting and a seed mix of woodland species native to the local area to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and to a habitat of principal importance.
Creation of bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities through the installation of bird and bat boxes in mature trees and existing woodland, including two barn owl boxes in mature trees in farmland to the north and east of the development
Environmental Statement 236
to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for species of principal importance.
Creation of bird and bat nesting and roosting opportunists through the installation of bird boxes on houses and bird and bat boxes on the school building to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for species of principal importance.
Creation of additional bat and bird foraging areas, such as traditional orchard, woodland and species rich grassland to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for species of principal importance.
Ecological improvements to the Running Furrows watercourse through engineering of ledges to stabilise banks and to facilitate appropriate bank management. The aim of the improvements is to enhance the watercourse for use by white-clawed crayfish to provide a biodiversity benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for specific species of principal importance.
Operational Phase
Mitigation Long-term reduction of effects on watercourses and associated ecology, through hydrological mitigation measures as set out in detail within Chapter 14.
Compensation Long term management of 30 ground nesting bird plots in arable farmland and field margins to the north of development to replace the loss of available potential habitat for use by ground nesting birds. Alternatively an extensive grazing regime designed for ground nesting birds will be maintained in the long term.
Enhancement Long-term positive management to enhance the ecological value of retained and created habitats such as woodland, wetland, orchard, species rich grassland.
Environmental Statement 237
Long-term positive management of hedgerows to provide additional structural diversity and allow flowering and setting of seed to provide diverse bird nesting habitat and enhanced foraging opportunities for birds and bats.
Long-term management of trees within the Application Site to ensure continued cover of mature trees.
8.6.8. The loss and gain of habitats associated with the Proposed Development is summarised in table 8.3 below.
Table 8.3 summary of habitat loss and gain
Habitat type Area or length lost Area or length Net position gained
Species-poor semi- 2 ha No net loss of area, improved grassland net gain of habitat
quality Species-rich
grassland 2 ha
Broadleaved Up to 0.02 ha At least 2 ha Net gain of at least 2 woodland ha
Arable 26 ha 0 ha Net loss of 26 ha
Improved grassland Up to 0.3 ha 0 ha Net loss of up to 0.3 ha
Wetland 0 ha At least 1 ha Net gain of at least 1 ha
Traditional orchard 0 ha At least 0.2 ha Net gain of at least 0.2 ha
Species-poor Up to 390 linear Net gain in length of
Environmental Statement 238
Hedgerow metres at least 60 linear metres. Net gain in At least 450 linear Species-rich quality for at least metres hedgerow 450 linear metres
Field margins 0 linear metres At least 1000 linear Net gain of at least managed for metres 1000 linear metres biodiversity of field margins managed for biodiversity.
8.7. Residual Effects
Non-statutory sites
Belton Park Golf Course LWS
8.7.9. The Belton Park Golf Course LWS lies immediately east of the Application Site beyond High Road, and is downstream on the Running Furrows. The LWS is of interest at the county level for its running and standing water and white-clawed crayfish interest. Surface water attenuation forms part of the design of development. Detail of hydrological effects after mitigation are set out in Chapter 14 of this report.
Construction phase effects. With mitigation no significant downstream hydrological effects upon wetland habitat and white-clawed crayfish within the LWS are anticipated. It is assessed, with a high level of confidence, that short and medium-term construction effects upon the LWS with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be neutral at the parish level.
8.7.10. Operational Phase effects. With mitigation no significant downstream hydrological effects upon wetland habitat and white-clawed crayfish within the LWS are anticipated. It is assessed, with a high level of confidence, that permanent operational effects upon the LWS with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be neutral at the parish level.
Environmental Statement 239
Habitats
Species-poor semi-improved grassland
8.7.11. The 2 ha of species-poor semi-improved grassland within the Application Site is assessed as being of value at the site level. Development work in the area of the species-poor semi-improved grassland includes the deposition of soils yielded from excavation of land elsewhere within the Application Site (to create attenuation features within the Application Site) and the creation of sports pitches on the eastern part of the grassland, see Figure 8.4.
8.7.12. At least 1.5ha of species rich grassland will be created in the south-east and northwest of the Application Site as outlined in Figure 8.4 on subsoil’s yielded from excavation work. Additional species rich grassland creation of at least 0.5ha will also take place around surface water attenuation features outlined in Figure 8.4. This will compensate for the loss of area of species-poor semi-improved grassland and represents an enhancement in respect of the quality of habitat to be created and maintained.
8.7.13. Construction phase effects. With mitigation, compensation and enhancement there will be a temporary loss of 2 ha of species-poor semi-improved grassland through the deposition of soils and creation of sports pitches. Species rich grassland will be created using the deposited materials to compensate for this effect and achieve an enhancement of the quality of the grassland resource to provide an ecological asset of value at the parish scale. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that long- term construction effects upon the species-poor semi-improved grassland with , compensation and enhancement will be positive at the parish level.
8.7.14. Operational Phase effects. No further effects upon the species-poor semi-improved grassland will take place during the operational phase. The long-term replacement of species-poor semi-improved grassland with at least 2ha of species rich grassland will continue in the operational phase. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon the species-poor semi-improved grassland with , compensation and enhancement will continue to be positive at the parish level.
Environmental Statement 240
Hedgerows
8.7.15. The loss of up to 390 linear metres of species poor hedgerow within the Application Site is assessed as being of value at the site level.
8.7.16. The planting of two additional lengths of hedgerow totalling at least 450 linear metres will occur as outlined in Figure 8.4. A diverse mix of species native to the local area will be used in order to create the sections of species-rich hedgerow. This will compensate for the loss of up to 390 linear metres of species poor hedgerow and represents an enhancement in respect of an additional 60 linear metres of hedgerow habitat and quality of habitat to be created.
8.7.17. Hedgerows will be managed in the long-term to give structural diversity and allow flowering and setting of seed to provide diverse bird nesting habitat and enhanced foraging opportunities for birds and bats.
8.7.18. Construction phase effects. With mitigation, compensation and enhancement there will be no net loss of species poor hedgerow. Retained hedgerows will be protected and enhanced through filling in of gaps with a diverse locally-native hedge mix. Additional hedgerow planting will also take place using a diverse locally-native hedge mix. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term construction effects upon hedgerows with compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
8.7.19. Operational Phase effects. No further effects upon hedgerows will take place during the operational phase. The long-term replacement of up to 390m of species poor hedgerow with at least 450m of species rich hedgerow will continue in the operational phase. The long-term management of hedgerows will also be enhanced to give structural diversity and allow flowering and setting of seed. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon hedgerows with , compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
Watercourses
8.7.20. The Gonerby Stream within the Application Site is assessed as being of value at the site level, the Running Furrows within the Application Site is assessed as being of
Environmental Statement 241
value at the parish level. Development and engineering work for surface water attenuation will adjoin the watercourses and include direct engineering work to the Running Furrows.
8.7.21. Detail of hydrological effects with mitigation are set out in Chapter 14 of this report.
8.7.22. Construction phase effects. With mitigation no significant effect upon watercourses is anticipated. It is assessed, with a high level of confidence, that medium-term construction effects upon watercourses with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be neutral at the parish level.
8.7.23. Operational Phase effects. With mitigation no significant effect upon watercourses is anticipated. It is assessed, with a high level of confidence, that permanent operational effects upon watercourses with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be neutral at the parish level.
Woodland
8.7.24. Planting of additional deciduous woodland will take place using a mix of woodland species native to the local area along the northern and eastern boundary of the Application Site as set out in Chapters 2 and 7.
8.7.25. Construction phase effects. Enhancement of the existing woodland and planting of at least 2 ha of additional woodland will take place. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that construction effects upon woodland with enhancement will be positive at the site level.
8.7.26. Operational Phase effects. The long-term enhancement and management of existing and created woodland will continue in the operational phase. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that long-term operational effects upon woodland with enhancement will be positive at the parish level.
Traditional orchard
8.7.27. A traditional orchard of at least 0.2 ha in extent will be created within the Application Site as part of the supporting green infrastructure for the development.
Environmental Statement 242
Traditional Orchards are a Lincolnshire LBAP habitat. This is assessed as being of value at the site level.
8.7.28. Construction phase effects. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that medium-term construction effects upon traditional orchards with enhancement will be positive at the site level.
8.7.29. Operational Phase effects. The traditional orchard will be maintained during the operational phase of development. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that permanent operational effects upon traditional orchards with enhancement will continue to be positive at the site level.
Wetland habitats
8.7.30. A network of wetland habitats will be created within the Application Site as part of surface water attenuation and supporting green infrastructure for the development.
8.7.31. Construction phase effects. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that medium-term construction effects upon wetland habitats (excluding watercourses) with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
8.7.32. Operational Phase effects. The network of wetland habitats will be maintained during the operational phase of development. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that permanent operational effects upon wetland habitats (excluding watercourses) with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be positive at the parish level.
Mature tree cover
8.7.33. Tree planting to establish the next generation of individual trees to provide long- term presence of mature trees and structure within more open habitats within the Application Site Successional tree planting will take place to ensure long-term maintenance of mature tree cover within the Application Site. The tree stock within the Application Site will be managed during the operational phase.
Environmental Statement 243
8.7.34. Construction phase effects. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that short-term construction effects upon mature tree cover with enhancement will be positive at the site level in both the short and long-term.
8.7.35. Operational Phase effects. The mature tree cover within the Application Site will be maintained during the operational phase of development. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that permanent operational effects upon mature tree cover with enhancement will be positive at the parish level.
Protected or otherwise notable species
Bats
8.7.36. Bats within the Application Site are assessed to be of value at the parish level. The Proposed Development will involve the loss of up to 0.3 ha improved grassland and up to 390 linear metres of species-poor hedgerow, as well as the loss of 2 ha of species-poor semi-improved grassland and 26 ha of arable land which provide foraging habitats. The arable fields which make up the vast majority of the area to be lost are assessed to be suboptimal for bat foraging. The surface water attenuation features which form part of the Proposed Development will provide alternative additional habitats suitable for foraging purposes. Additional habitat creation including traditional orchard, species rich grassland, woodland will be created which will further enhance bat foraging opportunities.
8.7.37. There will also be creation of bat roosting opportunities through the installation bat boxes in mature trees and existing woodland as well as on houses and the school building.
8.7.38. Construction phase effects. The creation of additional foraging habitats will further enhance the Application Site for bats. Additional roosting opportunities for bats will also be created. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that during construction effects upon bat foraging, movement and roosting with compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
8.7.39. Operational Phase effects. No additional negative effects are anticipated upon bats during the operational phase. Impacts from lighting will continue to be avoided and
Environmental Statement 244
dark movement corridors for bat movement along the Running Furrows and western boundary will be maintained into the operational phase as will strengthened green corridors through the Proposed Development. It is considered likely that the ecological value of the green corridors will improve during the operational phase as the habitats establish and mature as linear features for bats to use for flight lines and foraging. With mitigation additional habitats suitable for bat foraging and additional bat roosting opportunities will be created. It is assessed with a very high level of confidence that during operational long-term effects upon bat foraging, movement and roosting with compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
Birds
8.7.40. Birds within the Application Site are assessed to be of value at the site level. The Proposed Development will involve the loss of improved grassland and of a small amount of hedgerow and, as well as the loss of species-poor semi-improved and arable land which provide nesting and feeding habitats. Work will also be required to the Running Furrows watercourse and the temporary loss of foraging and nesting habitats during the course of the work. For purposes of assessment it has been assumed on a precautionary basis that the whole of the Running Furrows (600 linear metres) within the Application Site will be affected to a greater or lesser degree.
8.7.41. This will be partially compensated for by the construction of the surface water attenuation features which form part of the development design. Additional habitat creation will also take place which will also provide additional nesting and foraging opportunities for birds including the creation of a traditional orchard, species rich grassland, hedgerows and woodland.
8.7.42. Thirty ground nesting bird plots and field margins of between 7 and 20m width will be created in the arable land to the north of the Proposed Development. Bird boxes will also be installed on buildings, mature trees and existing woodland within the Proposed Development. This will include two barn owl boxes in mature trees within the farmland to the north and east of the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 245
8.7.43. The potential remains for disturbance of bird species in retained hedgerows through noise and movement in the construction phase.
8.7.44. Construction phase effects. With mitigation, compensation and enhancement the loss of arable habitats, species-poor semi-improved and improved grassland and hedgerow will be compensated for. Residential gardens will also provide additional foraging and nesting habitat for birds. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that medium-term construction effects upon birds with compensation and enhancement will be neutral at the site level.
8.7.45. Operational Phase effects. With mitigation, compensation and enhancement the loss of arable habitats, species-poor semi-improved and improved grassland and hedgerow will be compensated for and the value overall of the Application Site for birds will be enhanced. It is assessed with a high level of confidence that permanent operational effects upon birds with compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
White-clawed crayfish
8.7.46. White-clawed crayfish is considered to be absent from the Application Site, but present downstream on the Running Furrows within Belton Park Golf Course LWS where they form part of the county level interest of this LWS. Surface water attenuation forms part of the design of development. Development and engineering work for surface water attenuation will adjoin the watercourses and include direct engineering work to the Running Furrows.
8.7.47. Engineering work to the Running Furrows will include measures to enable the ecological enhancement of the watercourse. This will include the engineering of ledges to stabilise banks and facilitate reduced mechanical management of the banks of the watercourse. This reduced management of the banks will improve the suitability of the Running Furrows for white-clawed crayfish which over time may be able to colonise from downstream. This is assessed to be of conservation value at the parish level.
8.7.48. Detail of hydrological effects after mitigation are set out in Chapter 14 of this report.
Environmental Statement 246
8.7.49. Construction phase effects. With mitigation, compensation and enhancement no significant effect upon watercourses and therefore white-clawed crayfish is anticipated. Measures will be implemented to increase the suitability of the watercourse within the Application Site for white-clawed crayfish colonisation. It is assessed, with a high level of confidence, that short and medium-term construction effects upon white-clawed crayfish with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
8.7.50. Operational Phase effects. With mitigation, compensation and enhancement no significant effect upon watercourses and therefore white-clawed crayfish is anticipated. During the operational phase measures will be maintained to increase the suitability of the watercourse within the Application Site for white-clawed crayfish colonisation. It is assessed, with a high level of confidence, that permanent operational effects upon white-clawed crayfish with mitigation, compensation and enhancement will be positive at the site level.
Summary of residual effects
8.7.51. The Proposed Development will entail the loss of predominantly arable land which is assessed to be of low ecological value and overall the ecological effect of the Proposed Development, with all incorporated design measures, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures, is predicted to result in a net gain for biodiversity.
8.7.52. Taking all incorporated and design measures, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures into account, construction and operational effects upon Belton Golf Course LWS and watercourses are considered, with a high level of confidence, to be neutral.
8.7.53. In the case of grassland, hedgerows, woodland, traditional orchards, wetlands mature tree cover, birds, white-clawed crayfish and bats, it is considered, with a high level of confidence, that long term positive effects will arise from the creation and enhancement of habitats as well as the installation of nesting and roosting features for birds and bats. These habitats will be managed positively to deliver biodiversity benefits in the long term.
Environmental Statement 247
8.7.54. It is therefore considered that the Proposed Development meets with planning policy requirements, including those of the NPPF.
8.7.55. Table 8.4, below, summarises the residual effects of the Proposed Development, taking into account the design based measures incorporated into the design of the Proposed Development, as well as any mitigation, compensation or enhancement as set out above.
Environmental Statement 248
Table 8.4 Summary table of residual effects
Potential Effect without mitigation Effect with mitigation, Relevant policy or Comment receptor and compensation and compensation and legislation evaluation enhancement measures enhancement measures
Construction Operation Construction Operation
Belton Park Golf Negative Negative Neutral Neutral NPPF Potential for significant effect is Course LWS removed by hydrological district level district level parish level parish level Local Plan Policy mitigation measures. County level importance
Species-poor Negative Not Positive Positive NPPF Creation of species rich semi-improved significant grassland of at least the same site level parish level parish level Local Plan Policy grassland area in compensation/ enhancement of area of lost. Site level importance
Hedgerows Negative Not Positive Positive NERC Act 2006; Loss of species poor hedgerow significant compensated for by creation of Site level site level site level site level NPPF greater length of species rich importance Local Plan Policy hedgerow which delivers an enhancement.
Environmental Statement 249
Table 8.4 Summary table of residual effects (continued)
Potential Effect without mitigation Effect with mitigation, Relevant policy or Comment receptor and compensation and compensation and legislation evaluation enhancement enhancement
Construction Operation Construction Operation
Water courses Negative site Negative Neutral Neutral NERC Act 2006; Potential for significant effect is removed by hydrological Site and Parish and parish site and parish level parish level NPPF mitigation measures. level importance level parish level Local Plan Policy
Woodland N/A N/A Positive Positive NERC Act 2006; Existing woodland retained and enhanced, additional Local level site level parish level NPPF woodland planting will also importance Local Plan Policy take place.
Traditional N/A N/A Positive Positive NERC Act 2006; No orchard currently present. orchard New traditional orchard would site level site level NPPF be created as part of the Site level Local Plan Policy development. importance
Environmental Statement 250
Table 8.4 Summary table of residual effects (continued)
Potential Effect without mitigation With mitigation, Relevant policy or Comment receptor and compensation and compensation and legislation evaluation enhancement enhancement
Construction Operation Construction Operation
Wetland habitats Positive Positive Positive Positive NPPF Created as surface water attenuation features. (excluding site level parish level site level parish level Local Plan Policy watercourses) Parish level importance
Mature tree cover N/A N/A Positive Positive NPPF Planting and management of new trees to provide succession Site level site level parish level Local Plan Policy of mature trees as existing trees importance are eventually lost.
Environmental Statement 251
Table 8.4 Summary table of residual effects (continued)
Potential Effect without mitigation With mitigation, Relevant policy or Comment receptor and compensation and compensation and legislation evaluation enhancement enhancement
Construction Operation Construction Operation
Bats Neutral Positive Positive Positive The Conservation of The loss of habitats will be Habitats and Species compensated for and Parish level site level site level site level site level Regulations 2010 (as enhancements are included importance amended); during construction phase. These will be maintained Wildlife and Countryside during the operational phase. Act 1981 (as amended) Dark corridors for bat NERC Act 2006; movement will be created and NPPF maintained. Impacts on potential roosting locations are avoided and new roosting opportunities will be created.
Birds Negative Negative Neutral Positive Wildlife and Countryside The loss of habitats will be Act 1981 (as amended) compensated for and Site level site level site level site level site level enhancements are included importance NERC Act 2006; during construction phase. NPPF These will be maintained
Environmental Statement 252
Potential Effect without mitigation With mitigation, Relevant policy or Comment receptor and compensation and compensation and legislation evaluation enhancement enhancement
Construction Operation Construction Operation during the operational phase.
White-clawed Negative Negative Positive Positive Wildlife and Countryside Potential for significant crayfish County Act 1981 (as amended) hydrological effect is district level parish- site level site level level importance eliminated by hydrological district level NERC Act 2006; (downstream) mitigation measures. Measures NPPF to enhance the suitability of Enhancements the Running Furrows for white- of parish level clawed crayfish will be importance implemented and maintained. (within Site)
Environmental Statement 253
8.8. Impact Interactions
8.8.1. Reference has been made to the Landscape and Visual assessment in Chapter 7 to assess habitat creation, compensation and enhancement which will be delivered by the Proposed Development.
8.8.2. Reference has been made to the Lighting Assessment in Appendix 7.6 to Chapter 7 to assess the likely effects of lighting upon ecological receptors.
8.8.3. Reference has been made to the Noise and Vibration assessment in Chapter 12 to assess the interaction between noise and ecology mitigation on the western Application Site boundary with the railway. In particular this has focussed on the construction and landscaping of the noise attenuation bund on this boundary and this will function as a bat movement corridor.
8.8.4. Reference has been made to the Flood Risk and Hydrology assessment in Chapter 14 to assess the likely effects upon aquatic ecological receptors on the Application Site and downstream of the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 254
8.9. Summary
8.9.1. Taking all mitigation and other safeguards into account, construction and operational effects upon Belton Golf Course LWS and watercourses with mitigation, compensation and enhancement are likely to be neutral at the site and parish levels. No breaches of wildlife legislation are considered likely to arise, based on the successful implementation of the measures referred to in this chapter.
8.9.2. In the case of grassland, hedgerows, woodland, traditional orchards, wetlands mature tree cover, birds, white-clawed crayfish and bats, long term positive effects at the parish and site levels will arise from the creation and enhancement of habitats as well as the installation of nesting and roosting features for birds and bats. These habitats will be managed positively to deliver biodiversity benefits in the long term. It is anticipated that there will be no negative policy implications associated with these receptors.
8.9.3. Taking into account the proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures, there are no residual negative effects on the identified ecological receptors. For several receptors a beneficial effect, and net biodiversity gain, is considered likely to result from the Proposed Development through the provision of new areas of habitat of a greater area, and/or higher quality than is currently present within the Application Site. Some faunal species such as birds, white-clawed crayfish and bats will also benefit from the proposals (for example, through the creation of wildflower grassland around hedgerows, installation of bird and bat boxes and enhancements to the Running Furrows). Habitat connectivity and across the Application Site will be enhanced by strengthening of green corridors, which meets with the requirements of the NPPF.
8.9.4. Given the mitigation, enhancement and precautionary compliance measures incorporated into the Proposed Development, it is considered that the Proposed Development conforms to relevant national and local planning policy and relevant wildlife legislation. There is potential for the delivery of an overall net biodiversity gain for the Application Site with the successful delivery of the Code of Construction Practice (which includes an Ecological Management Plan).
Environmental Statement 255
8.10. References 1) ARGUK (2010) Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (ARGUK Advice Note 5). Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the UK (ARGUK).
2) Bat Conservation Trust: www.bats.org.uk
3) Biggs J et al (2014). Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.
4) BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock) (2008), (Updated Dec 2011), UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions
5) British Standards Institute, 2012. British Standard BS 5837 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations.
6) Cresswell, P. et al. (1990). The History, Distribution, Status and Habitat Requirements of the Badger in Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.
7) Cresswell, W. & Whitworth, R. (2004) An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus. English Nature Research Reports Number 576
8) DCLG (2014) Planning Practice Guidance: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
9) Eaton M.A., Brown A.F., Noble D.G., Musgrove A.J., Hearn R., Aebischer N.J., Gibbons D.W., Evans A. and Gregory R.D. (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296–341.
10) English Nature (2001) Great crested newt mitigation guidelines.
11) GLNP (2013). Local Wildlife Site Guidelines for Greater Lincolnshire. 3rd Edition. April 2013.
12) Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys – Good practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.
Environmental Statement 256
13) IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom.
14) JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
15) Kruuk, H. et al (1986). The Use of Spraints to Survey Populations of Otter Lutra lutra. Biological Conservation, 35, 187-194.
16) Oldham, R.S. et al., (2000), Evaluating the suitability of habitat for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). The Herpetological Journal, Vol 10
17) Peay S (2003). Monitoring the White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 1, English Nature, Peterborough.
18) Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T., and Gelling, M. (2011) Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 3rd Edition.
Environmental Statement 257
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 258
9.0 Built Heritage Assessment
9.1.1. This chapter has been prepared by Montagu Evans LLP and provides an assessment of potential likely direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Development on built heritage receptors.
9.1.2. The salient consideration is as follows:
Whether the Proposed Development will preserve the heritage value, of Belton Park (Grade II Registered Park and Garden), Bellmount Tower, Manthorpe Conservation Area and other built heritage receptors in proximity to the Application Site.
9.1.3. The Chapter sets out the methodology followed, and provides a summary of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and surrounding area. Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline provides a detailed assessment and should be read in conjunction with this chapter.
9.1.4. This Chapter then presents the results of the assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development on the baseline conditions in order to determine the anticipated magnitude of change and significance of effect.
9.1.5. The Proposed Development does not involve any direct effects on the fabric of any built heritage receptors.
9.2. Assessment Methodology
Consultation
9.2.1. Pre-application advice was provided by Historic England (then named English Heritage) on 12th November 2014. The pre-application letter is appended to Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline. The letter raised the following points:
As Proposed Development is materially different to the previous application (LPA Reference: S10/0142; PINS Reference: APP/E2530/A/11/2150609) that it is reasonable to reassess the proposals afresh, on their merits.
Environmental Statement 259
Consideration should be given to the effect on the setting of Belton House Registered Park and Garden and Manthorpe Conservation Area including traffic, light pollution and noise in the immediate locality of Belton House;
Recommendation for photomontages to inform assessment.
9.2.2. The letter was followed by a joint meeting with Historic England (East Midlands Division) and the officers from SKDC on 12th January 2015. The development was discussed with particular focus on the following heritage receptors:
Belton Park,Grade I Registered Park and Garden;
Bellmount Tower Grade II Listed Building; and
Manthorpe Conservation area.
9.2.3. The following four considerations were raised:
1) - Introduction of new landscape features (planting along northern and western edges of Application Site) may cause an adverse effect related to the concept of borrowed landscape.
Summary Response
9.2.4. A detailed account of the history of the landscape to the west of Belton Park is included within Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline. The additional landscape planting has been designed to be sympathetic and complement the prevailing landscape character near to the Application Site.
2) - Review location and orientation of the school in relation to topography. In its current location there may be an issue with prominence and sun reflection depending on materials etc.
Summary Response
9.2.5. The detailed design of the Primary School is not yet known and will be dependent on the Local Authority’s specifications. It is anticipated that the building will be single storey, up to 10.5m tall as illustrated on Figure 2.3 Building Heights & Density Parameter Plan.
Environmental Statement 260
9.2.6. Figure 7.2 illustrates the topography within and surrounding the Application Site. The topography is also described in detail in paragraph 7.4.5 of Chapter 7. Grantham lies within a ‘bowl’ lying on average at 55m AOD and is surrounded to the east, south and west by a rising topography reaching an average of 120m AOD.
9.2.7. The design of the Masterplan has given particular attention to the topography of the Application Site such that building height is used to inform the character of the proposals but that it does not impact significantly upon the local heritage assets.
9.2.8. A clear structure is formed by the desire to establish view corridors to the spires of St John the Evangelist Church to the East and St Wulframs Church to the South-east.
9.2.9. The view corridors converge at a highpoint in the Application Site where a central ‘Green’ is formed. This space is to become the focus of the scheme and is partially defined by frontages of the local centre and primary school building.
9.2.10. The school playing fields have been specifically located on the highest ground, which is also the flattest area suitable for this land use, to reduce any effects upon views from Belton Park.
9.2.11. Section 5.7 of the Design and Access Statement describes the principles for the intended appearance of the Proposed Development. Specifically, care will be taken in the selection of non-reflective materials for buildings within the local centre and the Primary School to avoid potential effects upon Bellmount Tower and Belton Park from solar glare (pp. 59).
3) - Assessment should include the effect of lighting during hours of darkness.
Summary Response
9.2.12. A lighting assessment has been completed by consultants Illuminous and is appended to this ES as Appendix 7.6 (Volume III).
9.2.13. The lighting assessment states that the residual effects for both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development have been assessed as neutral or minor, with the exception of the change in views from locations immediately
Environmental Statement 261
surrounding the application site, which is moderate. This effect, however, is considered be acceptable due to the existing lighting associated with the A607. Moreover, the lighting scheme will be designed in accordance with best practice, taking into account site context and associated sensitive receptors to reduce or avoid any adverse effects.
4) - Historic England would need more information relating to the height of the proposals.
Summary Response
9.2.14. Height information is provided in Figure 2.3 – Building Heights & Density Parameters Plan.
9.2.15. The effect of height on the heritage value of built heritage receptors is included as part of this assessment.
Sources of Information
9.2.16. The following sources of information have been used to inform the baseline:
Historic England’s listed building and Registered Parks and Gardens designation descriptions;
National Trust’s Survey of Gardens and Park at Belton (1986),
Atkins’ Belton House and Park: Setting Study and Policy Development (2010) produced for SKDC and National Trust to inform policy and guide development in the setting of Belton House and Park;
Relevant evidence submitted as part of the planning inquiry (PINS Ref: APP E2530/A/11/2150609) relating to the assessment of built heritage effects (See Appendix 4.0 of Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline;
Primary evidence held by the Lincolnshire County Archives such as historic maps and enclosure awards; and
Extensive field study.
Environmental Statement 262
Study Area
9.2.17. Study areas of 500m and 1km from the Application Site have been used in addition to a number of heritage receptors that lie outside the search radii but which form part of the Grade I Listed Belton Park Registered Park and Garden.
9.2.18. These heritage receptors, including additional ones outside 1km, are listed in Appendix 9.1.
Assessment Process
9.2.19. The term “built heritage receptor” is used to refer to built heritage assets (as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF). For the purposes of this chapter, built heritage receptors do not include archaeological remains.
9.2.20. When referring to “significance” in heritage terms (as set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF), the term ‘value’ has been adopted in order to avoid confusion with the term “significance” as used in a conventional EIA sense.
9.2.21. The following section explains the methodology employed to undertake the built heritage assessment. This assessment uses the guidance set out in the NPPF, English Heritage’s Conservation Principles (2008) and GPA3 (2015) – see appended sources.
9.2.22. Assessment of effects on the historic environment is a distinct process, but it interacts to a degree with Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). That assessment, prepared by LDA Design, is found at Chapter 7. The LVIA refers to built heritage receptors that are included within this assessment and are referenced where relevant.
9.2.23. The overarching assessment framework follows a staged process, which is set out below. This process is consistent with best practice guidance.
9.2.24. First, the heritage value of each built heritage receptor is assessed as part of the baseline assessment (Table 9.1).
9.2.25. Secondly, the magnitude of impact is assessed using professional judgement related to the duration, extent and type of impact (Table 9.2). Considerable importance and
Environmental Statement 263
weight has been given to the impact of the Proposed Development on identified built heritage receptors in undertaking this assessment.
9.2.26. The matrix shown in Table 9.3 combines the two measures of magnitude of impact and heritage value to provide a measure of the significance of effect. The effects range from negligible to major and may be beneficial or adverse, and then, on this basis, consideration is given to potential mitigation of any residual harmful effects.
Table 9.1: Built Heritage Receptor Value
Built Description Heritage Receptor Value
High The asset has high value as Listed Buildings with Grade I and II* and their settings, Scheduled Monuments, registered Historic Parks and Gardens Grade I and II* and their settings. This Always World Heritage Sites.
Moderate The asset has moderate value as Listed Buildings Grade II and their settings, Conservation Areas and their settings, and registered Historic Parks and Gardens Grade II and their settings.
Low Buildings/sites/areas with some evidence of value but in an incoherent or eroded form, of local interest and generally with no statutory protection.
Often buildings of local interest. Assets may be so badly damaged that too little remains to justify inclusion a higher grade.
9.2.27. Combining respective value and magnitude of change matrices may not provide the appropriate category of significance. These professional judgements are supported by a qualitative assessment describing the effects and a final professional judgement about their significance. Professional assessment is moving away from tabular
Environmental Statement 264
assessment to a mixed approach combining discursive text and summary tables. It is important to consider both components when reading this assessment.
9.2.28. This approach is particularly suitable to heritage because cultural value is not strictly measurable quantitatively, depending on judgment. The impact of effects is also subject to differing and valid opinions. Accordingly, there is an emphasis on narrative text throughout the report to describe the receptors and the judgements in reference to the significance of the identified effects.
9.2.29. It is also the case that the assessment matrices can produce an adverse result simply on the basis of the inputs alone. Thus, a minor adverse impact that results from the operation of the matrix ices does not mean there is harm attracting weight in the planning decision process. If there is such a result, the assessor must then apply professional judgment to the effect in order to ascertain whether the affected asset’s value has been.
Table 9.2: Magnitude of Change
Magnitude Description of Change
High Considerable change to the fabric of the built heritage receptor or its setting in complete contrast with the existing urban fabric.
Medium An obvious change to the fabric of the built heritage receptor or its setting that would be readily noticed but not necessarily in contrast to the existing urban fabric.
Low Slight change to the built heritage receptor or its setting that would not be noticed.
Negligible There would be change, but it would not be perceptible
Nil There would be no change to the fabric of the built heritage receptor or its setting.
Environmental Statement 265
9.2.30. Following their identification, effects have been classified on the basis of their nature and duration as follows:
Temporary: Effects that persist for a limited period only (due, for example, to particular activities taking place for a short period of time);
Permanent: Effects that result from an irreversible change to the baseline environment (e.g. alterations to built fabric) or which will persist for the foreseeable future (e.g. noise from regular or continuous operations or activities);
Direct: Effects that arise from the effect of activities that form an integral part of the scheme (e.g. construction of a new building);
Indirect: Effects that arise from the effect of activities that do not explicitly form part of the scheme;
Secondary: Effects that arise as a consequence of an initial effect of the scheme (e.g. induced employment elsewhere);
Cumulative: Effects that can arise from a combination of different effects at a specific location or the interaction of different effects over different periods of time. Cumulative effects are referred to in more detail in Chapter 16.
Environmental Statement 266
Table 9.3: Significance Matrix
Magnitude of Change / Built Heritage Receptor Value Value of Receptor Low Moderate High
Magnitude Nil Nil Nil Nil of Change Negligible Nil Nil Minor
Low Minor Moderate/Minor Moderate
Medium Moderate/Minor Moderate Major/Moderate
High Moderate Major/Moderate Major
9.2.31. In relation to this assessment, moderate and major adverse effects are considered to be significant and therefore material considerations.
Assumption and Limitations
9.2.32. The construction phase is anticipated to take place over a period of eight and half years, commencing in 2016.
Impact Interactions
9.2.1. Reference has been made to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment in Chapter 7 (and associated Figures), the Lighting Assessment (Appendix 7.6) and Chapter 11: Transport, Accessibility and Movement to assess the effects of landscape proposals, lighting and vehicular movements respectively on the heritage value of built heritage receptors.
9.3. Statutory Provisions and Planning Policy Context
9.3.1. This section sets out the statutory provisions and planning policy context relevant to the assessment of the Proposed Development on identified built heritage receptors.
Environmental Statement 267
Legislative Context
9.3.2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the adopted Statutory Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The currently adopted Statutory Development Plan is formed from the following documents:
South Kesteven Core Strategy (July, 2010);
South Kesteven Local Plan (1995) Saved Policies (2010); and
Adopted Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan (2014).
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990
9.3.3. The relevant legislation in this case extends from 66 (1) and 72(1) of the 1990 Act:
Section 66(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses.
9.3.4. Section 66(1) is applicable as the other works included within this application have the potential to affect the setting of listed buildings assessed as part of this process. Section 72 (1) of the same act is not applicable because the site does not fall within a conservation area and the provision does not apply to setting. The setting of conservation areas is, however, a matter of policy.
9.3.5. Considerable importance and weight is accorded the section 66 (1) provision, as recently confirmed in Court of Appeal and High Court judgments with which the project team are familiar and have taken fully into account. In particular this aspect was clarified by the Court of Appeal judgement in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy vs East Northamptonshire et al [2014]. The Court held that “to make an assessment of the indirect impact of development or change upon an asset it is first necessary to make a judgement about the contribution made by its setting”. In turn, the judgement concluded that there is a “strong presumption” against granting
Environmental Statement 268
planning permission for development which would harm to heritage assets precisely because the desirability of preserving the special interest is of “considerable importance and weight”.
The Development Plan
South Kesteven Core Strategy (July, 2010)
9.3.6. Policy EN1 Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District states:
“Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to: statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets; a) local distinctiveness and sense of place; b) historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape; c) the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces; d) the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings; e) the condition of the landscape; f) biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape; g) public access to and community value of the landscape; h) remoteness and tranquillity; i) visual intrusion; j) noise and light pollution; k) Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council; l) impact on controlled waters; and m) protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas).”
9.3.7. EN1 is a strategic policy designed at the district level. The supporting text of EN1 recognises, inter alia, the rich heritage of buildings in the district. It draws attention
Environmental Statement 269
to the historic fabric of individual buildings and the wider landscape. The policy justification states that these are “finite resources” which must be safeguarded.
9.3.8. Heritage policies in the South Kesteven Local Plan have been superseded by Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy.
9.3.9. It had been intended that a suite of complementary DPDs would be completed with the Grantham Area Action Plan which would have set out site specific allocations and policies for the Grantham area, thereby completing geographical coverage of the District. However, the Council has withdrawn the Grantham Area Action Plan and instead to bring forward a new comprehensive Local Plan for South Kesteven.
Adopted Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan (2014)
9.3.10. Policy SAP1, set out in full below, relates to Belton House and Park.
9.3.11. The policy accords the Belton House and Park Setting Study weight in the consideration of planning applications in that asset’s setting.
9.3.12. With regard to the importance of Belton House and Park, the Council considers it appropriate that proposals for development within the parameters set out in Section 3 of the Setting Study should include an assessment of their impact on the House and Park.
9.3.13. The Policy is repeated below in full for completeness:
“Policy SAP1: Protecting and Enhancing the Setting of Belton House and Park Belton House and its Historic Park and Garden are nationally and internationally significant heritage assets located in close proximity to the northern edge of the existing built-up area of Grantham. Protecting and enhancing their setting, using the Belton House and Park Setting study to inform the assessment of the impacts, is important to maintaining their significance as heritage assets. Proposals will need to demonstrate what, if any, impact there will be on the setting of Belton House and Park through the preparation of a Heritage Impact Statement, and how through their location, scale, design, landscaping and materials they have taken account of the setting of Belton, and that any adverse impacts have been removed and/or mitigated.”
Environmental Statement 270
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
9.3.14. Government policy on Planning and the Historic Environment is provided in Paragraphs 126 – 141 of the NPPF. Under this guidance, the Manthorpe Conservation Area is a ‘designated heritage asset’.
9.3.15. NPPF Paragraph 128 requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by a proposal, including any contribution made by their setting. An assessment of the heritage value of the heritage receptors potentially affected by the Proposed Development is set out in Appendix 9.1.
9.3.16. Under NPPF Paragraph 129 local planning authorities are advised to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
9.3.17. The historical information set out in Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline and in this assessment provides the required information proportionate to the heritage value of the built heritage receptors and type, scale and overall design of the proposals.
9.3.18. NPPF Paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
Environmental Statement 271
9.3.19. ‘Conservation’ is defined in the NPPF Annex 2: Glossary as ‘The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance.’
9.3.20. Paragraph 137 states that Local Planning Authorities should look for new development within Conservation Areas which will enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals which seek to better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
9.3.21. Paragraphs 132 to 134 need to be read together and applied in cases where development would cause harm to the special interest of a heritage asset, distinguishing degrees of harm and providing related threshold tests for the planning decision maker. This assessment takes into account the “great weight” attached to an asset’s conservation.
National Planning Policy Guidance (“NPPG”)
9.3.22. ‘NPPG’ was published as a web-based resource on 6 March 2014 supporting the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012). The publication contains guidance on decision-taking with regard to historic environment matters. The NPPG provides guidance on how to minimise harm to the significance of a heritage asset:
“How can proposals avoid or minimise harm to the significance of a heritage asset? “A clear understanding of the significance of a heritage asset and its setting is necessary to develop proposals which avoid or minimise harm. Early appraisals, a conservation plan or targeted specialist investigation can help to identify constraints and opportunities arising from the asset at an early stage. Such studies can reveal alternative development options, for example more sensitive designs or different orientations, that will deliver public benefits in a more sustainable and appropriate way.”
9.3.23. As is explained here and elsewhere in the application submission, the design of the Proposed Development has been influenced by our analysis of the significance of Belton House, its registered parkland and their setting. The assessment process has been used to reduce the potential for any harm. Through this process we have sought also to address pre-application comments from the Council and Historic England.
Environmental Statement 272
9.3.24. Further guidance is provided by the NPPG on the nature of public benefits. These may follow from many developments and can be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the NPPF (Paragraph 7). They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits. Benefits become relevant countervailing considerations if there is a finding of harm; if there is no finding of harm, then benefits to heritage interests attract particular weight in their own right under the terms of paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
Manthorpe Conservation Area Appraisal
9.3.25. Manthorpe Conservation Area was designated in 1970 to preserve the character and appearance of this part of Grantham. The eastern boundary of the Application Site forms the boundary with the Conservation Area, which includes the listed Church of St John the Evangelist and the Old Rectory. The Church is located to the west of the Application Site and as a matter of fact forms part of the wider setting of the conservation area. We have accordingly considered whether the proposals would cause any harm to that asset’s cultural value.
9.3.26. Published in 2007, the Appraisal describes the location, context and spatial character of the area and the quality and character of the buildings. The Management section of the appraisal notes the following opportunities and constraints:
“The open character around the south junction of High Road and Low road should be maintained.
Any new development within the conservation area should complement the scale design, materials and appearance of the traditional buildings in the village, with particular reference to the immediate context.
Any alterations to a building in the conservation area should be carried out in natural materials appropriate to its location, and be of a scale and design consistent with its overall character.
Environmental Statement 273
Existing brick-capped stone walls along the road frontages should be retained. Wherever possible, new highway boundary walls should be constructed to a similar design, height and with matching materials.
The existing avenue of trees framing the eastward view of the pump house from High Road should be retained. Any individual tree which needs to be removed should be replaced with a semi-mature specimen of the same variety.
Existing chimneys and finials at roof level should be retained, and missing features reinstated where possible.
Views across the existing historic roofscape of the village should be maintained, and not obscured. Wherever possible, alternative locations should be sought for modern roof level features such as television aerials.
As and when the opportunity arises, the existing street lighting should be replaced with a design more appropriate to the area.” (pp. 5-6)
9.3.27. The Proposed Development has the potential to affect the heritage value of the area through the construction of the development and associated effects including those related to noise, traffic and light pollution. These effects are assessed below at section 9.6 Potential Effects.
Grantham Townscape Assessment (2011) The Grantham Townscape Assessment (2011) is background evidence used to inform the development of planning policy, most recently the adopted Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan (2014). It is a material consideration when considering planning applications.
9.3.28. The Application Site lies within Character Area 17a: Area to the west of Manthorpe and south of Belton Lane. This character area comprises a series of generally open fields of agricultural use divided by hedge and tree boundaries.
9.3.29. The area is described as being “Open, mixed farmed landscape, with strong sense of a rural setting and surrounded by planned landscapes (Belton House and golf course to east and north respectively)”.
9.3.30. Manthorpe lies within Character Area 13 within the northern edge of Grantham.
Environmental Statement 274
9.3.31. In relation to Limits to Growth, the assessments states:
“There is very limited opportunity for growth within the character area other than the possible subdivision of plots which contain modern post-war houses which presently are considered as negative elements in the townscape and the conservation area. Where very high quality design combined with a sympathetic use of appropriate materials and colour (see recommended colour palette) are proposed consideration should be given to replacement of these houses. This should only be undertaken in very exceptional circumstances and will require the very highest standard of design for any replacement or remodelling of existing buildings. This is notwithstanding the need to satisfy the requirements of other planning policies such as those related to flooding and provision of affordable housing.”
Belton House and Park Setting Study
9.3.32. As stated in Policy SAP1 of the adopted Core Strategy, the Belton House and Park Setting Study is a material consideration in determining planning applications within the setting of Belton House, its Gardens and Park. The study was prepared in recognition of these heritage assets by SKDC, National Trust and Atkins. The document defines the extent of the setting of these heritage assets and was prepared to inform the policy formulation that led to SAP1.
9.3.33. The report provides a description of the setting of Belton House, its Gardens and Park including a summary of their historic development. Section 3 of the document provides an assessment of the sensitivity of the setting to change, taking into account where different types of development could adversely affect the setting of the house and park.
9.3.34. The Setting Study illustrates that the Application Site lies within Element 1, and partly within Elements 2 and 3, which are defined in this section.
9.3.35. Chapter 7 of this ES has identified that the study is inaccurate. Paragraphs 7.6.66 and 7.6.70 identify that a consequence of the inaccuracies means that sensitivities to differing scale of development judged from section 3 of the study (pp. 19) and on Figure 19, will be used cautiously as part of Landscape and Visual assessment in addition to this built heritage assessment.
Environmental Statement 275
9.3.36. The setting study identifies that these elements of the setting of Belton Park are ‘sensitive’ to development to varying degrees. To provide clarity, different sized developments are defined by the report, of which, the Proposed Development falls into the following category:
Medium-Sized Development
This category of development includes groups of 50 houses or more or large building complexes/institutions, and medium sized business or small industrial estates, below the size that would require the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations (Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293, Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, 1999).
9.3.37. To be clear, the Proposed Development does not include any tall buildings (nine storeys or more) as defined in the Setting Study. The tallest element will be the local community centre at 12m (3 storeys).
Historic England Guidance
9.3.38. Historic England has published a number of guidance documents that have been taken into account when developing the Proposed Development and consequently in undertaking this Assessment.
Conservation Principles (2008)
9.3.39. Conservation Principles (2008) seeks to ensure produced consistency of approach when managing the Historic Environment. Principle 3: Understanding the significance of places is vital and is inherently linked to the NPPF, and articulates an approach to assessing significance of heritage assets based on their evidential, historic, aesthetic and communal values. The last category – communal values – has no equivalent term in the Framework and as a matter of practice we apply it to assets of clear symbolic importance. Community interests are represented in other areas of town planning. This document has been superseded by HPA Note 2, discussed below.
Environmental Statement 276
Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (“GPA2”) (April 2015)
9.3.40. Historic England published its Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (“GPA2”) in April 2015. The guidance is intended to assist those implementing historic environment policy, and provides information on assessing the significance of heritage assets, using appropriate expertise, historic environment records, recording and further understanding, neglect and unauthorised works, marketing and design and distinctiveness.
9.3.41. The note emphasises the importance of understanding the significance of any heritage asset likely to be affected by development proposals, and the contribution (if any) that setting makes to that significance. It states that this understanding is important in the conception and design of a successful development, and in enabling local planning authorities to make decisions in line with legal requirements, the requirements of the development plan and those of the NPPF.
Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 3, The Setting of Heritage Assets (April 2015) (“GPA3”)
9.3.42. The ‘Setting of a heritage asset’ is defined in the Glossary of the NPPF as ‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve.’ This definition is adopted in the Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning, Note 3, The Setting of Heritage Assets (April 2015) (“GPA3”)
9.3.43. At paragraph 12 of the guidance note, Historic England recommends a broad, five step approach to assessing the impact of development upon the setting of heritage assets:
Step 1: identify which heritage assets and their settings are affected; Step 2: assess whether, how and to what degree these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s);
Environmental Statement 277
Step 3: assess the effects of the Proposed Development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance; Step 4: explore the way to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm; Step 5: make and document the decision and monitor outcomes.
9.3.44. The approach corresponds to EIA practice.
9.3.45. The guidance makes clear that the setting of a heritage asset is not an asset in its own right unless of course it is subject to a separate designation (which is not the case here). The importance of setting lies in what it contributes to the heritage value of the receptor. A change to setting, even a significant one, does not necessarily give rise to an impact on cultural.
The Planning History of the Site
9.3.46. Following from the previous planning application for the Application Site, this assessment has been undertaken afresh, with a full analysis of all built historic receptors and potential effects. Nevertheless, the approach which has been adopted has emerged from consideration of the Inspector’s reasons in dismissing the appeal on the site (PINS Ref: APP E2530/A/11/2150609). The design team – with Montagu Evans’ advice – began by analysing the Inspector’s findings, and that study focused the analysis of the potential development form and its effects. Specifically, the Secretary of State’s findings identified three salient heritage considerations:
The view from Bellmount Tower (paragraph 260);
The view from the South Avenue in Belton Park (paragraph 261); and
Views of the surrounding countryside towards the Park and Tower in which these are seen within a wider agricultural landscape (paragraph 260).
9.3.47. It is also material that the Secretary of State recently stated that the Proposed Development was not EIA Development (dated 19th May 2015 – Reference NPCU/EIASCR/E2530/75347).
9.3.48. In the screening determination, he stated:
Environmental Statement 278
“The site is within the Grantham Scarps and Valleys character area of the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment and the Grade I Belton House and Park are approximately 1.5 km north of the site. However, I do not consider that the proposal would have a significant effect on these ecological or cultural assets.”
9.4. Baseline Conditions
9.4.1. The baseline conditions are fully described and illustrated in Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline and Figure 9.1: Heritage Assets.
9.4.2. 75 built heritage receptors have been identified within 1km of the Application Site with additional receptors included within Belton Park:
Three Grade I Listed Buildings
10 Grade II* Listed Buildings
60 Grade II Listed Buildings
One Conservation Area
One Grade I Registered Park and Garden
9.4.3. A full list of built heritage assets identified as part of this assessment is included in Appendix 9.1 and illustrated on Figure 9.1. As explained in Appendix 9.1, the Application Site does not make any contribution to the setting, and therefore heritage value, of the majority of the identified built heritage receptors.
9.4.4. The following considerations have been taken into account in identifying those receptors that may be affected by the Proposed Development. For clarity, any affects are to the setting of a receptor:
The type of proposals as a residential-led mixed-use development;
The scale, size and height of the Proposed Development;
Screening provided by existing buildings, vegetation and topography; and
Environmental Statement 279
The design of the landscape within and outside of the Application Site, under the control of the landowner, to avoid any adverse effects on built heritage assets.
9.4.5. Professional judgement has therefore been used to select the following built heritage assets which may experience change to their setting, and by extension, their heritage value (the numbers in brackets refer to the reference number as illustrated in Appendix 9.1):
Belton House Registered Park and Garden (30)
Bellmount Tower (36)
The Church of St John the Evangelist (21)
Old Rectory (20); and
Manthorpe Conservation Area (76).
9.4.6. This assessment is also mindful of the Secretary of State’s decision for the previous application for the Application Site (PINS Ref: APP E2530/A/11/2150609), which was demonstrably larger in terms of size and scope than the Proposed Development. Following careful consideration of the evidence presented, the Inspector found:
“There is no reason to disagree with the view of both main parties that other heritage assets in the vicinity would be preserved with the proposal, and that there would be no harm to the immediate landscape around the site [53].” [Paragraph 267]
9.4.7. The Secretary of State agreed with this conclusion in paragraph 11 of his decision.
9.4.8. It is for these reasons that this assessment focusses on the built heritage receptors listed at para. 9.4.6.
9.5. Design Measures
9.5.1. This section identifies the design measures that have been taken to ensure that the Proposed Development will maintain the heritage value of the identified built
Environmental Statement 280
heritage receptors and therefore accord with the statutory provisions set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and relevant planning policy.
9.5.2. The following aspects of the Proposed Development have been carefully considered to create a high quality sustainably designed urban extension to Grantham. These opportunities have arisen from a detailed constraints analysis allowing the scheme to respond positively to the historic built environment:
Consultation with statutory consultees and response to recommendations related to design;
Use of detailed visual analysis and testing of important views to ensure that the proposals would preserve the setting of adjacent built heritage receptors including Belton Park;
Locating the edge of the Proposed Development further away from Belton Park ;
Height and massing of the Proposed Development is illustrated on Figure 2.3 Building Heights & Density Parameter Plan. The height of the Proposed Development will be generally limited to two storeys, which is the prevailing height of residential buildings within the northern edge of Grantham. The tallest element of the development will be the local community centre with a height of up to 12m.
9.5.3. In particular, there are a number of aspects of the Proposed Development that have been designed to ensure that the setting and heritage value of the identified built heritage receptors will be preserved, thus complying with the statutory provision set out in s66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. These aspects include structural landscaping and the positioning of types of development across the site and are described below.
9.5.4. There are three principal areas where these elements of the scheme have a demonstrable effect in avoiding harmful effects.
Environmental Statement 281
Maintaining openness of fields most sensitive to change associated with the Application Site and nearby built heritage assets.
9.5.5. Three fields north-east of the Application Site will be retained as open farmland which is the most visually sensitive land in proximity to the Application Site from views within Belton Park.
9.5.6. The north-eastern part of the Application Site is visible in varying degrees in west- facing views from within Belton Park. Chapter 7 makes clear that different parts of the Application Site are visible from the Park depending on the distance and elevation.
9.5.7. Appendix 9.1 articulates the high degree of change that has taken place within the landscape to the west of Belton Park. The landscape, although retaining elements from each period of its history, has undergone a transformation since the 18th/early 19th century. The finer grain elements in the view from Bellmount Tower have changed considerably. The growing settlements of Great Gonerby, Manthorpe and Grantham have encroached into what had previously been a principally agricultural landscape within the view from the east, and these late 20th century housing estates comprise now almost a third of the panoramic view from the Tower (see Appendix 5.0 of Appendix 9.1).
9.5.8. The retained agricultural land to the north of the Application Site would remain open, preserving the character currently associated with the landscape west of the park. Finally, maintaining openness will look to minimise effects on Belton Lane, which will in turn look to reduce effects on views towards Belton Park within journeys travelling east. By retaining the agricultural use of the fields to the north of the Application Site, the overall character of the road will be preserved. The assessment of this effect is considered below, in the assessment of operational effects.
The open character of the fields adjacent to the church of St John the Evangelist (21) and the Old Rectory (20) would also be retained either as grazing and sports pitches. These fields will retain the character of the land around these receptors. Sight lines within the Proposed Development.
Environmental Statement 282
9.5.9. Section 3.2 of the Design and Access Statement identifies that one of the key considerations of the Masterplan was to incorporate viewing corridors towards the spires of St John the Evangelist and St Wulframs in Grantham, the ancient parish church.
9.5.10. The corridors converge at a highpoint of the Application Site in an open space which is the focus of the proposed masterplan layout.
9.5.11. These corridors will improve the ability to appreciate the heritage value of the churches by drawing attention through planned and intentional views.
Introduction of new woodland and tree planting to the northern edge of the Application Site.
9.5.12. The northern boundary of the Proposed Development will be planted with woodland and trees to create a sympathetic ‘soft’ edge to the built form.
9.5.13. Mixed native woodland and woodland edge planting (up to 50m deep) will be planted on the western and northern edge of the Proposed Development, softening the scale of the development and/or screening the majority of proposed housing from view from landscape to the west and north-east.
9.6. Potential Effects
9.6.1. This section identifies and assesses the potential effects that are predicted to occur during the construction and operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Construction Phase
9.6.2. The CoCP (Appendix 2.1) produced by the Applicants provides a description of the construction period of the Proposed Development. The following are relevant in terms this assessment and are consistent with similar aspects of the construction phase assessed in Chapter 7.0.
The main site compound will be located adjacent to the Belton Lane access, with a second compound located within the Application Site. It is assumed that the compound will include site offices, car parking, and a materials store. Upon completion, the compound will be removed and landscaped according to the
Environmental Statement 283
proposed masterplan (i.e. community orchard, allotments and woodland pasture).
Construction traffic will use the Belton Lane access only for delivering and removing material from the Application Site.
Where necessary, topsoil stripping, storage and restoration will be carried out in accordance with the detailed procedures specified in Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (2009).. Topsoil mounds will be located away from the northern edge of the Application Site (i.e. highest parts of the Application Site) and not in close proximity to the Manthorpe Conservation Area. The height of topsoil mounds will be limited in order to reduce the potential effects on the setting of adjacent built heritage receptors.
Measures will be undertaken to avoid creating a dust nuisance.
Light pollution will be reduced by minimising lighting within the Application Site with minimum intensity. External lighting will be switched off outside working hours and any security lighting will only operate when activated by movement sensors. All temporary lighting will be in accordance with best practice.
9.6.3. Traffic effects are relevant to built heritage receptors because the increase in vehicular movements can have an adverse effect on setting, and therefore heritage value. Paragraph 11.6.8 of Chapter 11: Transport, Accessibility and Movement states that during peak construction activity on site the total peak period vehicle movements will be substantially less than the level of traffic generated by the Proposed Development when it is fully operational. The daily traffic generation associated with construction is lower than the peak hour traffic generation of the fully occupied site.
9.6.4. It is intended that construction traffic utilises the proposed access off Belton Lane rather than passing through the existing northern residential area of Grantham, within Manthorpe Conservation Area, to gain access to the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 284
Consequently, there will not be any traffic that will travel through the Conservation Area.
Belton Park Registered Park and Garden (Grade I) and Bellmount Tower (Grade II*)
9.6.5. The construction works associated with the Proposed Development may be perceptible from within Belton Park (30) or from Bellmount Tower (36), though over some distance and with a very wide setting which is partly urbanised and includes roads. Consequently, the magnitude of change through using the matrix at Table 9.3 is considered to be negligible and therefore Minor Adverse. This effect is recorded in Table 9.4 at the end of this chapter.
9.6.6. However, using professional judgement, it is considered that this effect is very minor and would have no real effect on the special interest of any aspect of the historic environment.
The Church of St John the Evangelist (21), Old Rectory (20), and Manthorpe Conservation Area (76)
9.6.7. These built heritage receptors are grouped together because they will experience the same significance of effect as a result of the construction phase.
9.6.8. The construction works will only affect the area of landscape to the west of the church of St John the Evangelist (21) and the Old Rectory (20), in association with the construction of residential properties west of Manthorpe Grange, at a distance of 250m.
9.6.9. The only part of the Application Site that contributes to the setting of the Conservation Area are the fields immediately adjacent to the Church of St John the Evangelist and Old Rectory, which provide space from which to appreciate the spire.
9.6.10. Consequently, these works will lead to a negligible magnitude of impact to the setting of these built heritage receptors, leading to a Nil significance of effect.
Environmental Statement 285
Operational Phase
9.6.11. This section assesses the operational effects of the Proposed Development on the identified built heritage receptors.
Belton Park Registered Park and Garden (Grade I) and Bellmount Tower (Grade II*)
9.6.12. The following summarises the baseline position for Belton Park established in Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline:
The Application Site lies on the northern edge of the Grantham area.
The setting of Belton House and Park incorporates ‘borrowed landscape’ whereby views beyond the park to the west appear intentional. The term “borrowed landscape” and its function in relation to the Application Site and Belton Park is explained in Appendix 9.1.
The landscape to the west of Belton Park (30) has been greatly altered since the 17th century and no longer has the character that was present when the house and park were first established. Consequently, the historic value of the “borrowed landscape” has been eroded thus changing the character of the asset’s setting.
It should be borne in mind both the original intention of visual interaction (looking out from the park, for example) and the changes to that experience which have occurred over time. These changes have altered the meaning of the borrowed view to an extent and its aesthetics as well. The concept of the borrowed view is considered still relevant.
The cartographic evidence suggests that there was never any planting on the western side of the avenue towards the southern end where there is gap at present/ From the late-19th century the remainder of the western boundary was planted with trees that restricted views to the west. Given the axial view associated with the avenue, the viewer is channelled along the drive and consequently does not appreciate the agricultural character to the west of the park.
Environmental Statement 286
The A607 is a feature that detracts from the setting of the park due to the noise and visual effect of passing traffic.
The Belton Woods Golf Club is a 20th century addition to the north of the Application Site and has irrevocably changed the character and appearance of the landscape in that area.
9.6.13. What contributes to the setting and heritage value of Belton House Registered Park Garden and Bellmount Tower has been clearly identified in the Inspector’s findings and the subsequent Secretary of State’s decision relating to the previous application determined in March 2012 (PINS Ref: APP E2530/A/11/2150609) as:
The borrowed landscape to the west of Belton Park (3) which is most obvious in the westward views from Bellmount Tower (36) and South Avenue [paragraph 259];
Views from the countryside towards the Park (30) and Tower (36) [paragraph 262]; and
Agricultural character of the land north of Grantham, including the Application Site [paragraph 262].
The setting of a built heritage receptor is defined by Historic England as the “surroundings in which a heritage [receptor] is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surrounding evolve”. Setting therefore also includes noise, the effect of light, and traffic movements.
9.6.14. This assessment takes account of the potential impact of these aspects using the conclusions drawn in Chapter 10: Transport, Accessibility and Movement, Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration and the lighting assessment at Appendix 7.6. This assessment articulates how these effects affect the setting and therefore heritage value of the built heritage receptors.
Visual Effects on the setting of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36)
9.6.15. This part of the assessment draws on the potential effects of the Proposed Development on the setting of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36).
Environmental Statement 287
9.6.16. As set out at para 9.6.13,the setting of Belton Park and Bellmount Tower in close proximity to the Application Site is the landscape to the west of the Park which has been the subject of noticeable change since the 18th century.
9.6.17. This landscape can be appreciated from Bellmount Tower (36) and along the South Avenue.
9.6.18. Views from and towards the Park (30) are important to understanding how the setting may be affected by the Proposed Development. Visibility from within Belton Park and its setting are outlined within Chapter 7 in relation to the Proposed Development. Viewpoints 1 (Bellmount Tower), 2 (Belton House roof to viewing platform), 3 (South Avenue) and 4 (Belton Lane, Great Gonerby) of the LVIA illustrate views from within Belton Park and its setting. Viewpoint locations 1, 3 and 4 have been photomontaged at Year 1 Post Completion and at Year 15 Post Completion and are illustrated on Figures 7.22 to 7.30 in Volume III.
9.6.19. The following considers the effect on the setting of Belton Park to the Proposed Development on each of these locations in turn.
View from Bellmount Tower (36) and associated ridge (Viewpoint 1 from LVIA at Chapter 7)
9.6.20. A description of the historical development of the landscape within this view is described in Appendix 9.1: Built Heritage Baseline.
9.6.21. The view experience of the Belton Park from the Bellmount Tower is the most sensitive and important under consideration when assessing the effect on heritage value. It is important to recognise that the planned view experience from Bellmount Tower and associated ridgeline is kinetic, as opposed to stationary.
9.6.22. The view from Bellmount Tower (36) was planned and intentional. The historic axis from Welby, emphasised by the tower and east avenue, providing opportunities for the main focus to the available panorama facing west down the hill towards the house.
Environmental Statement 288
9.6.23. When originally designed, the planned view entailed a deliberate contrast between the unenclosed, showpiece landscape within the Park, and the more productive, agrarian landscape beyond.
9.6.24. The current visible landscape, from Bellmount Tower (36) and which contributes to the setting of Belton Park (30), has been subject to substantial change since the Park was first laid out. One would expect, for example, there to have been extensive hedge rows, the product of a complex history of enclosure. However, these have been removed and are no longer visible. In addition, the urban development of Grantham has substantially grown alongside the addition of the railway and electricity pylons that lie on the western and northern boundary of the Application Site respectively.
9.6.25. Grantham is clearly seen as a modern development to the south.
9.6.26. The spire of the Grade II listed Church of St John the Evangelist (21) is visible from the higher parts in this location (including the tower viewing gallery).
9.6.27. The fields to the north of the pylons are particularly visible from this location. Beyond, to the north of Belton Lane is the golf course, which has a distinct modern character that contrasts with the agricultural land to its north, south and west.
9.6.28. The Proposed Development would be perceived as a very minor incremental change, similar in nature to what has already taken place. Thus the development itself will be perceptible but will not be intrusive or even noticeable in longer views from around Bellmount Tower (36). This effect is described in Chapter 7 as part of the assessment of Viewpoint 1 as a: “sliver of development stretching across the site along the perceived lower ground associated with the visible existing edge of Grantham”.
9.6.29. The substantial area of retained farmland to the north of the Application Site would remain open thus avoiding effects on this part of Belton Park’s setting in close proximity to the Proposed Development. Consequently, the ability of the viewer to appreciate the heritage value of the Park, and indeed that of Bellmount Tower (36), would not be affected.
Environmental Statement 289
View from South Avenue in Belton Park (30) facing west towards the Application Site (Viewpoint 3 of LVIA at Chapter 7)
9.6.30. The main focus of the designed landscape along South Avenue is towards Belton House, which terminates the view to the north. The avenue planting focuses views south for someone walking in that direction. The majority of this route does not have any visibility towards the Application Site due to intervening vegetation, with an exception of a stretch of up to 100m approximately 1km south of Belton House, where the landscape opens to reveal a layered scene to the west, including the Application Site, with the landform rising beyond to Great Gonerby.
9.6.31. The cartographic evidence suggests that there was never any planting on the western side of the avenue towards the southern end. However, given the axial view associated with the avenue, the viewer is directed along the north/south axis.
9.6.32. The viewer is aware along the whole of the South Avenue of the noise from the A607, which reduces tranquillity (indeed it is arguably not a tranquil experience). Moreover, the experience of this part of the Belton Park landscape is dynamic in nature, as whilst moving along the avenue, the visitor is aware of the adjacent urbanising influences of the traffic, and streetlamps at night, associated with the A607.
9.6.33. The Proposed Development will be glimpsed and partially visible in views facing west, from South Avenue. Viewpoint 3 is described in Chapter 7 (Figure 7.9 – Volume III) as:
“The Proposed Development would extend the existing urban settlement of Grantham to the north lying upon the localised ridgeline in the middle distance. Open landscape upon rising ground west of the Site will be visible above the Proposed Development, before reaching the hill top neighbourhood of Gonerby Hill Foot that will continue to form the settled skyline. The retained fields to the north of the Site ensure that the Proposed Development will only be perceived as a slither within the view. Once planting has matured along the northern edge of the Proposed Development, built form will generally be screened from view, enhancing the perceived wooded character of the landscape within the panorama”
Environmental Statement 290
9.6.34. Any adverse effect would be the changing of the composition of the view in the middleground and experience of the landscape beyond the park, which in any case, has already been eroded by the A607.
Views from the countryside towards Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) (Viewpoint 4, Belton Lane, of LVIA at Chapter 7)
9.6.35. The fields north of the Application Site will be maintained as farmland and will not only preserve the openness of the perceived setting of Belton Park in close proximity to the Proposed Development, but will also set back built forms from Belton Lane.
9.6.36. Views from Belton Lane towards the Proposed Development are described in paragraph 7.6.47 of Chapter 7.
9.6.37. Views are only glimpsed east of the railway through and above roadside vegetation, perpendicular to the direction of travel both east and west. Application Site topography generally screens the scale of development to the east and central parts of the Application Site. The bridge over the railway line has high brick wall parapets which prevent the majority of views from vehicle passengers across the Application Site, despite the bridge being hump-backed over the track.
9.6.38. When travelling east, past the railway the fields increase in depth and the sense of openness becomes greater, the overall prevailing character will remain agricultural, and preserve the viewer’s experience of the approach towards Belton Park.
9.6.39. The northern boundary of the Application Site will be planted with woodland and trees to provide a sympathetic ‘soft’ edge that will be in keeping with the prevailing character of field boundaries and woodland blocks within the vicinity of the Application Site (such as Brickkiln Plantation). The planting will help to blend the development into the landscape in a sensitive manner.
9.6.40. Chapter 11: Transport, Accessibility and Movement indicates that the magnitude of change in the average delay at the junction of the A607 and Belton Lane will be negligible.
Environmental Statement 291
9.6.41. The effect of traffic on the character and experience of those travelling towards Belton Park (30) would not change because there is no significant variation in traffic flows on the A607 as it passes Belton Lane or on the eastern end of Belton Lane (3 vehicles in peak hour) as a result of the development proposals.
9.6.42. As planting matures, views to the new built edge of the Proposed Development, particularly to the west and northern edge of the Proposed Development will be screened, notably from views east of the railway where ground levels are lower. Replacement hedgerows associated with the new junction with Belton Lane will have established, continuing the roadside vegetation along this route.
9.6.43. The only area where the Proposed Development meets Belton Lane is where the allotments, woodland planting and community orchard will be established in the northwest, along with the secondary access. This junction will have the appearance of a country road, consistent with the character of the rest of Belton Lane.
Impact of Lighting on the setting of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36)
9.6.44. The Lighting Assessment at Appendix 7.6, states that the magnitude of effect is likely to be diminished, even before any design measures, due to existing road lighting consisting of 8m high sodium lights along the A607 from Grantham as far as the junction with Belton Lane.
9.6.45. The design of the Proposed Development lighting scheme will reduce this effect and act to soften the existing visible edge of lit development.
9.6.46. The overall significance of effect relating to these lighting effects is assessed by Illuminous as minor adverse from the relevant viewpoints (1, 2 and 3 of LVIA at Chapter 7) from within Belton Park (30).
9.6.47. The heritage value of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) is generally appreciated during daylight hours. The ability to appreciate that value is dramatically reduced at night due to the lack of any lighting, planned or otherwise, within the Park. Moreover, the lighting scheme will be designed in accordance with best practice, taking into account site context and associated sensitive receptors to
Environmental Statement 292
reduce or avoid any adverse effects. These details will be secured by planning condition.
9.6.48. The addition of lighting within the Application Site would in our judgement have a negligible magnitude of impact on the heritage value of both receptors.
Overall Effect on the heritage value of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36)
9.6.49. It is concluded that the Proposed Development will lead to a change to the setting of Belton Park and Bellmount Tower arising from a change in the character of the land. The Application Site is currently open and in agricultural use, but is seen and understood in the context of the urban fringe of Grantham.
9.6.50. In terms of the ES methodology, this will lead to a negligible magnitude of change and therefore, applying the matrices strictly, a Minor Adverse significance of effect.
9.6.51. The impact will alter the setting of both Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36); however, that in itself cannot be said to be harmful in the terms set out in policy and best practice, for example, Historic England’s GPA3, reasons which we have commented on earlier in this chapter, at 9.6.29 and 9.6.34 above. The following paragraphs deal with this point.
9.6.52. The concept of borrowed landscape is recognised and reflects the intention of 18th century grandees to project an image of their power and identity onto the surrounding land, beyond even those areas they laid out for their own entertainment. The landscape west of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) is mixed. It is agricultural in parts, and urban in others. The landscape here has, however, lost many historic characteristics. It is urbanised to a degree and has elements that are wholly modern, including two golf courses. Hence, the Proposed Development, appreciated in this context, causes a negligible magnitude of change, and that change does not undermine the spatial experience of the view or prevent an informed viewer from understanding the original intention of the view, which was to create the impression of the land under the control of the owner extending outside the bounds of the park. Applying professional judgement, then, we conclude
Environmental Statement 293
that the Proposed Development will not give rise to any discernible effect on the heritage value of either Belton Park or Bellmount Tower built heritage receptors.
9.6.53. The Proposed Development would therefore preserve the special interest of the view from Bellmount Tower, and the Tower’s special interest, so meeting the requirements of s66 (1) of the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990.
9.6.54. The significance of Belton Park would also be preserved, thus meeting the policy requirements set out in paragraph 132 of the NPPF, and SAP 1 of SKDC’s Adopted Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan.
Manthorpe Conservation Area (76)
9.6.55. Manthorpe Conservation Area has a linear form enclosing the buildings fronting either side of High Road and Low Road, which converge at the southern end of the Conservation Area.
9.6.56. The appearance associated with the historic village is drawn from its association with the Belton Estate and the characterful worker’s cottages (many of which are listed).
9.6.57. The cluster of cottages forms a historic core of the conservation area. This part has a distinctive historic character derived from historic buildings and their historical associations with the Brownlow family. .
9.6.58. The area to the west and south of the conservation area has changed markedly over the last century, specifically with the construction of the Longcliffe Road Estate from 1972, which lies directly to the south of the Application Site. This development is visible in viewpoint 13 as assessed in Chapter 7.
9.6.59. The approach from the north is less altered. The Character Appraisal (2007) attributes particular interest to the Church of St John the Evangelist which can be seen from Belton Lane and comes into focus as one leaves the Grantham suburban area, and the historic core of Manthorpe Conservation Area. The setting of the church is layered. It’s immediate and most significant setting is comprised by the adjacent Old Rectory, well-defined churchyard and the fields to the north and south.
Environmental Statement 294
The latter provides a green edge to the A607 and allows the church to retain a sense of space from which it can be appreciated.
9.6.60. The Application Site has no discernible relationship with the core of the Conservation Area, and indeed the listed buildings therein. There are views of the church spire from the west and north, from open land outside the Conservation Area, but these are less significant and this part of the setting has been urbanised by the settlement
Impact on the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76) due to Traffic
9.6.61. The potential increase in traffic caused by the Proposed Development has the potential to affect the character of the Conservation Area. Chapter 11: Transport Accessibility and Movement states the following points which illustrate the low impact caused by vehicular movement (paragraphs 11.6.13 to 11.6.25):
The only roads to experience more than a negligible increase in two-way traffic flows are those located immediately to the south of the site, Sandcliffe Road, Longcliffe Road and Rosendale Drive. These do not include the A607, which forms the principal route through the Conservation Area.
The maximum increase in average junction delay from the strategic modelling is 9 seconds. This occurs in the AM peak at the Manthorpe Road / Longcliffe Road junction. This indicates that the magnitude of change at all junctions would be negligible.
The more detailed junction models show that for all junctions other than the B1174 / Belton Lane, the magnitude of change in average delay is negligible.
On all routes the change in journey time is less than 30 seconds, apart from the journey between the A607 Brook Street and A607 Harlaxton Road during the AM peak, where an increase of 43 seconds occurs. The magnitude of change on this route is therefore minor, with all other changes being negligible.
9.6.62. Whilst the assessment in Chapter 11 suggests that there will be an increase in traffic on the A607, this increase is primarily to the south of Longcliffe Road. Through the
Environmental Statement 295
Conservation Area, the change in traffic flow as a result of the Proposed Development will be negligible.
9.6.63. Using professional judgement, the increase in traffic would therefore have a negligible magnitude of change to the heritage value of the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76) as the additional vehicular movement would not be readily noticed.
Impact on the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76) due to potential light pollution
9.6.64. The Lighting Assessment at Appendix 7.6 states that the effects at Manthorpe Grange and the Church of St John the Evangelist (21) occurring through light intrusion and potential for glare will be effectively rendered neutral through control and management of the Proposed Development lighting.
9.6.65. These effects are assessed as minor within the Lighting Assessment.
9.6.66. The effect of light on the setting of the Conservation Area should be considered in terms of their temporary nature, given that lighting will only be experienced during night time hours.
9.6.67. Proposed lighting associated with the Proposed Development will be visible alongside competing light sources in the Conservation Area.
9.6.68. A high quality lighting scheme, and control of details through reserved matters applications and planning conditions will ensure that any impact would be minimised to ensure that the character and appearance of the Manthorpe Conservation Area would be preserved in accordance with the statutory provision set out in s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
9.6.69. The magnitude of change to the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76) relating to lighting is therefore considered to be negligible.
Environmental Statement 296
Overall Assessment
9.6.70. A summary of the salient considerations that are taken into account as part of this assessment are as follows:
The effect of additional vehicular movements caused by the proposals will be negligible.
The effect of light on the setting, and overall heritage value of the conservation area would be negligible.
Any impact would be restricted to the visibility of the Proposed Development from the western part of the churchyard of the Church of St John the Evangelist (21), which lies within the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76).
The Proposed Development is designed to retain an open setting around the Church (21) through grazing land and sports fields, and function as part of the edge of this urban area to the north of Grantham.
The nearest part of the Proposed Development will be approximately 250m to the west of the Conservation Area (76), on the western boundary of Manthorpe Grange. Beyond that, the next plot will be 350m. The retention of the land (for sports pitches and grazing land) immediately surrounding the Church of St John the Evangelist provide a buffer from which to appreciate the heritage value of the Church, and therefore western boundary of the Conservation Area.
The Proposed Development will be perceived as an extension to the existing northern urban edge of Grantham.
Public benefits will be provided through the provision of new public space from which to appreciate the heritage value of the church, and therefore the setting of the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76);
A public benefit will be provided through the creation of planned views of the Church of St John the Evangelist (21) within the Conservation Area through the centre of the Proposed Development with the spire as the focus. This approach supports local distinctiveness, using heritage to support place making.
Environmental Statement 297
9.6.71. Overall, and taking into account these salient characteristics of the Proposed Development, it is considered that the magnitude of change will be negligible.
9.6.72. The significance of effect will therefore be Nil.
9.6.73. The Proposed Development would as a result preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in line with policy objectives.
9.6.74. Having reached these findings, independently and afresh, we note that they are consistent with the Inspector’s findings (and Secretary of State’s) made in relation to a larger proposal (PINS Ref: APP E2530/A/11/2150609).
Church of St John the Evangelist (21) and Old Rectory (20) (both Grade II)
9.6.75. The Church of St John the Evangelist (21) was built in 1847-8 to the designs of G.G. Place of Nottingham. The church was constructed for the workers on the Belton Estate and paid for by the Brownlow family.
9.6.76. The church has a tower and octagonal broach-spire combination which can be viewed from within the northern part of the Manthorpe Conservation Area (76) and more widely, including from the Application Site and from some areas in Belton Park (30).
9.6.77. Directly adjacent to the Church of St John the Evangelist is the Old Rectory (20). Also built by the Brownlow family in 1847, it is built in coursed squared stone to two storeys, ashlar and red brick, with ashlar dressings in the Tudor Revival style. The setting of the building is defined by the private gardens that extend to the northwest and which engender a sense of privacy.
9.6.78. The main views from the building are to the south, towards the church, and to the north, facing the open fields within the Application Site. The building is otherwise set within private gardens that extend to the northwest and engender a sense of privacy.
9.6.79. The Proposed Development will lead to the retention of open land surrounding the Church (21) and Old Rectory (21) for grazing and sports pitches. The salient
Environmental Statement 298
characteristics of the Proposed Development that will affect these receptors are the same as those described for in paragraph 9.6.68.
Impact of light on the Church of St John the Evangelist and the Old Rectory
9.6.80. The Lighting Assessment at Appendix 7.6 states that the effects at St John the Evangelist occurring through light intrusion and potential for glare will be rendered neutral through control and management of the Proposed Development lighting. This conclusion has already been noted in respect to the effect of the Proposed Development on the Manthorpe Conservation Area (71) and will also have a negligible magnitude of change to both the Church of St John the Evangelist (21) and the Old Rectory (20).
Overall Assessment
9.6.81. The character of the land to the west of Manthorpe Grange, located 250m west of the Church of St John the Evangelist and the Old Rectory will be changed from agricultural to residential use.
9.6.82. The part of the setting that contributes to the overall heritage value of the church and Old Rectory is the area immediately surrounding the building. These fields will be preserved as open-space as part of the proposals, allowing residents and visitors to appreciate the heritage value of the buildings from areas that were not previously open to the public. That buffer preserves the existing setting of the buildings sufficient for them to have the prominence they have now in the local scene.
9.6.83. The magnitude of change is therefore assessed as negligible.
9.6.84. The significance of effect on the Church of St John the Evangelist (21) and the Old Rectory (20) will be Nil.
9.6.85. The Proposed Development would therefore preserve the special interest of both listed buildings, therefore complying with the statutory provision set out in s66 (1) of the 1990 Act. It should be noted that the previous Inspector found no impact on these listed buildings or on the conservation area.
Environmental Statement 299
9.7. Residual Effects
9.7.1. No further mitigation measures are required because the scheme has been designed from the outset to avoid any effects on heritage assets, as discussed at section 9.5.
9.7.2. Therefore, residual effects are the same as potential effects:
Minor Adverse effects to Belton Park Registered Park and Garden (30) and Bellmount Tower (36). From detailed analysis and applying professional judgement, it is concluded that the Proposed Development will not give rise to any discernible effect on the heritage value of either Belton Park or Bellmount Tower built heritage receptors.
The Proposed Development would therefore preserve the special interest of Bellmount Tower and comply with the statutory provision set out in s66 (1) of the 1990 Act.
The significance of effect will be Nil for all other built heritage receptors.
9.7.3. These assessments are set out in Table 9.4 at the end of this chapter.
9.8. Summary
9.8.1. The Church of St John the Evangelist (21), the Old Rectory (20) and Manthorpe Conservation Area (76) will have Nil effects.
9.8.2. This assessment finds that there will be Minor Adverse effects to Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36).
9.8.3. The effects on Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) are based on the ES methodology. These effects are explained within Table 9.4 and cross referred to the assessment described in paragraphs 9.6.12 to 9.6.54 above.
9.8.4. Applying a discursive analysis, looking specifically at policy and the nature of heritage significance, it is concluded that whilst the Proposed Development will change the setting of both Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36), that change will not be harmful to their heritage interest or value.
Environmental Statement 300
9.8.5. The effect of traffic on the character and experience of those travelling towards Belton Park (30) would not change because there is no significant variation in traffic flows on the A607 as it passes Belton Lane or on the eastern end of Belton Lane.
9.8.6. Lighting within the Proposed Development would not be visible from the Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) owing to the use of best practice high-quality lighting and deflectors. The detailed design would be regulated through reserved matters and by planning condition. When applying professional judgement, it is considered that the Proposed Development will not give rise to any discernible impact on the heritage value of receptors, and thus there will not be any material harm.
9.8.7. National policy and guidance is clear that conservation is a process of managing change not preventing it. The emphasis in policy is on understanding what is special about a built heritage receptor and, by extension, identifying those elements that are capable of accepting change without harm to the special heritage values of a place.
9.8.8. In this case, the landscape to the west of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) is mixed. It is rural in parts, and urban in others, with features (golf courses), that are not historic.
9.8.9. The view from Bellmount Tower will experience only a negligible magnitude of change, and that change does not undermine the original intention, which was to create the illusion of an extensive landscape outside the bounds of the park, but forming part of it. Neither will the proposals materially alter the character of the view or the experience of it.
9.8.10. The experience of Belton Park (30) and Bellmount Tower (36) in their defined settings will simply not change, and hence their special interest will be preserved thus meeting the statutory provision set out in s66 (1) of the 1990 Act, paragraph 132 of the NPPF, and SAP 1 of SKDC’s Adopted Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan.
Environmental Statement 301
Table 9.4 – Summary of Residual Effects Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
Registered Park and Garden 30 Belton House Registered I High Minor Minor Adverse Park and Garden The effect of the Proposed Development on Belton Park is assessed in paragraphs 9.6.12 to 9.6.54.
Using professional judgement, the overall effect is assessed in paragraphs 9.6.49 to 9.6.54. Conservation Areas 84 Manthorpe Grantham Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Conservation Area Listed Buildings 31 Belton House I High Nil Nil Neutral 35 Stables to Belton Park I High Nil Nil Neutral 75 South Gates to Belton I High Nil Nil Neutral Park 36 Bellmount Tower II* High Minor Minor Adverse The effect of the Proposed
Environmental Statement 302
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
Development on Bellmount Tower is assessed in paragraphs 9.6.12 to 9.6.54.
Using professional judgement, the overall effect is assessed in paragraphs 9.6.49 to 9.6.54. 1 The Mill, Grantham Road II* High Nil Nil Neutral 32 West wing to Belton II* High Nil Nil Neutral House and attached boundary wall 33 Former Brewhouse II* High Nil Nil Neutral 34 Screen and gateway to II* High Nil Nil Neutral west courtyard at Belton House 43 Cascade at south-west end II* High Nil Nil Neutral of boathouse pond 47 Entrance gates and II* High Nil Nil Neutral railings to the Wilderness 48 Garden temple II* High Nil Nil Neutral 57 Orangery at north end of II* High Nil Nil Neutral Italian Garden
Environmental Statement 303
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
67 Sundial 150m north of II* High Nil Nil Neutral Belton House 2 Holly Cottage, 38 Low II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Road, Manthorpe 3 Farm Cottage, 36a Low II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Road, Manthorpe 4 Old Reading Room, Low II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Road, Manthorpe 5 Fern Cottage, Low Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 6 High Road, 1 & 2, South II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral View, Manthorpe 7 4, High Road, Manthorpe II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral
8 5 & 6, High Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 9 Well Head between Nos. 6 II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral and 7, High Road, Manthorpe
Environmental Statement 304
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
10 Wash House boundary II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral wall and railing between Numbers 6 and 7 High Road 11 7 & 8 High Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 12 9 &10 High Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 13 16, High Road, Manthorpe II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 14 Ivy Lodge, 15, High Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 15 14, High Road, Manthorpe II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 16 13, High Road, Manthorpe II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 17 Stone Cottage, (11 & 12) II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral High Road, Manthorpe 18 The Old School, High II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Road, Manthorpe 19 Churchyard Railing and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Gate and Church of Saint John, High Road, Manthorpe
Environmental Statement 305
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
20 Old Rectory, High Road, II Moderate Nil Negligible Nil Manthorpe 21 Church of St John, High II Moderate Nil Negligible Nil Road, Manthorpe 22 White Steps, 34, Low II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Road, Manthorpe 23 Old Clovers and attached II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral boundary wall, Low Road, Manthorpe 24 31 & 32, Low Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 25 Manthorpe Post Office II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 26 Pump House, Low Road, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 27 Manor Farmhouse, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Manthorpe 28 17 High Road II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral
37 South Lodge to Belton II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Park, Londonthorpe
Environmental Statement 306
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
38 Boathosue at south end of II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral boathouse pond 39 Boathouse in the II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Wilderness 40 Boundary wall on the II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral west side of Belton House Drive 41 Boundary wall gateway II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral and gazebo 42 Boundary wall and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral gateways to Belton Park 44 Ventral fountain and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral retaining walls in the Italian garden 45 Dogs memorial north-east II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral of Belton House 46 Eight garden urns II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral flanking the main garden axis north of Belton House 49 Gothic ruin and cascade II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral in the Wilderness
Environmental Statement 307
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
50 Ha Ha II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 51 Ice House II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 52 Lion exedra at south end II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral of Italian garden 53 North lodge in Belton II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral House drive 54 Garden walls south and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral east of north lodge and attaxhed outbuildings 55 Gateway screen walls and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral guardstones adjoining north lodge 56 Nursery garden walls II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral north and east of north lodge 58 Pair of garden urns on II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral north terrace 59 Pair of statues on north II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral terrace 60 Park gateway north-east II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral of Belton House
Environmental Statement 308
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
61 Pumphouse in the II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Wilderness 62 Road bridge II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 63 Statue at north end of the II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral main garden axis 64 Steps and pair of statues II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral on north terrace 65 Steps at south end of II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Italian gardens 66 Steps on the north terrace II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral of the Italian garden 68 Terrace wall steps and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral urns in the Italian garden
69 Two cisterns in the Dutch II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral garden north of Belton house 70 Two garden urns at the II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral north end of the Italian garden
Environmental Statement 309
Reference Number as Heritage Receptor Grade Value Significance of Significance of Adverse/Neutral/Beneficial shown in Appendix Effect Effect 9.1 (Construction (Residual Phase) Effect)
71 Two garden urns at the II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral south end of the Italian gardens 72 1 Main Street, Belton II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 73 2 Main Street, Belton II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral 74 10 and 11 Main Street, II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral Belton 75 Bede house and adjoining II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral screen wall 76 Boundary wall and II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral gatepiers to Belton estate woodyard 77 Remains of pigeoncote II Moderate Nil Nil Neutral
Environmental Statement 310
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 311
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 312
10.0 Archaeology
10.1. Introduction
10.1.1. This chapter presents the scope, approach and findings of the assessment of potential impacts on archaeology. The Chapter presents the methodology followed, and provides a review of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and surrounding area. The Chapter then presents the results of the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on the baseline in order to determine the anticipated magnitude and significance of effect. Mitigation measures are presented and discussed to minimise the impacts of the Proposed Development during construction, operational and decommissioning phases to an acceptable level. Residual impacts are also presented.
10.1.2. This assessment has been undertaken by Wardell Armstrong LLP
10.2. Assessment Methodology
Consultation
10.2.1. The Lincolnshire County Council Historic Environment Record and Lincolnshire Heritage Trust were consulted in respect of baseline and in respect of development control regarding buried archaeological remains.
Sources of Information
10.2.2. In order to inform this assessment baseline data in respect of archaeological remains was obtained from the following:
Lincolnshire County Council Historic Environment Record (HER) consulted September 2014;
Lincolnshire County Record Office;
In house datasets of designations (Historic England 2015)
Scheduled Monuments
The National Heritage List for England (English Heritage website)
Environmental Statement 313
10.2.3. In addition, a walkover survey of the site was undertaken in 2008.
Assessment Process
Impact Assessment Methodology
Study Area
10.2.4. For the purposes of this section, the term ‘site’ is used to refer to the application area. The term ‘search area’ relates to the wider area defined for the purposes of baseline information collection. This has been set at 1km.The first stage of impact assessment is to quantify, as far as is possible, the importance of the heritage asset that may be impacted upon by the proposed development. Please note that within the relevant section of the National Planning Policy Framework (section 12) and within many of the associated guidance discussed below, that the phrase ‘significance’ has been used inter-changeably with the phrase ‘importance’.
10.2.5. In ascribing levels of importance to heritage assets, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume II, Section 3, Part 2 (Highways Agency 2007) has been used, see Table 10.1 below. The practical use of Table 10.1 has been guided by various planning policy and guidance documents referred to below.
10.2.6. The National Planning Policy Framework defines the importance of Heritage Assets as: ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance (importance) derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012: Annex 2 Glossary).
10.2.7. This definition is amplified in the English Heritage Practice Guide (2012 revision) where importance is: ‘...used as a catch-all term to sum-up the qualities that make an otherwise ordinary place a heritage asset. The significance (importance) of a heritage asset is the sum of its architectural, historic, artistic or archaeological interest’ (English Heritage 2012 revision: paragraph 12).
Environmental Statement 314
10.2.8. Further guidance on the determination of the importance of a heritage asset can be found in the following and have been considered, where necessary, as part of this assessment:
National Planning Policy Guidance (Department for Communities and Local Government 2014)
Historic England Monument Class Descriptions;
English Heritage Principles of Selection for Designation (English Heritage publications (various) 2011);
Regional Archaeological Research Frameworks;
Professional judgement.
10.2.9. The magnitude of impact is measured from the condition that would prevail in a ‘do nothing’ scenario and it is assessed without regard to the importance of the receptor (Highways Agency 2007).
10.2.10. The worst magnitude of impact would be complete physical removal of the heritage asset. In some instances it is possible to discuss percentage loss when establishing the magnitude of impact. However complex receptors will require a much more sophisticated approach (Highways Agency 2007).
10.2.11. Heritage assets are susceptible to numerous forms of development and non- development impacts both during the construction process and as a consequence of the operational life of the proposed development. These can be either direct (physical) impacts or indirect (non-physical) impacts
10.2.12. In ascribing the magnitude of impact, guidance presented in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume II, Section 3, Part 2 (Highways Agency 2007) has been used, see Table 10.2 below.
10.2.13. The significance of an impact is devised by cross referencing the importance of the receptor with the magnitude of the impact, see Table 10.3.
Table 10.1: Establishing the importance of a heritage asset
Environmental Statement 315
Importance Archaeological Remains (Archaeological Interest)
Very High World Heritage Sites Other sites of acknowledged international importance Sites that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives
High Scheduled Ancient Monuments Undesignated sites of schedulable quality and importance Sites that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives
Medium Undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives
Low undesignated assets of local importance Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives
Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume II, Section 3, Part 2 (Highways Agency 2007
Table 10.2: Establishing the magnitude of impact
Magnitud Heritage Asset e of Archaeological Remains Impact (Archaeological Interest)
Major Change to most or all key archaeological materials, such that the resource is totally altered Comprehensive changes to setting
Environmental Statement 316
Moderate Changes to many key archaeological materials, such that the resource is clearly modified Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the asset
Minor Changes to key archaeological materials, such that the asset is slightly altered Slight changes to setting
Negligible Very minor changes to archaeological materials
No No change change
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume II, Section 3, Part 2 (Highways Agency 2007)
Table 10.3: Establishing the significance of impact
Very Neutral Slight Moderate/large Large or very Very large High large
High Neutral Slight Moderate/slight Moderate/large Large/very large
Medium Neutral Neutral/slight Slight Moderate Moderate/large
Low Neutral Neutral/slight Neutral/slight Slight Slight/moderate
Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/slight Neutral/slight Slight IMPORTANCE No Negligible Minor Moderate Major change
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume II, Section 3, Part 2 (Highways Agency 2007)
10.2.14. The impacts which are in grey are considered impacts that be considered significant.
Environmental Statement 317
Assumptions and Limitations
10.2.15. The scope of the archaeological fieldwork undertaken in respect to this Chapter was agreed with Jenny Young from the Lincolnshire Heritage Trust which provides development control advice. This comprised a geophysical survey of the site followed by trial trenching. As such it is considered that the baseline evaluation is sufficient to determine a planning application.
10.3. Planning Policy / Legislative Context
Planning Policy
10.3.1. Statutory designations comprise scheduled monuments, protected wrecks, listed buildings and conservation areas. In addition to the national and local planning policy, presented below, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) provides protection for scheduled monuments. Likewise, applications affecting listed buildings and conservation areas are considered in respect to the Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act (1990).
10.3.2. Non-statutory designations, comprising registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields, are assessed under national and local planning policy only. This is also the case for the remainder of the archaeological resource. These are non- statutory designations and comprise entries onto a Historic Environment or Sites and Monument Record as well as previously unknown features which may be recorded as part of a desk based assessment or environmental impact assessment.
National Policy
10.3.3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines the role of the planning system as to promote and achieve sustainable development and involves ‘seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 9).
10.3.4. Under the NPPF Plan making and decision taking is informed by 12 core planning principles including the requirement for the planning system to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so they can be enjoyed for their
Environmental Statement 318
contribution to the quality of life for this and future generations (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 17).
10.3.5. Where heritage assets are to be affected by development, local authorities should require the applicant to describe the significance of the assets affected (including the contribution made to the significance of the asset by its setting); the level of detail being proportionate to the asset’s importance and which may include a field evaluation.
10.3.6. In determining applications, the NPPF stipulates that ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s conservation and that substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed Building should be exceptional, whilst substantial harm to or loss of assets of highest significance most notably Scheduled Monuments; protected wrecks; battlefields and Grade I and II* Parks and Gardens should be wholly exceptional, (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 132).
10.3.7. Developments where substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a heritage asset is likely should be assessed against specific tests and should deliver substantial public benefits which outweigh any loss or harm, (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 133). Less than substantial harm to a designated asset require public benefits including the securement of an optimum viable use, (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 134). Impacts to the significance of non-designated assets will require a balanced judgement based on the level of significance and the scale of harm (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 135), although non-designated assets which are of equivalent significance to designated assets will be considered as such, (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 139).
10.3.8. The NPPF also requires developers to ‘record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost’ through archaeological excavations and reporting (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012 paragraph 141).
Environmental Statement 319
Local Policy
10.3.9. Policies C1 and C2 of the South Kesteven Local Plan which expanded upon national guidance, setting out the Council’s policies with specific reference to cultural heritage and archaeology have now been replaced with Policy EN1 of the South Kestevan District Council Core Strategy. Part 1 of EN1 is of relevance and is quoted in full below.
Policy C1 Planning permission will not normally be given foe development which would destroy or adversely affect the historic value and setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and sites of major archaeological importance as shown on the proposals map Policy C2 In areas where development proposals affect other known sites or archaeological significance, or sites where there is an indication that archaeological material may exist, the district council will include conditions to allow archaeological investigation to take place prior to development including, as appropriate, excavation, recovery, recording and storage of archaeological features and finds, and measures to protect the archaeological interest during development. Where appropriate the District Council will seek to reach agreement with developers over alterations to development proposals in order to secure the preservation of significant archaeology in situ Policy EN1 - Protection and Enhancement Of The Character Of The District Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to: statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets.
10.3.10. The South Kestevan Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document (2013) states that one of the criteria for housing allocations is:
Potential impact on wildlife sites, protected species, biodiversity, historic assets, archaeology, water quality, landscape character, TPOs and open spaces (as set out in Core Strategy Policy EN1)
10.3.11. In addition objective 8 is quoted
Objective 8
Environmental Statement 320
Ensure all allocated sites are located in accordance with the spatial strategy and policies of the Core Strategy. In particular that they: 1. Prioritise the use of well located previously developed sites 2. Maximise the use of existing public transport, cycling and pedestrian routes 3. Have access to appropriate services and infrastructure 4. Protect and enhance wildlife sites, protected species; biodiversity; heritage assets; archaeology; water quality; landscape character and open space.
10.4. Baseline Conditions
Geology and Topography of the site
10.4.1. The Application Site comprises agricultural land (arable). The majority of the Application Site is located on the eastern and southern slopes which drop to a height of 50m AOD on the eastern boundary and 60m AOD on the southern boundary.
10.4.2. The Running Furrows Brook crosses the eastern corner of the Application Site and another watercourse bounds the Application Site to the south.
10.4.3. Published geological mapping defines the arable fields within the Application Site as comprising lower lias clay and middle lias clay.
Archaeological Background
10.4.4. The Historic Environment Record was consulted for entries within the search area (taken as an area of approximately 1km radius from the site boundary). Besides identifying heritage assets that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development this search boundary was expected to provide sufficient data to represent the archaeological character of the area. Information on designated heritage assets was complimented by GIS information downloaded from Historic England (Historic England 2015).
Designated Heritage Assets
10.4.5. There are no Scheduled Monuments within the boundary of the Application Site or within the search area.
Environmental Statement 321
Known Non Designated Heritage Assets
10.4.6. Two Historic Environment Record Entries are located within the boundary of the site. These comprise a Romano-British pottery scatter (HER entry 30437) and medieval ridge and furrow (HER entry 36396). The remainder of the HER entries are located outside of the Application Site boundary, see Figure 10.1 and Volume II Appendix 10.1.
General Historical Background
Prehistoric
10.4.7. The majority of earthwork evidence for prehistoric activity in Lincolnshire is recorded in the Lincolnshire Wolds located over 50km east of the site. However evidence revealed by crop marks and excavations has shown a general concentration of prehistoric settlement activity in the river valleys throughout the region. Indeed the proximity of the River Witham, located approximately 150m east of the site boundary, would have made the locality of the Application Site an attractive place for settlement during this time.
10.4.8. However the clay geologies on which the majority of the Application Site is located have not proven as susceptible to crop marks as other types of geology in the district. Although a study of the parish of Ropsley and Humby, approximately 5km south- east of the site, situated on a clay geology, has revealed a landscape which was occupied from the Neolithic period onwards (Stocker 2006).
10.4.9. Pollen evidence has indicated that at the end of the Neolithic and at the beginning of the Bronze Age significant tree clearance was carried out in upland areas in the vicinity of the Application Site. The early management of woodlands in the search area is indicated by the find of a polished stone axe dated to the Neolithic period (HER entry 30785). This was recorded approximately 760m south of the Application Site boundary. The tree clearance activity was followed by an extended period of arable and pastoral occupation (Stocker 2006).
10.4.10. Further ephemeral activity is demonstrated by flint scatters dated from the Early Neolithic to the late Bronze Age (HER entries 30435, 36126, 30536 and 35309)
Environmental Statement 322
recorded approximately 230m south-east, 840m south, 830m south, 900m south of the site boundary respectively. A single flint (HER entry 35510) is also recorded 470m south-east of the Application Site boundary.
10.4.11. The valleys and terraces approaching the edge of the fens, which are located approximately 15-20km east of the Application Site, are known to have been attractive for dispersed settlement activity in the late Bronze Age. Settlement evidence and field systems of this date are recorded at Billingham, approximately 20km east of the site and cropmarks indicative of droves, closes and dispersed roundhouses are recorded at Croxton Kerrial approximately 10km south-west of the site (Stocker 2006) (Cooper 2006). Within the search area however settlement activity is represented by a Bronze Age cremation cemetery (HER entry 30524) recorded approximately 580m south-east of the Application Site. This was discovered during housing development in the 1930s.
Iron Age Romano British
10.4.12. Settlement dated to the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age is recorded by the River Witham at Washingborough approximately 40km north-west of the Application Site and it is stated by Cooper that the margins of this river, present 150m east of the site, were likely to have been used extensively during this period (Cooper 2006).
10.4.13. By the Iron Age, fen-edge communities to the east of the search area appears to have relied more heavily on the cultivation of higher ground due to the flooding of the fens and the fen edge (Cooper 2006). Settlement patterns from this time became more nucleated and aerial photography has recorded clusters of roundhouses and associated field systems throughout Lincolnshire (Stocker 2006). This may have led to the area of the Application Site becoming more attractive to settlement as lower lying land to the east became flooded. However, the HER does not record any Iron Age activity within the search area.
10.4.14. Within the wider area however, settlements dated to the middle Iron Age have been recorded on a limestone slope at Ancaster and at Old Sleaford approximately 8km and 15km north-east of the site respectively (Cooper 2006).
Environmental Statement 323
10.4.15. Some sites in the region that continued to be settled into the later Iron Age continued into the Roman period (Cooper 2006). This is the case for the Roman town at Ancaster which was located on the route of Ermine Road and at Old Sleaford where a mint was established in the Romano-British period.
10.4.16. The generation of surplus agricultural products, particularly grain, was important for the regional economy during the first, second and third centuries (Stocker 2006) and it is the Roman period that the earliest evidence recorded by the HER in the Application Site has been dated to; a Romano-British pottery scatter located within the Application Site boundary (HER entry 30437). This may be associated with manuring activity or it may indicate the presence of a nearby structure.
10.4.17. A number of other scatters of Romano-British pottery are also recorded within the search area (HER entries 30456, 30436, 30455, 35022 and 30459) approximately 210m west, 230m south-east, 350m north, 530m and 820m west of the Application Site boundary respectively.
Early Medieval (c.410 to 1066AD)
10.4.18. During this period it appears that the population declined and the climate was colder and wetter than in the Roman period. Less is known about the Anglo-Saxon settlement pattern for the area as less evidence has been recorded. This is largely due to the preferred building material which was wood rather than stone and the pottery which was of a poorer quality and less likely to survive (Stocker 2006).
10.4.19. It is thought that much of the land under cultivation during the Roman period returned to pastural use. Indeed excavations carried out at Quarrington, approximately 15km north-east of the site, recorded large amounts of animal bone indicating an economy based around extensive pasture (Stocker 2006).
10.4.20. The name Manthorpe may be of Danish origin. This suggests that settlement was establishment in the immediate vicinity of the Application Site sometime during the ninth century (Honeybone 1980). Indeed features dated to the Saxon period and recorded on the HER include a pit containing pottery and animal bone (HER entry 35721) recorded approximately 510m south-east of the Application Site boundary
Environmental Statement 324
and a ditch and pit with pottery (HER entry 36128) dating to the Late Saxon period, or possibly the early medieval period, approximately 750m south of the Application Site boundary. Other finds include two spearheads, a buckle and a pot (HER entry 30538) recorded approximately 900m south of the Application Site.
10.4.21. The HER also records three Anglo-Saxon (HER entries 30457, 30526 and 36127) pottery scatters within the search area approximately 210m west, 750m south-east and 790m south of the Application Site boundary respectively. A further find of a single sherd (HER entry 35038) is recorded approximately 660m south-east of the Application Site boundary.
Medieval (c.1066 to 1540AD)
10.4.22. During this period the production and sale of wool was recorded to have been important in Grantham which was located to the south of the Application Site. It is recorded that the land to the north of Grantham was used for the grazing of sheep however with regards to Manthorpe, to the east of the Application Site, it is recorded that the medieval townspeople drove their pigs to pasture there (Honeybone 1980).
10.4.23. Strong evidence for medieval settlement of the area of the Application Site comprises the sites of one certain and one possible deserted medieval village; Towthorpe and Easthorpe respectively (HER entries 30434 and 30458) located approximately 540m north-east and 820m west of the Application Site boundary. The farming activity associated with these villages is evidenced by the ridge and furrow recorded within the Application Site boundary (HER entry 36396) and within the search area (HER entries 36397, 36500, 36393, 36398, 36410, 36399 and 36409).
10.4.24. Furthermore a medieval fish or mill pond (HER entry 30460) is recorded 880m west of the Application Site boundary and medieval pottery (HER entries 34817 and 35023) has been recorded 560m east and 530m south-east of the Application Site boundary respectively.
Environmental Statement 325
Post Medieval (c.1540AD to present)
10.4.25. The manor at Belton was purchased by the Brownlow family in the early seventeenth century. By the end of the century the old house had been demolished and rebuilt by ‘Young’ Sir John Brownlow. In 1690 permission was granted by William III for ‘Young’ Sir John to enclose and impark his lands and to keep deer.
10.4.26. The deer park extended between Ermine Street to the east of the Application Site and Peascliffe to the west of the Application Site but it is not clear how much of the area was enclosed.
10.4.27. Manthorpe became dominated by the Brownlow family and during the nineteenth century the cottages within the village, many of which are now Listed Buildings, were rebuilt in the Tudor style to house the Brownlow’s tenants and staff (Bettey 1993).
10.4.28. The earliest cartographic evidence studied as part of this report was the 1809 Great Gonerby with Manthorpe and Little Gonerby Inclosure map, see Figure 10.2. This showed the Application Site as enclosed land most of which was owned or leased by Lord Brownlow. The state of cultivation was not shown although ‘cow pasture’ was denoted around the brooks aligned through the site.
10.4.29. By the time of the production of the 1890-91 Ordnance Survey Map, see Volume II Appendix 10.2, the fields within the Application Site had undergone subdivision resulting in there being a greater number of fields than previously shown in 1809. Manthorpe Grange is shown to have been built within the boundary of the Application Site and St John’s Church and the vicarage were shown to have been built in the vicinity of the Application Site boundary. The Grantham-Newark section of the Great Northern Railway was shown to have been constructed to the immediate west of the Application Site. The logical route for the railway had been along the River Witham, however the line was moved to the west after an objection from Lord Brownlow who did not want the railway to come into sight of Belton House (Squires 1998).
Environmental Statement 326
10.4.30. The Ordnance Survey maps dated from 1905 to 1981, see Volume II Appendix 10.2, show little change within the Application Site boundary. However it is known that a single gauge railway line from the Grantham-Newark line to Belton Park had been constructed in 1915. This supplied an Army Camp set up in the south of Belton Park and crossed the north-west corner of the Application Site before being aligned along Belton Lane to the north of the Application Site.
10.4.31. By the time of the production of the 1981 Ordnance Survey, see Volume II Appendix 10.2, some north-south field boundaries had been removed in the western half of the Application Site. By the 2000 Ordnance Survey, see Appendix 2, a further north- south boundary had been removed from the eastern half of the Application Site along with some east-west boundaries. This caused the demarcation of fields that exists at present.
Aerial Photographs
10.4.32. Aerial photographs of Lincolnshire have been assessed by the English Heritage National Mapping Programme, the results of which have been assimilated onto the Lincolnshire HER. Apart from the ridge and furrow referred to above, the HER does not record any aerial photograph evidence within the Application Site boundary or the search area.
Site Visit
10.4.33. A walkover survey of the Application Site was undertaken by an experienced archaeologist. Weather conditions were fine with clear visibility.
10.4.34. The Application Site was inspected to establish the presence of any previously unrecorded archaeological remains and to assess the potential for the presence of cultural heritage features.
10.4.35. The Application Site comprises three arable fields and four pasture fields. The arable fields were present to the west of Running Furrows aligned through the site boundary. Also west of the brook, in the south-western corner of the Application Site, was an area of scrub. The pasture fields were located to the east of Running
Environmental Statement 327
Furrows as was a strip of amenity grassland located to the rear of a modern housing estate to the south of the Application Site.
10.4.36. A public footpath was located within and parallel to the southern boundary of the site. Field boundaries comprised, mature hedgerows and metal fences.
10.4.37. No remains of ridge and furrow earthworks were observed within the arable fields where the HER records a large area of ridge and furrow to have been visible on aerial photographs. These are likely to have been ploughed out during the post medieval period.
10.4.38. However within one of the pasture fields, where the HER does not record any ridge and furrow, a small strip aligned in a north-north-west to east-south-east direction was observed. This was located in the western most pasture field and covered an area of land approximately 50m x 30m.
10.4.39. No other earthworks were observed within the Application Site boundary.
Archaeological Fieldwork
10.4.40. Geophysical survey was undertaken within the boundary of the Application Site in 2008. The methodology employed remains valid in 2015.
10.4.41. The objectives of the geophysical survey were:
To evaluate known sites as recorded within the Lincolnshire HER and
To survey for the presence of hitherto undetected archaeological remains.
10.4.42. The survey recorded the remains of ridge and furrow across the majority of the Application Site. On the whole this confirmed the area of ridge and furrow recorded by HER entry 36396. However the ridge and furrow was also recorded in the field to the west of where HER entry 36396 currently terminates. The plough furrows recorded evidently belonged to at least two field systems and were likely to have been associated with the two nearby deserted medieval villages of Towthorpe and Easthorpe.
Environmental Statement 328
10.4.43. The survey also recorded five soil filled features of possible archaeological origin, a post medieval field boundary and remains of the First World War railway known to have existed in the north-western corner of the Application Site. The soil filled features of possible archaeological origin are located in the centre of the western most field and in the northern part of the eastern most field (see Figure 15 in Volume II Appendix 10.3).
10.4.44. The full results of the geophysical survey are presented in Volume II Appendix 10.3.
10.4.45. As a result of the geophysical survey, and at the request of the Lincolnshire Heritage Trust a total of 25 (30m x2m) trial trenches were excavated within the Application Site during September 2009.
10.4.46. The purpose of the trial trenching was to:
Establish the extent of the potential archaeology which was represented by the geophysical anomalies;
Determine the condition, depth, date and character of the potential archaeology represented by the geophysical anomalies;
Identify and evaluate any remains present which were not detected by the geophysical survey by testing ‘sterile’ areas.
10.4.47. The report on the archaeological trial trenching is presented in full in Volume II Appendix 10.4.
10.4.48. Trenches 1, 2, 3, 14, 16 and 17 were placed to assess geophysical anomalies. The trenching did not record any evidence for corresponding archaeological features, apart from in Trench 1 where pieces of slag were present within the topsoil which were concluded to probably relate to the railway which the linear anomaly in Trench 1 is thought to record. The geophysical anomalies within trenches 2, 3, 16 and 17 were concluded to have probably resulted from modern agricultural practices.
Environmental Statement 329
10.4.49. Evidence for plough furrows surviving from the ridge and furrow, which is recorded by the HER to be have been present within parts of the arable areas of the Application Site (HER reference 36396), were recorded within trenches 9, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19. Evidence for the former presence of ridge and furrow earthworks was also recorded to the west of HER reference 36396 within trenches 4 and 6. In addition a profile of surviving ridge and furrow earthworks in the pasture field to the east of Running Furrows was recorded within trench 24.
10.4.50. The only other archaeological feature that was recorded comprised a U shaped linear deposit of silty clay with frequent tree roots. This corresponded with the parish boundary and is therefore likely to be remains of the parish boundary.
10.4.51. Finds recovered from the trenches comprised one piece of burnt bone (trench 4), five sherds of nineteenth/twentieth century pottery (trenches 3,4 and 6), one sherd of fourteenth century pottery (trench 20), two shards of nineteenth century glass (trench 6), three clay pipe fragments (trenches 4 and 7) and a possible flint tool (trench 16). In addition12 other pieces of flint were recovered from the topsoil/ploughsoil in the vicinity of trenches 5, 7, 13, 14 and 19 and another piece of clay pipe was recovered in the vicinity of trench 7.
10.4.52. Land to the east of Running Furrows brook was noted to have palaeoenvironmental potential; possible glacial deposits and a palaeochannel were noted by the trial trenches in this area which upon sampling indicated a potential for environmental material which may be of interest to the study of the floral and faunal development during the post-glacial period.
10.5. Potential Effects / Impact assessment
10.5.1. Using the criteria set out above (section 10.2) the following impacts, their magnitude and their significance are predicted.
Construction
10.5.2. Ground disturbance through construction will have the potential to disturb buried archaeological remains. The significance of this impact is presented below.
Environmental Statement 330
Table 10.4: Potential Construction Impacts
Physical impact to heritage assets
Receptor Interest and Magnitude of Significance of Significance of Interest Impact Impact
Romano-British Archaeological: Magnitude = up to No greater than pottery scatter (HER negligible (likely to be a major slight adverse reference 30437) manuring scatter) significance
Buried remains of Archaeological: Magnitude = up to No greater than ridge and furrow to negligible (poor major slight adverse the west of Running preservation) significance Furrows (HER reference 36396)
Ridge and furrow Archaeological: low Magnitude = up to No greater than earthworks to the major moderate east of Running adverse Furrows
WWI railway line Archaeological/historical: Magnitude = up to No greater than negligible (little or no major slight adverse surviving interest due to significance removal)
Parish boundary Archaeological/historical: Magnitude = up to No greater than between Great negligible (poor major slight adverse Gonerby and preservation) significance Manthorpe recorded by the trial trenching
Palaeoenvironmental Archaeological (geo- Proposals entail a Most likely no remains to the east of archaeological): low to mix of green greater than Running Furrows medium infrastructure and moderate residential adverse development Magnitude = minor to major
Environmental Statement 331
10.6. Proposed Mitigation
10.6.1. Geophysical survey has been carried out within the Application Site. Trial trenching has also been carried out comprising 25 (30m by 2m) trenches.
10.6.2. Based on the results of the geophysical survey and trial trenching it has been established with the Lincolnshire Heritage Trust that no further predetermination work would be required. However, an earthwork survey of the surviving ridge and furrow located to the east of the Running Furrows Brook would be required as mitigation, as would a limited programme of environmental sampling of the land to the east of the Running Furrows Brook targeted on areas of proposed disturbance. The latter is due to geo-archaeological potential (Young, J 2014, pers comm., 31 October).
10.7. Residual Effects
10.7.1. The impacts for which no mitigation is proposed, as agreed with the Lincolnshire Heritage Trust would remain. These would comprise the following impacts none of which would exceed that of slight adverse significance; impact to a Romano British pottery scatter (HER reference 30437), impact to buried remains of ridge and furrow west of Running Furrows, impact to buried remains of a WWI railway line and impact to buried remains of the parish boundary between Great Gonerby and Manthorpe.
10.7.2. The impact to ridge and furrow earthworks to the east of Running Furrows and the limited impact to palaeoenvironmental remains to the east of Running Furrows would be fully mitigated through the implementation of a programme of archaeological fieldwork undertaken as a condition to planning consent. The residual impacts on these assets would be negligible.
10.8. Impact Interactions
10.8.1. In respect to archaeological remains no interactive impacts are predicted
Environmental Statement 332
10.9. Summary
10.9.1. Baseline information was gathered from the Lincolnshire County Council Historic Environment Record, Historic England data sets, Lincolnshire County record office, a site walkover survey and archaeological field evaluation (geophysical survey and trial trenching).
10.9.2. In respect of buried archaeological remains the baseline assessment has shown that HER Entries within the boundary of the Application Site comprise medieval ridge and furrow (HER entry 36396) and a Romano British pottery scatter (HER entry 30437). Furthermore it is known that a World War I railway was present within the north-western corner of the Application Site.
10.9.3. Geophysical survey and trial trenching has been carried out within the Application Site boundary. The results of these evaluations has determined that no further predetermination works would be required to determine the planning application. In respect of fieldwork which may be requested as a condition to planning consent, it is anticipated that the area to the east of Running Furrows brook would require an earthwork survey of upstanding ridge and furrow earthworks and a limited programme of geo-archaeological sampling prior to development.
10.10. References
Documentary Sources Bettey, J. H. 1993. Estates and the English countryside
Cooper, N. 2006. The archaeology of the East Midlands: An archaeological resource assessment and research agenda
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012) National planning policy framework
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2014) Planning Practice Guidance
Historic England. (2015) National Heritage List for England downloadable GIS data
Environmental Statement 333
Honeybone, M. 1980. The book of Grantham
Lincolnshire Industrial Archaeology, Volume 4. 1969
Lincolnshire Industrial Archaeology, Volume 24. 1984
Lincolnshire Life, Volume 13. 1963
Lincolnshire Life, Volume 34. 1994
Pevsner, N. 1989. The Buildings of England: Lincolnshire
Platts, G. 1985. History of Lincolnshire: Volume IV land and people in medieval Lincolnshire
Squires, S. 1998. Lincolnshire Railways
Stocker, D. 2006. England’s Landscape the East Midlands
Thorold, H. 1988. Lincolnshire Houses
Watt, V. 1998. Dictionary of Lincolnshire Place Names
Cartographic Sources 1809 Great Gonerby with Manthorpe and Little Gonerby inclosure award
1840s Grantham Tithe Map
Environmental Statement 334
11.0 Transport, Accessibility and Movement
11.1. Introduction
11.1.1. This chapter presents the approach and findings of the assessment of potential impacts on transport and traffic conditions on the local road network relevant to the Proposed Development. The Chapter presents the methodology followed, and provides a review of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and surrounding area. The Chapter then describes the results of the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on the baseline in order to determine the anticipated magnitude and significance of effect during construction and operational phases. Mitigation measures are presented and discussed prevent, reduce and where possible off-set any likely significant adverse effects of the Proposed Development during construction, operational and decommissioning phases to an acceptable level.
11.1.2. This assessment has been undertaken by Odyssey Markides.
11.1.3. The content of this chapter has been informed by the Transport Assessment (TA), which is a stand-alone document that has been submitted as part of the planning application, also produced by Odyssey Markides, which contains more detailed transport related information on which this Chapter is based. The TA describes the accessibility of the site in terms of proximity to trip attractors typical of residential developments and the availability of alternative modes of travel to the private car. The TA also estimates the travel demands generated by the scale of the development and assesses how these demands can be accommodated within the transport infrastructure that will be in place when the development takes place, identifying any necessary improvements.
11.1.4. The location of the Proposed Development is shown on Figure 1.1
11.1.5. It is anticipated that the Proposed Development will commence in January 2016 and will take around eight and a half years to build out – that is through to 2024.
Environmental Statement 335
11.2. Assessment Methodology
11.2.1. This section describes the scope of the assessment, the data sources used (including scoping undertaken) and the assessment approach adopted.
Consultation
11.2.2. In September 2014, Odyssey Markides approached Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) to start discussions regarding the scope of the Transport Assessment for the Proposed Development. On the 22nd October 2014 a scoping note for the Transport Assessment was submitted to LCC. This set out the approach for the assessment, including the proposed reliance on LCC’s strategic traffic model of Grantham to obtain traffic flow forecast information for the area immediately around the site and to assess the wider impact of the proposals in terms of town centre queues and cross- town journey times. On the 4th November LCC responded indicating that they were generally happy with the scope and suggesting the use of the 2024 model that was already available and extracting junction delay information for the town centre junctions.
11.2.3. In addition to the Transport Assessment scoping discussion, an EIA Screening Request was submitted to SKDC. An EIA Screening Opinion received on the 19th November 2014 included a position statement on transport. The EIA Screening Response concluded that the impact upon local traffic flows and junction capacity needs assessing (see Appendix ***).
11.2.4. The ES Assessment that has been undertaken reflects the scoping process and the comments received as set out above.
Sources of Information
11.2.5. The following data sources have been used in the compilation of this assessment:
Junction turning count traffic surveys, undertaken in March 2008 and September 2014;
Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC’s) undertaken in February 2015; and
Manthorpe Residential Development Traffic Modelling Report, January 2015.
Environmental Statement 336
11.2.6. Further details of these are available in the Transport Assessment that accompanies the Planning Application.
Study Area
11.2.7. The assessment encompasses a study area that includes detailed assessment of the impact on junction capacity at the following junctions:
Longcliffe Road / A607 Manthorpe Road
Sandcliffe Road / A607 Manthorpe Road
Belton Lane / A607 Manthorpe Road
Belton Lane / B1174 Newark Hill
11.2.8. Less detailed assessment of the impact on average delay per vehicle is also covered for the following junctions:
Barrowby Road / Sankt Augustin Way / Mount Street
Barrowby Road / North Street / North Parade
North Street / Watergate
Watergate / Market Place
Sankt Augustin Way / Dysart Road
Sankt Augustin Way / Westgate / Wharf Road
Wharf Road / London Road / St Peter’s Hill
11.2.9. Figure 11.1 shows the locations of all of these junctions.
11.2.10. In addition to the impact on junctions, the percentage change in peak hour traffic flows as a result of the Proposed Development has also been examined at the following locations:
1 - Sandcliffe Road west of its junction with the A607
2 – Sandcliffe Road south of Longcliffe Road
Environmental Statement 337
3 – Longcliffe Road western end
4 – Longcliffe Road west of its junction with the A607
5 – Rosedale Drive
11.2.11. Figure 11.2 shows the location of each of the above receptors.
11.2.12. Finally, the effect of cross-town journey times has been assessed for the followings routes:
Route 1 : A1 South to A1 North;
Route 2 : A607 Harlaxton Road to A607 Brook Street;
Route 3 : A52 Somerby Hill to A52 Great North Road;
Route 4 : A1 South to A1174 Great North Road;
Route 5 : Low Road to New Beacon Road; and
Route 6 : A607 Harlaxton Road to A52 Somerby Hill.
11.2.13. These routes can be seen in Figure 11.3.
Assessment Process
11.2.14. The methodology utilised in this assessment reflects the standard guidance for preparing an Environmental Statement contained within:
the Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic published by The Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993) – now the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA); and
the Planning Practice Guidance on Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-taking – Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2014).
11.2.15. In support of the outline planning application for the Proposed Development, a Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared by Odyssey Markides. This ES reviews the existing situation relevant to the Application Site, a future year baseline
Environmental Statement 338
situation at 2024 and then assesses the effect of the proposed development in 2024. Potential changes likely as a result of the Proposed Development have been examined.
11.2.16. Chapter 8 of the Transport Assessment includes an outline Travel Plan for the Proposed Development which identifies measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and reduce single occupant vehicle trips.
11.2.17. The scale and extent of the assessment has been selected based on advice from the Highway Authority (LCC) and with reference to the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines. These guidelines state that the assessment should be limited to highway links subject to traffic flow increases of more than 30% or where the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) will increase by more than 30%. These guidelines also state that specifically sensitive areas or receptors should be included where traffic flows are predicted to increase by 10% or more. Sensitive areas or receptors could include congested junctions, schools, accident hotspots and / or cyclists and pedestrians.
11.2.18. ATC surveys have been used to establish the existing daily traffic flows at the various locations referred to in paragraph 11.2.7, along with the proportion of traffic that is made up by HGVs.
11.2.19. As a result of the range of construction projects and processes occurring on any one day there is some variation in the flows occurring in the construction of the Proposed Development. Typically, the final rate of project completion reflects many competing factors, such as access to labour and materials as well as maintaining a quality environment within the early phases of the Proposed Development during these construction phases. Notwithstanding this, a reasonable worst case assessment of the likely extent of construction activities occurring at any one time has been undertaken for the purposes of assessing environmental effects.
11.2.20. It is anticipated that the Proposed Development will be complete and fully occupied in 2024. Assessment year traffic flows with and without the Proposed Development in place have been obtained by use of LCC strategic model of Grantham for this year.
Environmental Statement 339
The 2024 model includes the following committed residential development assumptions:
Springfield Road
Impress Site, Springfield Road
Station Road
Kwiksave Site
Beacon Lane
St Vincent Lodge
Rycroft Street
Bairds Malt
Station Approach
Greyfriars
Land north of Dysart Road
Stonebridge House, Stonebridge Road
Land north of Peachwood Close
Southern Quadrant Phase 1 Valley North Residential and Phase 2 Plateau North Residential
Poplar Farm and Poplar Farm West
11.2.21. The following committed employment developments are included within the 2024 strategic model:
South of Barrowby Road, east of A1
North of Harlaxton Road, west of A1
Old Quarry, Spittlegate Level
King 31 / Hampton Brook
Environmental Statement 340
Southern Quadrant Phase 1 Employment North and Phase 2 Employment South.
11.2.22. The strategic model also includes the following committed highway infrastructure improvements that are expected to be in place by 2024:
Bridge End Road / London Road junction improvement
A1-B1174 Link Road
Southern Quadrant Link Road
Pennine Link Road
11.2.23. Full details of the strategic model output provided by LCC are available as Appendix F of the Transport Assessment.
11.2.24. The impact of the Proposed Development has been assessed against the following effect categories:
Severance
Driver Delay
Pedestrian Delay
Pedestrian Amenity
Road Safety
11.2.25. Other chapters of this ES consider, inter alia, traffic effects in the context of potential significant air quality and noise effects of the Proposed Development.
11.2.26. The significance level attributed to each effect of the Proposed Development has been assessed based on the magnitude of change as a result of the Proposed Development and the sensitivity of the affected receptor to change. The assessment of potential effects of the development has taken into account both the construction and operational phases. Any effect during the construction phase is considered to be short to medium term, with effects associated with the operational phase considered to be long term.
Environmental Statement 341
11.2.27. Effects, which are beneficial or adverse, have therefore been identified as either:
Major effect : where the development could be expected to have a very significant, long term effect on the highway network;
Moderate effect : where the development could be expected to have a noticeable long term effect on the highway network;
Minor effect : where the development could be expected to result in a small, barely noticeable, localised and short term effect on the highway network; and
Negligible : where no discernible effect is expected as a result of the development on the highway network.
11.2.28. The IEMA Guidelines set out the broad principles of how the assess the magnitude of impact for each of the above categories. The guidance makes it clear that a “critical feature of environmental assessment is determining whether a given impact is significant”. In addition, it states that “for many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation and judgement on the part of the assessor backed up by data or quantified information wherever possible” and “the assessment of certain impacts may therefore depend more upon description and judgement than any commonly agreed method.” The guidelines also state that “those preparing the Environmental Statement will need to make it clear how they have defined whether a change is considered significant or not.”
11.2.29. The thresholds have been adopted to determine the magnitude of change as a result of the development are set out in Table 11.1 for each of the categories identified above.
Table 11.1 : Assessment Criteria for Magnitude of Effect
Effect Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Severance, Less than 10% More than More than More than 90% Pedestrian 10% less than 30% less than Amenity and 30% 90% Road Safety-
Environmental Statement 342
Change in Peak Hour Two-way Traffic flows
Driver Delay – Less than 10 More than 10 More than 20 More than 60 Change in Delay seconds seconds less seconds less seconds Per Vehicle at 20 seconds than 60 Junctions seconds
Driver Delay – Less than 30 More than 30 More than 180 More than 600 Change in seconds seconds less seconds less seconds Journey Time on than 180 than 600 Cross Town seconds seconds Routes
Pedestrian Delay Less than 5 More than 5 More than 20 More than 40 – Increase in seconds seconds less seconds less seconds pedestrian than 20 than 40 crossing delay seconds seconds
11.2.30. The IEMA Guidelines identify groups and special interests which should be considered:
people at home;
people in workplaces;
sensitive groups including children, the elderly and disabled;
sensitive locations e.g. hospitals, churches, schools, historical buildings;
people walking;
people cycling;
open spaces, recreational sites, shopping areas;
sites of ecological / nature conservation value; and
sites of tourist visitor attraction.
11.2.31. Categories of receptor sensitivity have been defined from the principles set out on the Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, and including the following:
Environmental Statement 343
the need to identify particular groups or locations which may be sensitive to changes in traffic conditions;
the list of affected groups and special interests set out in the guidance;
the identification of links of locations where it is felt that specific environmental problems may occur;
such locations “…would include accident black-spots, conservation areas, hospitals, links with high pedestrian flows etc.”
11.2.32. These categories have been used to outline in broad terms the sensitivity of receptors to traffic for the categories assessed in this chapter, although in detail, each receptor will have a different sensitivity to each specific effect.
11.2.33. High sensitivity receptors include roads used by pedestrians with no footways and road safety black-spots. Medium sensitivity receptors include quiet residential roads, roads with high pedestrian demand, locations with higher than locally typical accident frequency. Low sensitivity receptors include strategic road links, road fronted by open space / agricultural / tourist attractions and roads and junctions with a typical accident rate for the local area.
11.2.34. In terms of sensitivity of receptors with regard to severance and pedestrian amenity, residential streets immediately to the south of the site would be considered to be moderately sensitive receptors, whilst the A607 and Belton Lane would be considered to have low sensitivity. In terms of driver delay, the cross town routes and junctions identified for assessment are considered to be moderately sensitive receptors. With regard to pedestrian delay all receptors would be considered to be moderately sensitive. In relation to road safety, the High Road / Belton Lane junction is identified as having a higher accident rate than other local junctions and would therefore be considered a moderately sensitive receptor, with all other locations of low sensitivity.
11.2.35. When the magnitude of change and sensitivity of a receptor is considered together, the significance matrix set out in Table 11.2 is applicable.
Environmental Statement 344
Table 11.2 : Significance Matrix
Receptor Magnitude of Effect Sensitivity Major Moderate Minor Negligible
High Major Moderate Moderate Negligible
Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible
Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible
11.3. Planning Policy
11.3.1. An overview of relevant planning policy is contained in Chapter 5 of this ES. Further aspects of policy that specifically relate to transport are summarised in this section.
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)
11.3.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out the national transport policy context and how it is expected to be applied. The Framework guidance places a focus on sustainable development policy by considering economic, social and environmental aspects of each development scheme. The main thrust of the Framework guidance is a presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated further by requiring local authorities to meet the development needs of an area while showing an ability to adapt to change when required.
11.3.3. The core objective of the Framework that relates to transport is to ‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.’ (paragraph 17)
11.3.4. Promoting sustainable transport is a key component of the Framework. Paragraph 29 states that “Transport Policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health
Environmental Statement 345
objectives. Smarter use of technology can reduce the need to travel. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. However, the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.”
11.3.5. Furthermore “Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. In preparing Local Plans, local planning authorities should therefore support a pattern of development which, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport.” (paragraph 30).
11.3.6. The Framework also advises that ‘plans and decisions should take account of whether:
The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;
Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and
Improvement can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ (paragraph 32).
11.3.7. The Framework also states that “planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.” (paragraph 37).
11.3.8. The Framework builds on the principles of a mix of uses encouraging shorter trips by stating that “For larger scale residential developments in particular, planning policies should promote a mix of uses in order to provide opportunities to undertake day-to-day activities including work on site. Where practical, particularly with
Environmental Statement 346
large-scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties.” (paragraph 38)
National Planning Practice Guidance (2014)
11.3.9. The National Planning Practice Guidance 2014 identifies the requirements for an EIA, stating that the aim is to ensure ‘that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and this into account in the decision making process.’
South Kesteven Adopted Core Strategy (July 2010)
11.3.10. The Core Strategy was adopted on the 5th July 2010 and it provides the framework that will steer development and change in South Kesteven until 2026. It supersedes most of the transport related policies included in the South Kesteven Local Plan, except policy T2 which concerns existing car parks within Grantham.
11.3.11. Transport related issues are covered within SP3 (Sustainable Integrated Transport). This policy has been developed taking into account national and regional objectives to reduce car dependency and promote more sustainable patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by car. The policy is also informed by the objectives of the Second Lincolnshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) and the Grantham Transport Strategy.
11.3.12. The Council encourage the creation of a sustainable, modern transport network across the district by:
Promoting the location of development in areas which are particularly accessible by public transport, cycling and walking, whilst recognising that development which is necessary in rural areas may only be accessible by motor car;
Promoting a balanced mix of land uses and patterns of development which reduces the need to travel by car;
Environmental Statement 347
Promoting and assisting journeys by public transport, cycling, mobility aids and waling, by making them accessible, safe, convenient and as attractive as possible;
Securing transport statements and travel plans where appropriate and requiring the preparation of transport assessments for all development that are likely to have significant transport implications to determine the measures required on the surrounding highway network to ensure access by all modes of transport;
Encouraging the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for the purposes of businesses and for other service provision (this may be identified through travel plans); and
Supporting the retention and enhancement of service provision in local service centres.
11.4. Other Material Considerations
Lincolnshire County Council 4th Local Transport Plan
11.4.1. LCC’s 4th Local Transport Plan was published in April 2013 and covers the period from 2013/14 to 2014/15. The Objectives of the 4th Local Transport Plan are:
To assist the sustainable economic growth of Lincolnshire, and the wider region, through improvements to the transport network;
To improve access to employment and key services by widening travel choices, especially for those without access to a car;
To make travel for all modes safer and, in particular, reduce the number and severity of road casualties;
To maintain the transport system to standards which allow safe and efficient movements of people and goods;
To protect and enhance the built and natural environment of the county by reducing the adverse impacts of traffic, including HGVs;
To improve the quality of public spaces for residents, workers and visitors by creating a safe, attractive and accessible environment;
Environmental Statement 348
To improve the quality of life and health of residents and visitors by encouraging active travel and tackling air quality and noise problems; and
To minimise carbon emissions from transport across the county.
Grantham Transport Strategy
11.4.2. The Grantham Transport Study was endorsed by LCC in December 2007 and SKDC in April 2009. The conclusions of the study proposed an integrated transport strategy. This strategy is now in the delivery stage.
11.4.3. The aims of the study were to provide a framework to better manage movement into and through Grantham, to tackle problems linked to congestion, to address the environmental impact of traffic in Grantham and to support the economic growth of the town and its surrounding area.
11.4.4. The strategy outcomes of the study were to reduce private vehicles levels in the town centre and create a safer environment with increased pedestrian space and facilities. To achieve this the strategy recommended improved management of on and off-street parking, number and reliability of buses, connectivity between bus and rail and waiting environments for public transport users. The provision of clear and attractive links between public transport services and the town centre and maximising the efficiency of all junctions were also identified. The aspiration was to increase levels of walking and cycling trips throughout the town and to reduce the proportion of car trips to all new developments.
11.4.5. The Transport Strategy identified a range of options for traffic improvements to the town that supported these strategies. The two major infrastructure measures identified in the Strategy were the provision of an east-west relief road and the provision of the Pennine Way Link.
11.5. Existing Conditions
11.5.1. A full description of existing transport conditions is provided within Section 3 of the Transport Assessment, which is submitted with the Planning Application for the Proposed Development. The following paragraphs provide a summary of this.
Environmental Statement 349
11.5.2. The Application Site is located on land on the northern edge of Grantham urban area, with vehicular access to be taken from Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive to the south and Belton Lane to the north. To the east of the Application Site runs the A607 Manthorpe Road, which provides a direct north-south connection between the development site and Grantham town centre. To the west of the site runs the B1174, which can be accessed from Belton Lane and runs between the centre of Grantham and the A1 to the north.
11.5.3. ATC surveys were undertaken in various locations around the site and within the centre of Grantham in February 2015. These locations were chosen as they reflected sensitive receptors with regard to change in traffic flow and potential impact on noise and air quality. Peak hour two-way traffic flows from these surveys are summarised in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3 : 2015 Observed Peak Hour Two-Way Traffic Flows
AM Peak PM Peak
1 -Sandcliffe Road 400 371
2 – Sandcliffe Road 84 81
3 – Longcliffe Road 31 43
4 – Longcliffe Road 428 354
5 – Rosedale Drive 11 14
11.5.4. The strategic modelling produced by LCC’s Consultants includes information on junction delays in the immediate area around the site and at sensitive junctions within the town centre. The closest year to current conditions for which data is available is 2016. Table 11.4 summarises the average delay per vehicle at the each of these junctions.
Table 11.4 : 2016 Peak Hour Average Junction Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds)
Junction AM PM
A607 Manthorpe Road / Belton Lane 7 12
Environmental Statement 350
A607 Manthorpe Road / Longcliffe Road 7 6
A607 Manthorpe Road / Sandcliffe Road 6 6
B1174 Newark Hill / B1174 High Road / Belton Lane 6 5
Barrowby Road / Sankt Augustin Way / Mount Street 29 17
Barrowby Road / North Street / North Parade 85 66
North Street / Watergate 17 17
Watergate / Market Place 16 27
Sankt Augustin Way / Dysart Road 105 52
Sankt Augustin Way / Westgate / Wharf Road 60 62
Wharf Road / London Road / St Peter’s Hill 84 74
11.5.5. It can be seen from the above Tables that average delay per vehicle at the junctions in the immediate area around the Application Site is low. Delays in the town centre are higher, with Barrowby Road / North Street and the junctions to the southern end of the town (in the Dysart Road and Wharf Road area) experiencing the greatest delays.
11.5.6. In addition to the data from the strategic model, detailed junction capacity models have been constructed using 2014 observed traffic flows and industry standard models for the first four junctions in the above table. Table 11.5 shows the peak hour average junction delay per vehicle from those detailed models. Full model output can be seen within the Transport Assessment.
Table 11.5 : 2014 Peak Hour Mean Maximum Junction Delay Per Vehicle (Minutes)
Junction AM PM
A607 Manthorpe Road / Belton Lane 0.38 0.41
A607 Manthorpe Road / Longcliffe Road 0.22 0.20
A607 Manthorpe Road / Sandcliffe Road 0.43 0.26
B1174 Newark Hill / B1174 High Road / Belton Lane 1.88 1.23
Environmental Statement 351
11.5.7. The mean maximum junction delays from the detailed junction capacity modelling show that at all of the A607 junctions the maximum delay is relatively now at less than a minute. The B1174 Newark Hill / Belton lane suffers longer delays under current flows, but the mean maximum value is still below 2 minutes.
11.5.8. Data from the strategic model has also been provided relating to cross-town journey times on main routes. Table 11.6 summarises the 2016 journey times in each of the peaks on these routes.
Environmental Statement 352
Table 11.6 : 2016 Peak Hour Journey Times (Minutes:Seconds)
Route Direction AM PM
A1 South to A1 North Northbound 06:36 06:55
Southbound 06:54 06:43
A607 Harlaxton Road to A607 Brook Street Eastbound 17:02 13:47
Westbound 13:26 12:30
A52 Somerby Hill to A52 Great North Road Northbound 15:01 15:19
Southbound 16:47 14:46
A1 South to A1174 Great North Road Northbound 20:22 19:45
Southbound 21:01 20:53
Low Road to New Beacon Road Eastbound 13:59 12:38
Westbound 12:38 12:11
A607 Harlaxton Road to A52 Somerby Hill Eastbound 11:30 12:15
Westbound 09:59 09:51
11.5.9. The Transport Assessment provides detailed information regarding the availability of public transport in the area around the site and identifies the main pedestrian and cycle connections in the area, as well as providing information on various trip attractors that fall within walking and cycling distance of the site. In summary:
The area around the site is currently served by bus routes 1 and 27. Route 1 offers a service between Grantham and Lincoln and runs half hourly into Grantham from Longcliffe Road. The Route 27 runs between Grantham and Sleaford with 5 to 6 services per day in each direction.
Grantham Rail Station is approximately 3.8km south of the site and is on the East Coast Main line. It is on the London Kings Cross to Hull and Edinburgh routes as well as on the Nottingham to Skegness route.
There are three main alternative pedestrian and cycle routes between the site and the centre of Grantham. These are all well surfaced and include crossing
Environmental Statement 353
facilities for pedestrians. For cyclists the routes are partly on road, but options that are predominantly off carriageway or on quiet roads are available.
The site is within realistic walking and / or cycling distance of a range of trip attractors, including education, employment, retail and health uses.
11.5.10. Making reference to DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 8 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects, Figure 1 on page 3/2 of this document provides a graph for estimating mean pedestrian crossing delay related to two way traffic flows. Using the two-way traffic flows set out in Table 11.3 the mean pedestrian crossing delay at all the locations considered would be less than 5 seconds.
11.5.11. The TA also provides information on road traffic accidents in the area around the site for a five year period (paragraphs 3.30 to 3.35). The only location where a higher than typical accident rate for the surrounding area occurs is the Belton Lane / High Road priority junction, where 6 road traffic accidents occurred within a 5 year period.
11.6. Potential Effects
11.6.1. The potential effects of the Proposed Development have been considered for both the construction and operational phase of the development.
Construction Stage
11.6.2. Likely transport and access related effects that may arise from construction include:
Increase in vehicle movements associated with construction staff accessing the site;
Increase in proportion of HGV movements within the local highway network on the route that construction vehicles are most likely to use and that will be agreed with LCC;
Increased delay associated with any traffic management measures required to accommodate work on the public highway; and
Reduction in amenity and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
Environmental Statement 354
11.6.3. The assessment of indicative peak daily two-way construction flows arising from the Proposed Development has been completed in advance of appointing a contractor or developing the development completion targets.
11.6.4. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) included as Appendix 2.1 to this ES, will be applied to all construction activities across the Proposed Development and will define the appropriate hours of operation and routes to be used by HGVs and other large construction vehicles associated with the Proposed Development. It is assumed that the development Phases will be served from the Belton lane access (initially a construction traffic access) and not from Longcliffe Road; this may be secured by planning condition.
11.6.5. The CoCP will also impose requirements for the various contractors on the Site to co-ordinate activities to ensure that any construction activities with high HGV generation do not occur together.
11.6.6. The CoCP includes a detailed table of construction activities, timescales over which these activities will be undertaken and estimates of the average daily vehicle numbers visiting the site. Using this table, it is possible to calculate the maximum number of vehicles that will visit the site. The busiest period for vehicle movements occurs during months 8 to 10 of the construction period, where an average of 110 vehicles per day are expected to visit the site, up to 6 of which would be HGV’s. This equates to a total of 220 vehicle movements per day, 12of which would be by HGV’s.
11.6.7. During peak construction activity on site the total peak period vehicle movements will be substantially less than the level of traffic generated by the Proposed Development when it is fully operational. In fact, the daily traffic generation associated with construction is lower than the peak hour traffic generation of the fully occupied site. It is also intended that construction traffic does not pass through the residential area to the south of the Proposed Development and that the Belton Lane access is used for construction purposes. The impact of the construction process on vehicle numbers will therefore be less than the impact of the fully operational development.
Environmental Statement 355
11.6.8. The addition of 12 HGV movements to the surrounding road network per day will have no material impact on HGV proportions on the surrounding road network.
11.6.9. The works to the public highway will include the introduction of new accesses on Belton Lane, Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive and the implementation of any off- site highway mitigation works. The Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive accesses are extensions to existing public highways and the construction of these accesses would not interrupt the flow of traffic on these routes. The Belton Lane access takes the form of a new priority junction. The majority of the work is capable of being undertaken without affecting the running carriageway of Belton Lane. However, if may be necessary to close the southern carriageway to complete the junction and this would have the potential to delay traffic on Belton Lane. However, traffic flows on Belton Lane are relatively low and the use of shuttle-working signals to control flows at the location of the site access would not be expected to have more than minor effect on journey times.
11.6.10. The only junction that has been identified to have improvements made if the Belton Lane / Newark Hill junction. Traffic management measures in the form of temporary signals are likely to be required while works are undertaken to this junction. As the proposed improvement in this location is the introduction of permanent signals, the use of temporary signals to manage traffic would not be expected to have more than a moderate magnitude effect on junction delay.
11.6.11. Impact on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety will be negligible. Construction traffic, particularly HGV’s, will be restricted to the A607 and Belton Lane and will avoid the sensitive residential area to the south of the site. The level of additional traffic using the local road network is so low as to have a negligible effect on accident risk on the surrounding road network.
Operational Phase
11.6.12. The operational stage of the Proposed Development will see the occupation of up to 550 residential units, a primary school and the accompanying local centre.
Environmental Statement 356
11.6.13. The potential effects of the proposals are the increase in traffic associated with the Development Proposals, which would affect junction delays and journey times.
11.6.14. Looking firstly at the changes in traffic flows as a result of the proposed development, the strategic model has been used to obtain peak hour traffic flow information for a range of locations around the site when the development is expected to be fully operational (2024). Table 11.7 identifies the numeric and percentage change in two-way peak hour flows in locations where an increase of more than 10% would occur as a result of the development. It also identifies the magnitude or significance of the effect.
Environmental Statement 357
Table 11.7 : 2024 Change in Peak Hour Two-Way Development Traffic as a Result of the Proposed Development
AM Peak PM Peak
2024 Dev %age Magnitude 2024 Dev %age Magnitude Baseline Flow Increase Baseline Flow Increase Flow Flow
1 -Sandcliffe 377 67 17.7% Minor 324 71 21.9% Minor Road
2 – Sandcliffe 84 71 84.5% Moderate 81 72 88.9% Moderate Road
3 – Longcliffe 31 176 568.7% Major 43 193 448.4% Major Road
4 – Longcliffe 415 117 28.2% Minor 437 134 30.7% Moderate Road
5 – Rosedale 11 12 106.4% Major 14 12 87.1% Moderate Drive
11.6.15. The only roads to experience more than a negligible increase in two-way traffic flows are those located immediately to the south of the site. In both peaks, Sandcliffe Road near its junction with the A607 would experience a minor increase in traffic, but immediately to the south of Longcliffe Road this would equate to a moderate increase as the background traffic flows are lower. Longcliffe Road close to the junction with the A607 experiences a minor / moderate increase in flows, but the western end of Longcliffe Road, where background traffic flows are very much lower, would experience a major increase in flows in percentage terms. Similarly, even though the numeric increase in flow on Rosedale Drive is very low, the percentage increase would reflect a moderate to major increase in traffic.
11.6.16. Taking into account these links all represent receptors of medium sensitivity, the significance of the impact of change in peak hour traffic flow on severance, pedestrian amenity and road safety would be moderate in all locations, apart from location 1 – Sandcliffe Road close to the junction with the A607, where the significance would be minor.
Environmental Statement 358
11.6.17. Turning next to the changing average junction delays as a result of the development proposals, Table 11.8 sets out the average junction delays taken from the strategic model
Table 11.8 : 2024 Peak Hour Average Junction Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds)
Junction AM Peak PM Peak
2024 2024 With Change 2024 2024 With Change Baseline Development Baseline Development
A607 Manthorpe Road / Belton 21 15 -6 26 19 -7 Lane
A607 Manthorpe Road / 7 16 9 6 8 2 Longcliffe Road
A607 Manthorpe Road / 7 13 6 7 10 3 Sandcliffe Road
B1174 Newark Hill / B1174 High 13 20 7 7 8 1 Road / Belton Lane
Barrowby Road / Sankt Augustin 35 35 0 35 36 1 Way / Mount Street
Barrowby Road / North Street / 73 73 0 55 56 1 North Parade
North Street / Watergate 17 17 0 18 18 0
Watergate / Market Place 17 17 0 28 29 1
Sankt Augustin Way / Dysart 82 82 0 64 66 2 Road
Sankt Augustin Way / Westgate / 72 71 -1 90 92 2 Wharf Road
Wharf Road / London Road / St 99 98 -1 98 99 1 Peter’s Hill
11.6.18. It can be seen that the maximum increase in average junction delay from the strategic modelling is 9 seconds. This occurs in the AM peak at the Manthorpe Road / Longcliffe Road junction. This indicates that the magnitude of change at all junctions would be negligible.
Environmental Statement 359
11.6.19. However, more detailed assessment of the first four junctions identified in Table 11.8 was undertaken as part of the Transport Assessment. The stand-alone junction modelling in these locations gave the mean maximum change in delay shown in Table 11.9.
Table 11.9 : 2024 Peak Hour Mean Maximum Junction Delay Per Vehicle (Minutes)
Junction AM Peak PM Peak
2024 2024 With Change 2024 2024 With Change Baseline Development Baseline Development
A607 Manthorpe Road / 1.88 1.40 -0.44 1.47 1.34 -0.13 Belton Lane
A607 Manthorpe Road / 0.43 0.90 +0.47 0.39 0.62 +0.23 Longcliffe Road
A607 Manthorpe Road / 0.41 0.75 +0.34 0.43 0.75 +0.32 Sandcliffe Road
B1174 Newark Hill / B1174 5.36 7.86 +2.50 1.69 2.55 +0.86 High Road / Belton Lane
11.6.20. The more detailed junction models show that for the Belton Lane / A607 junction there is a minor to moderate reduction in maximum delays at the junction with the development in place. At both the Longcliffe Road and Sandcliffe Road junctions with the A607 there are moderate increases in maximum delay. At the B1174 Newark Hill / Belton Lane junction the junction already experiences significant delays in 2024 without the development and there is a major increase in maximum delay with the development in place.
11.6.21. Finally, Table 11.10 sets out the changes in journey time that would occur in 2024 as a result of the development proposals.
Environmental Statement 360
Table 11.10 : 2024 Peak Hour Change in Journey Time (Minutes:Seconds)
Route AM Peak PM Peak
2024 2024 With Change 2024 2024 With Change Baseline Development Baseline Development
A1 South to A1 NB 06:47 06:47 00:00 07:29 07:29 00:00 North SB 07:21 07:22 00:01 06:57 06:57 00:00
A607 Harlaxton EB 16:26 16:24 -00:02 15:51 16:16 00:25 Road to A607 Brook Street WB 15:04 15:47 00:43 12:48 13:01 00:13
A52 Somerby Hill NB 17:22 17:22 00:00 17:07 17:09 00:02 to A52 Great North Road SB 17:33 17:36 00:03 17:12 17:19 00:07
A1 South to NB 20:50 20:51 00:01 21:09 21:13 00:04 A1174 Great North Road SB 22:50 22:57 00:07 20:51 20.55 00:04
Low Road to New EB 13:15 13:13 -00:02 13:56 14:17 00:21 Beacon Road WB 13:39 13:53 00:14 12:57 12:58 00:01
A607 Harlaxton EB 11:53 11:51 -00:02 13:30 13:29 -00:01 Road to A52 Somerby Hill WB 12:05 12:05 00:00 10:34 10:33 -00:01
11.6.22. On all routes the change in journey time is less than 30 seconds, apart from the journey between the A607 Brook Street and A607 Harlaxton Road during the AM peak, where an increase of 43 seconds occurs. The magnitude of change on this route is therefore minor, with all other changes being negligible.
11.6.23. The significance of change in journey time with regard to driver delay is therefore negligible on all routes apart from the A607 Harlaxton Road – A607 Brook Street route, where the significance of impact would be minor.
11.6.24. With regard to pedestrian delay, the maximum two-way peak hour traffic flow with the development in place would be 571 on Longcliffe Road (see Table 11.7). Using the same approach as identified in paragraph 11.5.9 of this ES Chapter, the pedestrian crossing delay on all links considered would remain below 5 seconds.
Environmental Statement 361
The change in pedestrian delay as a result of the development proposals is therefore negligible.
11.7. Proposed Management Strategy
Construction Phase
11.7.1. A number of measures will be implemented to ensure that the general effect of construction traffic flows is as predicted, which will be finalised within a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), an initial version of which is included in Appendix 2.1.
11.7.2. The measures that would be included within the CoCP include:
Agreed routes to and from the site, avoiding residential and congested routes as far as possible;
Traffic management measures, where required, that will be designed to minimise the impact of any works to the public highway;
Scheduling deliveries to avoid morning and evening peak hours;
Controlled working hours;
On-site loading and unloading;
Encouraging the construction workforce to access the site using public transport;
Wheel washers will be provided for vehicles leaving the site;
Operation of plant will be carried out in such a way that noise is minimised;
Re-use and recycle excavated materials and waste as much as possible.
Operational Phase
11.7.3. The overall transport strategy for the Proposed Development is set out in Section 4 of the TA, with a capacity improvement scheme at Belton Lane / Newark Hill and measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport identified in
Environmental Statement 362
Sections 7 and 8. In summary the Proposed Development will be accompanied by the following improvements:
The replacement of the existing priority junction at Belton Lane / Newark Hill with a signal controlled junction;
Inclusion of connections to existing pedestrian and highway infrastructure and the provision of new links through the site to encourage walking and cycling;
A S106 contribution to enable the existing Route 1 bus route to serve the site;
The implementation of a Travel Plan to encourage the use of sustainable transport.
11.7.4. Detailed examination of the operation of the B1174 / Belton Lane junction within the TA showed that the junction would be over-capacity in 2024 without the Proposed Development and the introduction of development related traffic would worsen this. Consideration was therefore given to what measures could be implemented at the junction to improve its performance. A scheme for introducing signal control at the junction was therefore identified.
11.7.5. The signal scheme reduces the maximum delay per vehicle in the AM peak (experienced by those waiting to exit Belton Lane) from over 400 seconds to approximately 60 seconds. This would signify a major magnitude of change.
11.7.6. In addition to the physical improvement measures proposed for this junction, the development will be supported by a Travel Plan that will encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and discourage single occupancy vehicle trips. The Travel Plan will promote a range of measures including:
The provision of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator prior to first occupation on site to implement, promote, administer and monitor the Travel Plan;
Information sheers included in marketing offices and show homes to promote the fundamentals of the TP;
Environmental Statement 363
Welcome Packs for new residents and employees that will introduce the sustainable transport strategy for the site and include a range of information on travel options;
Make reasonable endeavours to obtain discounts on cycle and accessory purchases for residents and provision of on-road cycle training from local cycle centres;
Encourage participation in local and national cycle awareness events;
The creation of a residents Bicycle User Group (BUG);
Opportunity to claim free bus tickets for each newly residential property on its first occupation.
11.7.7. The proposals are in line current national planning policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 32 of the Framework advises the planning decision “should take account of whether:
The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;
Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and
Improvement can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.”
11.7.8. The opportunities for sustainable transport have been taken up as the development proposals provide high quality connections to the surrounding pedestrian and cycle network and facilitate the routeing of bus services into the site. The improvements proposed to the Belton Lane / Newark Hill junction cost-effectively limit the impact of the development. There is no need for the provision of major transport infrastructure to enable the delivery of the proposals.
11.8. Residual Effects
11.8.1. The residual effects of the construction phase of the Proposed Development are anticipated to have a short-term adverse impact of minor significance.
Environmental Statement 364
11.8.2. For the operational phase of the Proposed Development, the change in two way traffic flow (and hence the effect on severance and amenity) on Longcliffe Road, Rosedale Drive and the northern end of Sandcliffe Road would experience a long- term adverse impact of moderate significance. Sandcliffe Road near its junction with the A607 would experience a long-term adverse impact of minor significance. Elsewhere the change in traffic flows would be negligible.
11.8.3. The implications for road safety are of minor significance as the locations where traffic flow increases are more than negligible do not suffer higher than typical accident rate.
11.8.4. With regard to average junction delays and resultant driver delays, the proposals would have a negligible effect. However, the mean maximum delays at the B1174 / Belton Lane junction would incur an increase of major magnitude and moderate significance. With the proposed improvement scheme, there would be a long-term beneficial impact of major significance, due to a reduction in maximum delay of over 300 seconds.
11.8.5. The residual effect of the development on journey times and driver delay would be a long-term adverse impact of minor-significance on the A607 between Brook Street and Harlaxton Road in the AM peak period.
11.8.6. The residual effect of the development on pedestrian delays would be negligible.
11.9. Impact Interactions
11.9.1. The ATC data and referred to in paragraphs 11.2.3 has also been used in the noise and air quality impact sections of this
11.9.2. The traffic effects of other planned developments have been included as part of the baseline against which the potential effects of the Proposed Development have been assessed and are therefore already included within the residual effects identified in Section 11.8.
Environmental Statement 365
11.10. Summary 11.10.1. Table 11.11 sets a summary of the transport related effects of the Proposed Development. Table 11.11 : Summary of Effects
Potential Effect Significance of Residual Effect
Construction Phase
Severance - Peak hour two-way traffic flows Short-term minor adverse
Change in HGV proportions Negligible
Driver Delay – Change in Journey Times Negligible
Reduction in amenity and safety for pedestrians and Short-term minor adverse cyclists
Pedestrian Delay – Peak Hour two-way traffic flows Negligible
Operational Phase
Severance and pedestrian amenity - Long-term moderate adverse Change in two-way peak hour flows – Longcliffe Road, Rosedale Drive and Sandcliffe Road
Road Safety – Change in two-way peak hour flows Long-term minor adverse
Driver Delay - Change in average junction delay all Negligible locations
Driver Delay - Change in maximum junction delay – Long-term major beneficial Belton lane / B1174
Driver Delay - Change in maximum junction delay – Long-term minor beneficial A607 / Belton Lane
Driver Delay – Change in maximum junction delay – Long-term moderate adverse A607 junctions with Longcliffe Road and Sandcliffe Road
Driver Delay - Change in Journey Time – A607 Brook Long-term minor adverse Street to A607 Harlaxton Road
Pedestrian Delay – Change in two-way peak hour flows Negligible
Environmental Statement 366
11.10.2. The construction phase of the Proposed Development is anticipated to have a short- term adverse effect on pedestrian amenity and severance and negligible effects on driver and pedestrian delay and road safety.
11.10.3. The operational effects of the Proposed Development on pedestrian delay will be negligible. There will be long-term minor adverse impacts on driver delay on the A607 Brook Street to A607 Harlaxton Road, but the delay on all other routes would be negligible. Driver delay in terms of average junction delays would be negligible. In terms of mean maximum delays the effects would be of long term minor beneficial significance at the A607 / Belton Lane, moderate long term adverse significance at the A607 junctions with Sandcliffe and Longcliffe Road and a long- term major beneficial effect at the B1174 Newark Hill / Belton Lane. The effects on severance and pedestrian amenity on Longcliffe Road, Sandcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive would be a long-term moderate adverse impact. There would also be a long- term minor adverse impact on road safety.
11.10.4. In conclusion, there are no impacts of major adverse significance associated with the Proposed Development.
11.11. References
11.11.1. The following documents have been referred to within this ES chapter:
Land on the Northern Edge of the Grantham Urban Area Transport Assessment – Odyssey Markides (May 2015)
Land North of Manthorpe Transport Assessment Scoping – Odyssey Markides (October 2014)
Manthorpe Residential Development Traffic Modelling Report – Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance (January 2015)
Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic – Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993)
National Planning Policy Framework – Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012)
Environmental Statement 367
National Planning Practice Guidance - Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2014)
Lincolnshire 4th Local Transport Plan – Lincolnshire County Council (April 2013)
The Transport Strategy for Grantham 2007 to 2021 and Beyond – Lincolnshire County Council (December 2007)
Core Strategy – South Kesteven District Council (July 2010)
Design Manual For Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Pedestrian, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects – Department for Transport (June 1993).
Environmental Statement 368
12.0 Noise & Vibration
12.1. Introduction
12.1.1. This chapter presents the approach and findings of the assessment of potential impacts in respect of noise and vibration. The Chapter presents the methodology followed, and provides a review of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and surrounding area. The Chapter then presents the results of the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on the baseline in order to determine the anticipated magnitude and significance of effect. Mitigation measures are presented and discussed to avoid or minimise the impacts of the Proposed Development during the construction and operational phases to an acceptable level.
12.1.2. This assessment has been undertaken by 10dB Acoustics.
12.1.3. The assessment considers both the potential noise effects of the Proposed Development on nearby sensitive receptors, and the effects of existing noise sources on the proposed dwellings.
12.2. Assessment Methodology
Consultation
12.2.1. Prior to undertaking the noise assessment, discussions were held on 29 July 2014 with the South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) Environmental Health Officer, Mr Martin Glossop. The potential impacts of the scheme, on both existing receptors and the proposed residential development were discussed and the general principles of the assessment methodology agreed. The noise issues and methodology that were agreed to be addressed in the Environmental Statement (ES) are summarised as follows:
1) Provide a baseline noise study and an assessment of the site’s suitability for residential development, consistent with advice given in BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings, World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise 1999.
Environmental Statement 369
2) The assessment to be carried out on the assumption that windows in the proposed dwellings would be closed and, where appropriate, alternative means of ventilation provided.
3) Provide a baseline ground borne vibration study consistent with advice given in BS6472:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings;
4) Assess the impact of noise from increased traffic generated by the development;
Sources of Information
12.2.2. The following sources of information have been used to prepare this assessment:
1) National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
2) National Planning Practice Guidance – Noise 2014
3) Noise Policy Statement for England 2010.
4) BS7445:1991 Description and measurement of environmental noise.
5) BS5228:2009 Part 1 Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.
6) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7.
7) Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). 1988.
8) Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN). 1995.
9) Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA 1974).
10) IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment 2014.
11) World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise 1999.
12) BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings.
13) BS6472:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting
Study Area
12.2.3. The study area for this assessment comprises the area of the Proposed Development and the immediately adjacent road network.
Environmental Statement 370
Assessment Process
12.2.4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England based around the three dimensions to sustainable development, economic, social and environmental; these policies articulate the Government’s vision of sustainable development. In respect of noise. Paragraph 123 of the document states the following:
12.2.5. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:
avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development
mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions
recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restriction put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established
identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
12.2.6. The NPPF refers to the DEFRA publication, Noise Policy Statement for England” (NPSE, March 2010), which gives three policy aims, these being as follows.
12.2.7. “Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:
avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life
mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life
where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.”
Environmental Statement 371
12.2.8. The first two objectives require that no significant adverse impact should occur and that, where a noise does have an adverse effect, then “all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life whilst also taking into consideration the guiding principles of sustainable development. This does not mean that such effects cannot occur.”
12.2.9. Additional guidance to the NPPF is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), which sets out how planning can manage potential noise impacts in new development. It advises that planning authorities' should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider:
whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur;
whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and
whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.
12.2.10. The NPPG states that these potential effects should be evaluated by comparison with the significant observed adverse effect level and the lowest observed adverse effect level for the given situation. To illustrate these thresholds and help identify where noise could be a concern, the NPPG provides an example table of noise exposure hierarchy shown in Table 12.1 below.
Table 12.1 – Noise Exposure Hierarchy
Perception Example of Outcomes Increasing Action Effect level
Not No Effect No Observed No specific noticeable Effect measures required
Noticeable Noise can be heard, but does not cause any No Observed No specific and not change in behaviour or attitude. Can Adverse Effect measures intrusive slightly affect the acoustic character of the Level (NOAEL) required area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
Environmental Statement 372
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)
Noticeable Noise can be heard and causes small Observed Mitigate and changes in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. Adverse Effect and reduce intrusive turning up volume of television; speaking to a more loudly; where there is no alternative minimum ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. Potential for some reported sleep disturbance. Affects the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL)
Noticeable The noise causes a material change in Significant Avoid and behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. avoiding Observed disruptive certain activities during periods of Adverse Effect intrusion; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to keep windows closed most of the time because of the noise. Potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep. Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area.
Noticeable Extensive and regular changes in Unacceptable Prevent and very behaviour and/or an inability to mitigate Adverse Effect disruptive effect of noise leading to psychological stress or physiological effects, e.g. regular sleep deprivation/awakening; loss of appetite, significant, medically definable harm, e.g. auditory and non-auditory
12.2.11. Taking the above into account, objective standards may be developed for the assessment of the effect of introducing a certain noise source into the environment or the effect of environmental noise on new residential development. There are several possible methods of assessment:
Environmental Statement 373
the effect may be assessed by comparison of the noise level of the source with recommended noise limits or guideline values contained in advisory documents
the effect may be assessed by considering the change in noise level that would result from the proposal, against criteria showing the significance of the effect
the impact may be determined by considering the noise level that would result from the introduction of the source into the environment compared to pre- existing background noise level of the area.
12.2.12. Guideline values, as described in the first option above, are usually used for the assessment of suitability of a site for residential development, especially where there are no changes to the noise environment other than by factors not related to the development. The assessment of changes in noise level is suitable for the analysis of noise from road traffic on the existing road network using the “with development” and “without development” traffic flows. The calculated change applies irrespective of distance from the road, provided the noise climate is dominated by road traffic on the road under assessment.
12.2.13. There are a number of guidance documents that contain recommended guideline noise values, in particular the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise 1999 and BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings. Both of these documents are suitable to assist in the assessment and design of new residential developments
12.2.14. The WHO Guidelines for Community Noise contains a number of guideline values for specific health effects from noise within different environments. It is important to note that these guideline values are set at the lowest level that produces an adverse effect, the ‘critical health effect’, and the values are regarded as thresholds below which impacts can be assumed to be negligible. The NPSE describes such levels as the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL), but does not define the level above which effects are significant, this being the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL). The NPSE states that “it is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL”, but compliance with the LOAEL
Environmental Statement 374
should, therefore, be seen as a robust aim. The WHO LOAEL guideline values are shown in the Table 12.2.
Table 12.2 - WHO LOAEL guideline values
WHO Guidelines for Community noise LOAEL value
Value Effect Location
LAeqT= 55dB Few seriously annoyed. Continuous noise in Daytime and evening outdoor living areas. periods.
LAeqT= 50dB Few moderately annoyed. Continuous noise in Daytime and evening outdoor living areas. periods.
LAeqT= 35dB Acceptable level to avoid Continuous noise inside speech interference, dwellings. daytime and evening periods.
LAeqT= 45dB To avoid the onset of sleep Continuous noise, outside disturbance, window open bedrooms, outdoor values at night.
LAeqT= 30dB To avoid the onset of sleep Continuous noise inside disturbance at night. bedrooms.
LAmax= 60dB To avoid the onset of sleep Noise maxima, outside disturbance, window open bedrooms. Outdoor values. at night.
LAmax= 45dB To avoid the onset of sleep Noise maxima inside disturbance at night. bedrooms.
12.2.15. The time base (T) given in the WHO criteria is 16 hours for daytime limits and 8 hours for night time limits. It should be noted that the WHO criteria assume open windows but it has been agreed with the Environmental Health Officer (EHO), Mr Glossop, that the assessment will be based upon windows being closed with suitable alternative ventilation being provided where appropriate.
Environmental Statement 375
12.2.16. Where a dwelling is located in an area subject to noise, BS8233:2014 gives recommendations for internal noise levels in occupied spaces, as shown in the Table 12.3.
Table 12.3 - BS8233:2014 Recommendations
BS8233:2014 Indoor Ambient Noise Levels in Unoccupied Spaces
Activity Location Design Range LAeq,T dB
07:00 to 23:00 23:00 to 07:00
Resting Living rooms 35 -
Dining Dining room/area 40 -
Sleeping (daytime Bedrooms 35 30 resting)
12.2.17. The standard also advises in Note 7 that “Where development is considered necessary or desirable, despite external noise levels above WHO guidelines, the internal target levels may be relaxed by up to 5dB and reasonable internal conditions still achieved.” The EHO, Mr Glossop, has agreed that it may be necessary to relax the standard in respect of some rooms in dwellings close to the railway line.
12.2.18. The previous version of the Standard (1999) suggested that a window, when partially
open, will provide approximately 10 to 15dB Rw of sound attenuation; this reference is now removed from the latest iteration of the Standard but the worked example (G.1) at Annex G of the current Standard suggests that a partially open window
would provide sound attenuation of approximately 15dB Rw. The current version of the Standard also suggests that “standard insulating glass units have an insulation
value of approximately 33dB Rw” when closed.
12.2.19. The BS8233:2014 levels largely reflect the WHO guidance document and represent internal noise level targets with windows closed.
12.2.20. In considering the change in noise level that would result from the proposal against criteria showing the significance of the effect, the Institute of Environmental Management Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact
Environmental Statement 376
Assessment (IEMA 2014) may also be used to assess impact of this development. This advice is shown in the Table 12.4.
Table 12.4 – IEMA Criteria
IEMA Impact from Change in Sound Levels
Long-term impact Short-term impact Sound Level change dB
classification classification LpAeqT (positive or negative) T= either 16h day or 8h night
Negligible ≤ 0dB and < 1dB Negligible Minor ≤ 1dB and < 3dB
Minor Moderate ≤ 3dB and < 5dB
Moderate ≤ 5dB and < 10dB Major Major ≤ 10dB
12.2.21. The decibel values in Table 1.3 have been chosen by IEMA/IOA on the basis that the smallest change in noise level that can generally be detected by the human ear is 3dB, a 5dB change is noticeable and a 10dB change represents a twofold change in perceived volume.
12.2.22. Guidance entitled ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 HD 213/11 Noise and Vibration’ dated 2011 provides guidance on the assessment of the impacts that road projects may have on levels of noise and vibration. Where appropriate, this advice may be applied to existing roads.
12.2.23. It provides guidance on the significance of changes in road traffic noise in both the short term and the long term, noting that changes in noise smaller than 1dB are not perceptible in the short term. Assuming no changes to percentage composition of heavy goods vehicles or traffic speeds, an increase in traffic volume of 25% is required to alter the noise levels by 1dB. The guidance gives an example classification of magnitude of impacts for road traffic noise in the short term, such as when a new road is first opened, as shown in the Table 12.5.
Environmental Statement 377
Table 12.5 – Magnitude of impacts in the short term for road traffic noise
DMRB Guidance on noise changes in the short term
Noise change, LA10,18h Magnitude of Impact
0dB No change
0.1 – 0.9dB Negligible
1 – 2.9dB Minor
3 – 4.9dB Moderate
5+ Major
12.2.24. In the longer term, typically fifteen years after opening a new road, the impact of the changes is shown in Table 12.6.
Table 12.6 - Magnitude of impacts in the long term for road traffic noise
DMRB Guidance on noise changes in the long term
Noise change, LA10,18h Magnitude of Impact
0dB No change
0.1 – 2.9dB Negligible
3 – 4.9dB Minor
5 – 9.9dB Moderate
10+ Major
12.2.25. In summary; the potential noise and vibration impacts of the Proposed Development may be divided into two groups; noise from the construction and operation of the development on adjacent receptors, and noise from existing sources affecting the new residential properties. Mr Glossop has agreed it is highly unlikely that the operational phase of the residential part of the development will produce noise that would affect the amenity of nearby land uses, other than by changes in road traffic flow, but it is possible that the construction phase may do so. Although it may not be possible at this stage to quantify the impact of construction noise and vibration, it will be considered and addressed.
Environmental Statement 378
12.2.26. There are no commercial premises associated with the Proposed Development other than those at the Local Centre, and this is located at such a distance from any existing dwellings that there will be no impact from their operation.
12.2.27. In the context of an EIA, the only noise impacts produced by the Proposed Development that may be significant are the noise from the construction phase, which is short-term, and changes in noise level from the increase in road traffic. The latter effect will be localised and only likely to affect a small number of existing dwellings. Construction noise will be assessed by reference to BS5228:2009.
12.2.28. The primary noise source that may have an impact on the development is railway noise from the line adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Noise levels from the East Coast Main railway line have been measured and propagation across the Application Site has been calculated in accordance with ISO9613-2 1996. Two time periods are considered, daytime from 07:00 to 23:00 and night-time from 23:00 to 07:00 and measurements have been made to allow assessment of both periods.
12.2.29. As indicated previously, the two primary sources of guidance on the effects of noise on residential properties are the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise 1999 and BS8233 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings. Many local authorities use the WHO Guidelines document as a basis for assessing industrial noise affecting potential residential development sites and Mr Glossop of SKDC has indicated that he regards this as an acceptable approach should the assessment indicate its use is appropriate. The WHO recommendations are that,
"During daytime, few people are highly annoyed at LAeq levels below 55dBA and few
are moderately annoyed at LAeq levels below 50dBA". The figures of 55dB and 50dB are understood to be "free field" and the time period over which daytime is assessed is the 16 hours from 07:00 to 23:00.
12.2.30. Mr Glossop has indicated that the appropriate standards to be used are that at least
some amenity space subject to a level of 55dB LAeq,16hours is available to each dwelling and that internal noise should be assessed on the basis of BS8233:2014 using the relaxed standard values if necessary, assessed with windows closed and suitable
ventilation systems installed. This gives values of 40dB LAeq,16h for living rooms and
Environmental Statement 379
35dB LAeq,8h for bedrooms. Maximum noise levels at night should not exceed 45dB
LAFmax in bedrooms with windows closed. These values are considered to represent LOAEL in respect of this development.
12.2.31. In discussion with Mr Glossop it was agreed that ground borne vibration was unlikely to be a significant issue due to the distance of the new dwellings from the railway track and also because the track is of continuous welded construction. However, baseline vibration levels have been measured and assessed against the recommendations contained in BS6472:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. BS6472:2008 gives guidance on acceptable levels of vibration in buildings and table 1 of the Standard considers vibration dose values in respect of residential buildings in the Table 12.7.
Table 12.7 - BS6472:2008 – Vibration Dose Values (m/s1.75) above which various degrees of adverse comment may be expected in residential buildings
Place Low probability of Adverse comment Adverse comment adverse comment possible probable
Residential 16 hour 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6 day
Residential 8 hour 0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 night
Assumption and Limitations
12.2.32. The assessment of construction noise and vibration impacts is limited by the lack of available information at this stage of the project, including such matters as the actual plant and equipment to be used is not known. Until a detailed method statement is available it is not possible to carry out any predictive work but it is possible to confirm that noise levels will not exceed acceptable limits as defined in BS5228:2009. Annex E of this standard contains criteria for the assessment of the effects construction noise and these form an appropriate basis for the development of acceptable noise limits. Such matters can be controlled by the use of appropriate conditions on any planning consent. The lack of detail at this stage means the assessment of construction effects can only be qualitative but nonetheless sufficient,
Environmental Statement 380
as stated above, to demonstrate that the construction phase can proceed without undue or significant adverse effect on the surrounding community.
12.2.33. The modelling of noise emissions from the railway line has assumed that rail traffic remains at the level that prevailed during the measurement exercises and there are no known plans for any significant changes in rail traffic on this line.
12.2.34. The railway noise modelling has been carried out using the Soundplan Essentials noise prediction software and the methodology of ISO9613-2:1996. It is prudent to allow for an uncertainty of ±2dB in the model to account for uncertainties in measurement, weather conditions and changes in ground conditions. These uncertainties have been minimised by the use of Class 1 measurement equipment and the choice of weather conditions that allow for optimum propagation of noise from the railway line to the Application Site.
12.3. Planning Policy/ Legislative Context
Legislative Context
12.3.1. There are no specific legislative constraints in respect of noise that apply to the Proposed Development but construction noise may be controlled by Section 60 Control of Pollution Act 1974 and prior consent for potentially noisy construction works may be granted under Section 61 of the Act.
Planning Policy
12.3.2. National guidance on noise and planning is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, National Planning Practice Guidance 2014, and the Noise Policy Statement for England 2010. Details of these documents are discussed in paragraphs 12.2.4 to 12.2.10 above.
12.3.3. South Kesteven District Council does not appear to have any specific policies in relation to existing noise sources affecting new residential development.
Environmental Statement 381
12.4. Baseline Conditions
12.4.1. The determination of baseline noise conditions involves the measurement of noise and vibration levels on-site, primarily produced by train passbys on the adjacent main line. It is important to undertake noise surveys over a period which represents typical noise levels for the proposed receptors under representative meteorological conditions (appropriate to the noise source). This is considered below.
Noise
12.4.2. Measurements of noise levels attributable to passing trains and local road traffic were made on 29 and 30 July 2014 at five separate positions both during daytime and at night. The measurements were attended during daytime and contemporaneous audio recordings were made at night in order to ensure that the measurements were representative. All equipment using in the survey complies with the requirements of IEC 61672-1:2002 (or the equivalent BS EN 61672-1:2003) for Class 1 Sound Level Meters and all equipment is accompanied by current UKAS calibration certificates. All sound level meters were calibrated before and after the measurements, and no drift greater than 0.2dB was observed.
12.4.3. Noise levels from train passbys were measured at a height of 1.6m above local ground level for 10 hours during daytime and 8 hours at night at positions 1,2 and 3 shown on the plan in Figure 12.1. The daytime measured railway noise levels have
been scaled to give a LAeq,16h result and this value has been used in determining the daytime noise contours for the site. It should be noted that that the railway line is constructed of continuous welded track, which reduces noise emission levels significantly. During the measurement exercise the weather was warm (22°C during daytime) with a light to very light westerly wind, giving a downwind vector from the railway line to all measurement locations. No precipitation occurring during the measurements. Due to significant cloud cover it is unlikely that any temperature inversions occurred. The measurements were made in accordance with the guidance given in BS7445-2:1991 Description and measurement of environmental noise.
12.4.4. In addition to the measurement of railway noise levels, measurements were also made of ambient noise levels at positions representative of points where the
Environmental Statement 382
Proposed Development access roads meet the existing road network in the vicinity of existing dwellings, these being positions 4 and 5, chosen to represent the most likely affected areas in terms of potential noise impact from the construction and operation stages of the Proposed Development.. The locations of the measurement positions are shown on the plan in Figure 12.1 and the results are shown in Table 12.8.
Table 12.8 - Baseline noise measurement results and calculations (all levels in dB)
Measurement location Daytime Night LAF,max night
LAeq,16h time LAeq,8h
Position 1 59 54 81 14m from centre of rail line
Position 2 50 46 70 125m from centre of rail line
Position 3 40 38 62 Eastern side of site (only 6 events over 60dB)
Position 4 51 - - Longcliffe Road close to site
Position 5 44 - - Borrowdale Way close to site
12.4.5. Using the measured data, railway noise contours and façade noise levels have been calculated for the Proposed Development and these are shown in Appendix 12.1.
12.4.6. Railway noise levels have been calculated using the methodology of ISO 9613-2 1996 which is the primary Standard used in the UK and much of Europe for the calculation of environmental sound propagation. The Standard is divided into two parts: Part 1 provides a method for calculating the attenuation of sound due to atmospheric effects, while Part 2 provides a general method of calculation for environmental sound propagation. The noise prediction method described in Part 2 of the standard is general and is intended to be suitable for a wide range of
Environmental Statement 383
engineering applications where the noise level outdoors is of interest. The ISO 9613 method considers the following factors that may affect noise propagation:
Geometrical divergence (also known as distance loss)
Atmospheric absorption
Ground effects
Reflection from surfaces
Screening by obstacles
Miscellaneous effects
12.4.7. The method predicts noise levels under metrological conditions favourable to noise propagation from the sound source to the receiver, such as downwind propagation, or equivalently, propagation under a well-developed moderate ground based surface temperature inversion as can occur during low wind conditions at night. Downwind propagation conditions are quantified as those where the wind direction is within 45 degrees of line between the noise source and the receiver, at wind speeds in the range 1-5 m/s.
12.4.8. The standard uses the line source propagation relationship that applies to rail traffic noise sources, L2 = L1 – 10log(r2/r1) where L1 is the initial noise level at distance r1 and L2 is the resultant noise level at new distance r2.
12.4.9. In determining the likely changes in noise levels due to changes in road traffic flows the baseline is referenced to existing traffic flows, except in the case of locations close to the Proposed Development access roads when the baselines noise levels measured at positions 4 and 5 will be used. This is because at those locations existing road traffic flows are too low for reliable calculation.
Vibration
12.4.10. Vibration levels were also measured on the Application Site, measurements being made at the edge of the Application Site at Position 1 with the accelerometer attached to a steel spike 0.4m long driven into the ground. Measurements of
Environmental Statement 384
vibration acceleration were made in the vertical axis only as it is the case with ground borne vibration that the level in the x and y axes is so low as to not be significant. In view of this only the z or vertical axis levels have been considered.
12.4.11. The vibration meter, a Class 1 Svantek 959, directly measures Vibration Dose Value
(VDV) using the Wb weighting, as specified in BS6472-1:2008 and levels from 31 train passbys were measured, including 2 freight trains. BS6472-1:2008 states that the VDV values can be used to scale up the results to cover the full day and night periods using the relationship;
.0 25 Nn VDV VDV 4 db day/,/ night ,/ tdb n n1
12.4.12. Where VDVb/d,day/night is the total VDV for the day or night time period, VDVb/d,tn is the measured VDV for the event, and N is the number of events.
12.4.13. Approximately 250 trains pass the Site during daytime and 21 at night. The highest VDV measured for a single train pass by was 0.01 m.s1.75 and these values have been scaled up as below to give the daytime 16 hour VDV and night time 8 hour VDV.
4 .0 25 .1 75 VDV db ,/ day 250 .0 01 .0 04 sm
4 .0 25 .1 75 VDV db ,/ day 21 .0 01 .0 02 sm
12.4.14. The results of these calculations indicate that free field vibration levels attributable to train pass bys will be approximately 0.04m.s1.75 during the day and 0.02m.s1.75 at night. BS6472:2008 gives guidance on acceptable levels of vibration in buildings and table 1 of the Standard considers vibration dose values in respect of residential buildings in Table 12.9.
Environmental Statement 385
Table 12.9 - BS6472:2008 – Vibration Dose Values (m/s1.75) above which various degrees of adverse comment may be expected in residential buildings
Place Low probability of Adverse comment Adverse comment adverse comment possible probable
Residential 16 hour 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6 day
Residential 8 hour 0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 night
12.4.15. However, it is important to note that the measured levels for this site represent free field vibration dose values and do not equate to levels that may be experienced inside a new building on the site. Vibration at the foundation of a building is generally to be expected to be less than that measured in free-field conditions at the same locations, due to the increased loading on the ground by the mass of the building. Levels can be reduced by anything from 20% to 60%, depending upon the foundations of the building, the soil properties, and the frequency response of the building.
12.4.16. It is very difficult to accurately predict the reduction that will be achieved, although 25% is not an unreasonable prediction. Vibration magnitudes can be expected to magnify on suspended floors and vibration levels on the upper floors of a building may be up to 2 - 3 times the vibration measured at the foundation, but could be more. If lower frequencies occur, where humans are more sensitive to vibration, the train events will be more perceptible and hence give rise to a higher possibility of adverse comment.
12.4.17. In order to allow for the increased vibration dose values on suspended floors the calculated doses should be multiplied by three, giving levels of 0.12m.s1.75 during the day and 0.08m.s1.75 at night. Comparison with the table above indicates that these levels are below the level where there is a low probability of adverse comments both during the day and at night.
Environmental Statement 386
12.4.18. As expected and agreed with Mr Glossop, ground borne vibration is not a significant environmental issue in respect of the Application Site, primarily due to the track being of continuous welded construction.
12.5. Potential Effects
12.5.1. The noise and vibration effects of the Proposed Development have been assessed using the methodology described above. An environmental assessment is generally intended to evaluate the impact of a development on its surroundings but in this instance the primary requirement is to determine the suitability or otherwise of the site for residential development and this is discussed later in this Chapter. The suitability of the proposed Primary School location is also considered.
12.5.2. However, there are other aspects of the development that may have an impact including the construction phase and the operational phase once the development is fully occupied. As the operational phase comprises primarily residential properties it will clearly not generate significant noise emissions. However, the increase in road traffic generated by the development may have an effect on existing dwellings. For the purposes of noise assessment the noise sources associated with the Proposed Development have been categorised as follows;
1) Construction activities
2) Road traffic noise
Construction noise
12.5.3. The construction phase has the potential to generate some on-site noise, but the size of the site means that this is unlikely to be significant except where construction activity takes place close to existing residential properties. Construction noise may also affect future residents of the Proposed Development as occupation of parts of the Application Site will take place simultaneously with construction of other parts. Construction activities may be audible outside properties but those activities will be transient in their location and duration, including not taking place at night. At present there is insufficient information to estimate the noise impact of the construction phase but it may be evaluated prior to commencement if required by
Environmental Statement 387
the local authority. Particular consideration needs to be given to the noise impact of earth moving operations when these are carried out on the southern boundary of the Application Site, as these are likely to be the noisiest phase of the construction programme.
12.5.4. Control may be exercised by SKDC either by a planning condition requiring the submission of an application for prior consent under the terms of Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act, or by requiring the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) for the construction phase, taking into account the recommendations of BS5228:2009.
12.5.5. Although details of the construction methodology and firm timetables are not yet known it is still possible to outline control measures in order to minimise the impacts of construction activities. Typical control measures may include;
1) A Planning Condition to limit construction works to between 07:30-19:30 Monday to Friday and 07:30 to 13:00 on Saturdays; no working outside these hours without the specific prior agreement with the Council.
2) A CEMP (see above) detailing the management of the construction process to minimise disturbance to residents.
12.5.6. BS 5228:2009 provides examples of how the significance of noise from construction activity may be determined for the purpose of environmental assessment. Examples are given both in relation to fixed (absolute) thresholds, and when considering the potential change in the ambient noise level produced by the construction noise. For the purpose of assessing the significance of noise from construction activities arising from the Proposed Development, the threshold levels set out in table E.1 of BS5228-1: 2009 will be used as the SOAEL values. The values are shown in Table 12.10.
Environmental Statement 388
Table 12.10 - Threshold Values from BS5228:2009
Assessment category and threshold Threshold value, in decibels (dB) (LAeq,T) value period Category A Category B Category C
Night-time (23.00-07.00) 45 50 55
Evenings and weekends 55 60 65
Daytime (07.00-19.00) and Saturdays 65 70 75 (07.00- 13.00)
NOTE 1 A potential significant effect is indicated if the LAeq,T noise level arising from the site exceeds the threshold level for the category appropriate to the ambient noise level.
NOTE 2 If the ambient noise level exceeds the Category C threshold values given in the table (I.e. the ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a potential
significant effect is indicated if the total LAeq,T noise level for the period increases by more than 3dB due to site noise
NOTE 3 Applied to residential receptors only
Category A: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are less than these values.
Category B: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are the same as category A values.
Category C: Threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5dB) are higher than category A values.
12.5.7. As all local residential receptors are likely to fit into Category A, construction noise impact has been classified with reference to that category. It is not anticipated that night time working would be necessary therefore only the daytime scenario has been considered.
12.5.8. Due to the separation distance between existing residential properties and the overwhelming majority of the Site it is unlikely that construction noise levels would exceed the threshold values given in the table above. However, it will be necessary to carefully control preliminary earthmoving works close to the southern boundary in order to ensure that the noise impact remains below the thresholds.
Environmental Statement 389
12.5.9. Where construction noise levels are less than the ambient noise level the impact would be considered to be not significant. Construction noise levels above the threshold values in Category A would be regarded as Major Adverse impacts. Levels below the Category A threshold values but above the ambient noise level would be regarded as Moderate Adverse impacts but it should be noted that in respect of individual receptors these impacts will be short term.
12.5.10. Construction noise may also have an adverse effect on the proposed Primary School as it is possible that construction of some phases of the Proposed Development will continue following completion and occupation of the school. The school may be considered to be a sensitive receptor similar to residential properties and the noise impacts would be considered on the same basis. Therefor it may be expected that there would be short term Moderate Adverse noise impacts when construction activity takes place close to the school but these would controlled by similar control methods.
Road traffic noise
12.5.11. The development will also generate its own road traffic, which will increase the overall level of traffic using the local road network. However, in order to produce a 3dB increase in traffic noise level, traffic flow would have to double, and the change in noise level would then be only just noticeable to the human ear.
12.5.12. Road traffic counts have been carried out in respect of those roads close to the development, and predictions have been made of the growth in vehicle movements on those roads for the year 2024 both with and without the Proposed Development. These predictions compare the baseline road traffic flows with flows resulting from a development of 550 dwellings. Even if the development were not to be carried out, road traffic flows in the area are predicted to increase, this being the “do minimum” scenario. Therefore in order to properly determine the noise impact of this development it is appropriate to compare the road traffic flow at the projected point of completion with the flow as it would be without the development.
12.5.13. The table in Appendix 12.2 shows the baseline traffic flows in 2015 and predicted traffic flows in 2024, and includes a calculation of the increase in noise level
Environmental Statement 390
associated with the increase in road traffic attributable to the development (DS2, development scenario 2 with access onto Belton Lane). These calculations are based on the Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) 18 hour flows but due to the very low night time flows the same changes apply to the 24 hour flows.
12.5.14. Development of the 550 homes on the site would not significantly increase noise levels on the majority of the local road network, but at locations close to the Proposed Development entrances noise levels will increase significantly. It should be noted that these maximum increases in level will only occur at a limited number of locations; on the majority of the road network the increase will be less than 1dB.
12.5.15. The location that is affected most by changes in road traffic flows is Longcliffe Road near to the Application Site entrance. At Longcliffe Road, location 5 on the location plan in Appendix 12.2, the noise level attributable to road traffic is predicted to rise by 7.8dB.
12.5.16. At location 7, Rosedale Drive, the level is predicted to rise by 3.8dB, at location 4, Sandcliffe Road, by 3.0dB and at location 6, Longcliffe Drive, by 1.2dB.
12.5.17. The effect of these increases in noise level may be assessed by reference to the IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment or the DMRB criteria, these being essentially identical in content.
12.5.18. A 7.8dB increase in noise levels attributable to road traffic at Longcliffe Road would normally be classed as a Major Impact in the short term and a Moderate Impact in the long term but it should be noted that due to the phased nature of the Proposed Development the increases would be gradual and less likely to have an immediate impact.
12.5.19. The DMRB and IEMA criteria are intended to be used where a development produces an abrupt change in intensity of use, such as when a new road opens allowing an immediate increase in road traffic flows. In this instance, the Proposed Development is due to be constructed over eight and a half years and the increase in road traffic movements and hence noise levels will therefore depend on the build and occupation rate of the new dwellings. In the first year of development road traffic
Environmental Statement 391
noise levels will increase by 1.2dB, in year 2 by 2.7dB, but thereafter the rate of increase will be less than 1dB per year. The noise increase in each year would result in no more than a Moderate Impact.
12.5.20. All existing dwellings located adjacent to Longcliffe Road have their garden areas protected from road traffic noise either by the bulk of the dwelling or by walls or fences. The increase in level would only affect those facades that face onto Longcliffe Road and noise levels within existing garden spaces would remain below the WHO
criterion of 55dB LAeq,16hours.
12.5.21. A 3.0 or 3.8dB increase in noise levels at Sandcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive would result in a Moderate Impact in the short term and Minor Impact in the long term. The 1.2dB rise at location 6 would be classified as a Minor Impact in the short term and Negligible in the long term.
12.5.22. However, it is very important to note that these effects would only apply to a small number of existing dwellings, the increase in road traffic flows produced by the Proposed Development becoming diluted by existing flows as the distance from the Application Site entrances increases. Details of the likely increase in road traffic noise and the associated IEMA noise impacts are shown in Appendix 12.2.
Residential Noise Exposure Assessment
12.5.23. The only noise source likely to determine the noise exposure of the residential development on the Application Site is railway traffic on the adjacent East Coast Main Railway Line. The measured noise levels indicate that at the position of the closest dwellings to the railway line the noise levels will be in the region of 53dB
LAeq,16h during daytime, 49dB LAeq,8h at night (first floor level), with a night time
maximum noise level of 77dB LAmax at first floor level. However, it is important to note that these values assume no additional noise reduction from a barrier.
12.5.24. The masterplan for the Application Site includes an acoustic barrier, comprising a bund and 2m acoustic fence, constructed on the boundary between the railway line and the Site with a barrier height of between 4.2 and 5.1m above local ground level. Such a barrier will provide a significant reduction in noise levels, and dwellings
Environmental Statement 392
further from the railway line will also benefit from screening provided by other buildings, reducing levels even more.
12.5.25. With noise reduction measures incorporated within the design of the Proposed Development, in the form of an acoustic barrier, the closest dwellings to the track will be exposed to significant railway noise but it is the internal noise levels that are relevant to future occupiers. As discussed earlier, Mr Glossop of SKDC has indicated that the appropriate standard to be used is that night time noise should be assessed on the basis of BS8233:2014 assessed with windows closed and suitable ventilation systems installed.
12.5.26. Where a dwelling is located in an area subject to noise, BS8233:2014 gives recommendations for internal noise levels in occupied spaces, and Annex 6 of PPG24 entitled “Insulation of Buildings against External Noise” gives advice on measures that may be taken to achieve the level of protection required by the Planning Authority. Whilst PPG24 has now been withdrawn as official guidance, much of the technical content of the document remains relevant. PPG24 gave guidance on the typical noise reduction of dwelling facades with windows, which gives an indication of the internal noise levels likely to be generated by each of transport based noise sources under consideration. This advice is shown in Table 12.11.
Table 12.11 - Typical noise reduction of a dwelling facade with windows set in a brick/block wall - Difference between dBA levels outside and inside
Noise Source Single glazing Thermal double Secondary glazing glazing
Road Traffic 28 33 34
Civil aircraft 27 32 35
Military aircraft 29 35 39
Diesel train 28 32 35
Electric train 30 36 41
Environmental Statement 393
12.5.27. Note: The values in the table above are the difference between dBA levels measured outside and inside typical dwellings; they have not been corrected for reverberation time or window area, and so cannot be compared with values obtained under other conditions. The table is intended to give an idea of the insulation likely to be achieved in practice - not under ideal conditions. Secondary glazing systems in particular will perform better in installations where sound insulation is not limited by poor sealing or by flanking sound paths such as through doors or acoustically weak parts of window bays. The values for single glazing are representative of well- sealed windows.
12.5.28. The highest calculated noise levels for those dwellings closest to the railway line are
50dB LAeq,16h during daytime, 45dB LAeq,8h at night, with a night time LAFmax of 72dB, assuming the provision of the acoustic barrier. Using the above table it can be seen that provided the proposed dwellings are fitted with conventional thermal double glazing, the noise level attributable to train noise within living rooms or bedrooms
is likely to be no more 18dB LAeq,16h during daytime, 13dB LAeq,8h at night, with a night
time LAFmax of 40dB with windows closed. The average noise levels are well below the
recommendations of both WHO and BS8233:2014 and the LAFmax levels are also well
below the WHO criterion (there are no LAFmax criteria given in BS8233:2014). The assessed noise levels inside the proposed dwellings and in external amenity areas will therefore be satisfactory.
Primary School
12.5.29. The proposed Primary School is to be located in an area that is midway between noise monitoring positions 2 and 3 as shown in Figure 12.1. The noise level in the vicinity of the Primary School location is therefore likely to be between 50dB and
40dB LAeq,16hours and due to the local topography and built form of the Proposed Development, levels are likely to be at the lower end of this range.
12.5.30. Noise affecting new school sites is subject to Building Regulations control and advice is given in Building Bulletin 93 Acoustic Design of Schools (BB93). This guidance document recommends the following;
Environmental Statement 394
12.5.31. For new schools, 60 dB LAeq,30min should be regarded as an upper limit for external noise at the boundary of external premises used for formal and informal outdoor teaching, and recreational areas. Under some circumstances it is possible to meet the specified indoor ambient noise levels on sites where external noise levels are as high
as 70 dB LAeq,30min but this will require considerable building envelope sound insulation, screening or barriers.
12.5.32. Noise levels in unoccupied playgrounds, playing fields and other outdoor areas
should not exceed 55 dB LAeq,30min and there should be at least one area suitable for
outdoor teaching activities where noise levels are below 50 dB LAeq,30min
12.5.33. Noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed Primary School are likely to be in the
region of 45dB LAeq,30min, well below the limit values given in BB93 and the location is therefore considered to be satisfactory without the need for any noise mitigation. If at the detailed layout stage any noise issues are identified these may be dealt with by use of appropriate mitigation.
12.6. Proposed Mitigation
Construction phase
12.6.1. Noise from the construction of the Proposed Development may have an effect on existing residential properties, but this will be short term and will only be significant where construction takes place close to existing dwellings. In order to control the noise impact a Construction Environment Management Plan will be developed for the construction phase, taking into account the recommendations of BS5228:20039, and/or regulated by planning conditions relating to hours of operation for construction.
12.6.2. Control of noise from construction will be afforded by careful choice of plant and equipment to ensure the lowest noise emission equipment suitable for the task is used; the use of temporary barriers and/or earthworks where appropriate and practicable; control of working hours to avoid potentially noisy operations during more sensitive periods; liaison with local residents to ensure they are informed of
Environmental Statement 395
potentially noisy operations; monitoring of noise emissions. This will ensure that adequate protection is afforded to existing occupiers.
Residential noise exposure
12.6.3. No mitigation is required in respect of noise emitted from the residential part of the Site, but it is desirable to limit the potential railway noise impact on the new dwellings. The Site design includes an acoustic barrier between the residential part of the site and the railway line that will significantly reduce noise levels. In respect of those dwellings on the western edge of the Site the layout will be such as to place primary garden areas with the mass of the dwelling providing a barrier to noise from the railway line. This will ensure that each dwelling will be provided with a garden area that will experience noise levels well below the WHO threshold value of 55dB
LAeq,16h. Details of the noise exposure of the new dwellings are shown in Appendix 12.1.
12.6.4. Internal noise levels in living rooms and bedrooms will be reduced partly by the effect of the Site noise barrier but also by careful choice of internal layout of the dwellings. For those dwellings on the western edge of the Proposed Development, the internal layout will be such as to place non-habitable spaces such as kitchens, bathrooms, hallways etc. on the noise exposed façade. Primary bedrooms will be located on the non-exposed façade and the number of bedrooms on the exposed façade will be minimised by this design. The size of windows on noise exposed facades will be minimised. Where appropriate, alternative means of ventilation will be provided to habitable rooms on noise exposed facades to avoid the necessity of opening windows for ventilation purposes.
12.6.5. As indicated in paragraph 12.5.25 above, conventional thermal double glazing will be sufficient to provide a satisfactory internal noise environment and provided the windows have a weighted noise reduction index (Rw) of at least 32dB the predicted internal noise levels will be achieved. The majority of conventional 4/16/4 double glazing systems meet this specification.
12.6.6. Dwellings further away from the railway line will be afforded additional noise protection by the bulk of the intervening houses
Environmental Statement 396
12.6.7. The combination of Site noise barrier, Site layout and internal arrangement will ensure that internal and external noise levels will be satisfactory for future residents.
12.7. Residual Effects
Construction Stage
12.7.1. Noise and vibration levels as a result of the construction works will be minimised by implementing the noise control methods advised in BS5228:2009 through the CEMP and where appropriate, by planning conditions.
12.7.2. With such control it is expected that the significance of the effects from the construction phase of the Proposed Development would be below the BS5228 Construction Noise Threshold Values such that the residual effect is likely to be no greater than Moderate Adverse.
Road traffic
12.7.3. The effect of road traffic noise attributable to the operation of the Proposed Development is likely to be negligible for the majority of existing receptors. A limited number of residential properties near to the Application site access at Longcliffe Road will be subject to a Moderate Adverse effect in the long term and a small number of existing receptors in Sandcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive will be subject to a Minor Adverse impact in the long term.
Operational noise
With appropriate noise control for the proposed local centre land uses, including optimising the layout and defining target noise limits, any noise effects on existing or future sensitive receptors will be avoided or minimised. Thus, operational noise from the Proposed Development is considered to be Negligible in effect.
Table 12.12 - Summary of Effects
Potential Effect Significance (Pre- Mitigation Significance of mitigation) Measures residual effect
Construction Stage
Environmental Statement 397
Construction Moderate/Major Measures within Minor/Moderate noise and adverse proposed CEMP adverse vibration and planning conditions
Operational Phase
Operational Minor/Moderate None available Minor/Moderate traffic noise adverse adverse
Operational noise Potential minor Optimisation of Negligible from local centre adverse the layout and target noise limits
12.8. Impact Interactions
12.8.1. The nature of the noise effects is that they are potentially modified by changes in other aspects of the development, such as road traffic management. The traffic modelling has been factored into the noise and vibration assessment.
12.8.2. The results of the noise and vibration assessment have been considered within the built heritage assessment as changes in the noise level can potentially effect the setting of heritage assets. .
12.9. Summary
12.9.1. The majority of this development site is exposed to noise levels well within the recommendations of the WHO Guidance and BS8233:2014, and noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission. A proportion of the site adjacent to the main railway line is exposed to noise levels slightly above these criteria but may be effectively controlled by the use of a suitable acoustic barrier, attention to Site layout and internal design of the new dwellings. In order to ensure internal noise levels at night comply with the recommendations of WHO and BS8233:2014 a dwelling of conventional construction fitted with double glazed windows will afford sufficient protection.
Environmental Statement 398
12.9.2. The noise impact from development generated road traffic is likely to be no more than slight in the majority of off-site locations but close to the entrances to the Proposed Development there will be some adverse impacts although in the long term these are categorised as no worse than Moderate Adverse and only affect a small number of existing properties.
12.10. References National Planning Policy Framework March 2012. Department for Communities and Local Government.
National Planning Practice Guidance – Noise 2014. Department for Communities and Local Government.
Noise Policy Statement for England 2010. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
BS7445:1991 Description and measurement of environmental noise. British Standards Institution.
BS5228:2009 Part 1 Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. British Standards Institution.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7. Department for Transport.
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). 1988. Department of Transport.
Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN). 1995. Department of Transport.
Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA 1974).
IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment 2014.
World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise 1999.
BS8233:2014 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings. British Standards Institution.
BS6472:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting. British Standards Institution.
Environmental Statement 399
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 400
13.0 Air Quality Assessment
13.1. Introduction
13.1.1. This Chapter of the Environmental Statement presents the approach and findings of the assessment of potential impacts on air quality. The Chapter presents the methodology followed and provides a review of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and surrounding area. The Chapter also presents the results of the assessment of the effect of the Proposed Development on the baseline in order to determine the anticipated magnitude and significance of effect. Mitigation measures are presented and discussed to prevent, reduce or off-set any significant adverse effects, as a result of the Proposed Development during construction and operational phases to an acceptable level (i.e. the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed).
13.1.2. This assessment has been undertaken by Wardell Armstrong LLP (WALLP).
13.2. Assessment Methodology
Consultation and Scope of Assessment
13.2.1. On 8th October 2014, a proposed air quality assessment methodology was provided to South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) for review.
13.2.2. On 26th November 2014, SKDC provided comments and recommendations regarding the extent of the air quality assessment methodology. These are summarised as follows:
A construction phase dust assessment to be undertaken in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance publication: ‘Guidance on the Assessment of the Dust from Demolition and Construction’ (February 2014);
Potential impacts of construction traffic, within the Grantham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), to be assessed qualitatively;
An operational phase assessment to be undertaken using air dispersion modelling. The dispersion modelling is to be carried out in accordance with the Defra technical
guidance publication: ‘TG(09) and make use of the NOx to NO2 conversion tools and methods available from Defra;
Environmental Statement 401
Background NO2 concentrations to be obtained from the diffusion tube situated off Hobart Road (SKDC ref. SK34), located approximately 1km from the Application Site. Background pollutant concentrations for receptors within the Grantham AQMA to be considered;
Predictions of NOx / NO2 to be verified against the most recent local monitoring information available;
Predictions of PM10 to be based on the most up to date emission factors available from Defra;
Relevant receptor locations to be considered within the air quality assessment, including on-site receptors and existing receptors situated along roads predicted to experience traffic flow impacts;
Predicted pollutant concentrations to be compared with the Air Quality Standards and Objectives and the impact significance criteria provided by IAQM. Any conflicts with the SKDC Action Plan to be described and appropriate mitigation measures presented;
Sensitivity testing to be carried out for the operational phase assessment to allow
consideration of potential implications for reduced future trends in NO2 concentrations; and
Impacts of proposed additional emission sources, such as CHP/Biomass/Energy centres, to be assessed.
13.2.3. On 20th May 2015, WALLP requested the most up-to-date Air Quality Action Plan from SKDC. However, no response has been received, to date.
Study Area
13.2.4. The study area for the air quality assessment is shown in Figure 13.1 and comprises the following:
Proposed Application Site and immediate surrounding area;
Receptors along major links on the road network within Manthorpe (including the A607 High Road / Manthorpe Road); and
Environmental Statement 402
Receptors along major links on the road network within Grantham (including the Grantham AQMA).
Assessment Process
Construction Phase Assessment – Dust and Fine Particulate Emissions
13.2.5. To assess the impacts associated with dust and PM10 releases, during the construction phase of the Development, an assessment has been undertaken in accordance with Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance1.
Step 1
13.2.6. Step 1 of the assessment is to screen the requirement for a more detailed assessment. The guidance states that an assessment will normally be required where there are existing human sensitive receptors within 350m of the site boundary and/or within 50m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance(s).
13.2.7. With regards to ecological receptors, the guidance states that an assessment will normally be required where there are existing ecological receptors within 50m of the site boundary and/or within 50m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance(s).
13.2.8. As there are existing sensitive receptors locations within 350m of the site boundary, it is necessary to proceed to Step 2 of the assessment.
Step 2
13.2.9. Step 2 of the assessment determines the potential risk of dust arising in sufficient quantities to cause annoyance, or health impacts and/or ecological impacts. The risk is related to:
The activities being undertaken (demolition, number of vehicles and plant etc.);
The duration of these activities;
1 Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction‘, February 2014
Environmental Statement 403
The size of the site;
The meteorological conditions (wind speed, direction and rainfall);
The proximity of receptors to the activity;
The adequacy of the mitigation measures applied to reduce or eliminate dust; and
The sensitivity of receptors to dust.
13.2.10. The risk of dust effects is determined using four risk categories: negligible, low, medium and high risk. A site is allocated to a risk category based upon two factors:
Step 2A – the scale and nature of the works which determines the potential dust emission magnitude as small, medium or large; and
Step 2B – the sensitivity of the area to dust impacts which is defined as low, medium or high sensitivity.
13.2.11. These two factors are combined in Step 2C to determine the risk of dust impacts with no mitigation applied.
13.2.12. The risk of dust effects is determined for four types of construction phase activities, with each activity being considered separately. If a construction phase activity is not taking place on the site, then it does not need to be assessed. The four types of activities to be considered are:
Demolition;
Earthworks;
Construction; and
Trackout.
Step 3
13.2.13. Step 3 of the assessment determines the site-specific mitigation required for each of the activities, based on the risk determined in Step 2. Mitigation measures are detailed in
Environmental Statement 404
guidance published by the Greater London Authority2, recommended for use outside the capital by LAQM guidance, and the IAQM guidance document itself. If the risk is classed as negligible, no mitigation measures beyond those required by legislation will be necessary.
Step 4
13.2.14. Step 4 assesses the residual effect, with mitigation measures in place, to determine whether or not these are significant.
Existing Dust Sensitive Receptors – Human Receptors
13.2.15. The closest sensitive human receptor locations to the Proposed Development are residential in nature, and are detailed in Table 13.1.
Table 13.1: Existing Dust Sensitive Receptors (Human)
Direction from the Approximate Distance from the Site Receptor Site Boundary (metres)
Manthorpe Grange off High Road South West 75m
Existing Properties along High 220m at closest point (i.e. Cameron East/South East Road and Low Road House)
Existing Properties along Ryedale 5m at closest point Close, Rosedale Drive and South Borrowdale Way (i.e. Rosedale Drive)
Existing Properties along Langdale 10m at the closest point (i.e. 29 Crescent, Wensleydale Close and South/South West Wensleydale Close) Longcliffe Road
Existing Dust Sensitive Receptors – Ecological Receptors
13.2.16. There are no designated statutory ecological receptors located within 50m of the site boundary and/or within 50m of the route(s) used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance(s). Therefore it is not necessary to consider them in this assessment.
2 Greater London Authority (2006) The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition: Best Practice Guidance
Environmental Statement 405
Significance Criteria
13.2.17. The Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance document ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction’ (February 2014) details criteria for
assessing the sensitivity of an area to dust soiling effects and health effects of PM10, as summarised in Tables 13.2 to 13.4 below.
13.2.18. The guidance then goes on to provide significance criteria for the classification of dust effects from demolition, earthworks, construction activities and trackout, as summarised in Tables 13.5 to 13.7 below.
Sensitivity of Area – Human Receptors
13.2.19. The sensitivity categories for different types of receptors, to both dust soiling effects and the
health effects of PM10, are described in Table 13.2.
Table 13.2: Sensitivity Categories for Human Receptors
Sensitivity Dust Soiling Effects Health effects of PM Category 10
Users can reasonably expect to enjoy a high Locations where members of the level of amenity; public are exposed over a period of Appearance, aesthetics or value of a time relevant to the air quality property would be diminished; objective for PM10; High Examples include dwellings, museums and Examples include residential other culturally important collections, properties, hospitals, schools, and medium and long term car parks and car residential care homes. show rooms. Users would expect to enjoy a reasonable Locations where people are exposed level of amenity, but would not reasonably as workers and exposure is over a expect to enjoy the same level of amenity as period of time relevant to the air
in their home; quality objective for PM10; The appearance, aesthetics or value of their Examples include office and shop Medium property could be diminished; workers but will generally not include People or property wouldn’t reasonably be workers occupationally exposed to expected to be continuously present or PM10. regularly for extended periods of time; Examples include parks and places of work. Enjoyment of amenity would not Locations where human exposure is reasonably be expected; transient; Low Property would not be diminished in Examples include public footpaths, appearance, aesthetics or value; playing fields, parks and shopping
Environmental Statement 406
Table 13.2: Sensitivity Categories for Human Receptors
Sensitivity Dust Soiling Effects Health effects of PM Category 10 People or property would expected to be streets. present only for limited periods of time; Examples include playing fields, farmland (unless commercially-sensitive horticultural), footpaths, short term car parks and roads.
13.2.20. Based upon the category of receptor sensitivity, the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects is determined using the criteria detailed in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3: Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property
Distance from Source (m) Receptor Number of Sensitivity Receptors <20m <50m <100m <350m
>100 High High Medium Low
High 10-100 High Medium Low Low
1-10 Medium Low Low Low
Medium >1 Medium Low Low Low
Low >1 Low Low Low Low
13.2.21. Based upon the category of receptor sensitivity, the sensitivity of the area to the health
effects of PM10 is determined using the criteria detailed in Table 13.4.
Table 13.4: Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts
Distance from Source (m) Annual Mean Receptor Number of PM Sensitivity 10 Receptors Concentration <20m <50m <100m <200m <350m
>100 High High High Medium Low High >32µg/m3 10-100 High High Medium Low Low
Environmental Statement 407
Table 13.4: Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts
1-10 High Medium Low Low Low
>100 High High Medium Low Low
28-32µg/m3 10-100 High Medium Low Low Low
1-10 High Medium Low Low Low
>100 High Medium Low Low Low
10-100 High Medium Low Low Low 24-28µg/m3 Mediu 1-10 Low Low Low Low m
Mediu >100 Low Low Low Low m
<24µg/m3 10-100 Low Low Low Low Low
1-10 Low Low Low Low Low
- >10 High Medium Low Low Low Medium Mediu - 1-10 Low Low Low Low m
Low - >1 Low Low Low Low Low
Risk of Dust Impacts
13.2.22. The risk of dust being generated by demolition activities at the Application Site is determined using the criteria in Table 13.5.
Environmental Statement 408
Table 13.5: Risk of Dust Impacts - Demolition
Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk
Medium High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible
13.2.23. The risk of dust being generated by earthworks and construction activities at the Application Site is determined using the criteria in Table 13.6.
Table 13.6: Risk of Dust Impacts – Earthworks and Construction
Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
13.2.24. The risk of dust being generated by trackout from the Application Site is determined using the criteria in Table 13.7.
Table 13.7: Risk of Dust Impacts - Trackout
Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of Area Large Medium Small
High High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk
Medium Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible
Low Low Risk Low Risk Negligible
Environmental Statement 409
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
Modelling of Road Traffic Emissions
13.2.25. The air dispersion model ADMS-Roads (CERC, Version 3.2) has been used to assess the potential impact of development generated traffic on air quality at existing receptor
locations. The air dispersion model has been used to predict NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, as these are the pollutants considered most likely to exceed the air quality objectives.
13.2.26. Air dispersion modelling has been carried out to estimate pollutant concentrations, due to road traffic emissions, for two assessment years as follows:
The Base and Verification Year (2013): This is the most recent year for which traffic flow information, local monitored pollution data and meteorological data are available; and
13.2.27. An Opening / Future Year (2024): This is the year in which the development will be completed and is considered both without the development and with the development in place.
Road Traffic Data
13.2.28. The ADMS-Roads model requires the input of detailed road traffic flow information for those routes which will be affected by the Proposed Development. The traffic flow information used in the assessment is included in Appendix 13.1.
13.2.29. Detailed traffic flow information, for use in the ADMS-Roads air dispersion model, has been provided by Odyssey Markides, the appointed transport consultant.
13.2.30. Traffic flow information has been provided by the transport consultant as 24 hour Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows, with HGV percentages, for the following links:
A607 High Road;
A607 Manthorpe Road;
A607 Brooke Street;
Environmental Statement 410
A607 Barrowby Road;
A52 Barrowby Road;
A52 Sankt Augustin Way;
A52 Wharf Road;
A52 London Road;
B1174;
Belton Lane;
Longcliffe Road;
Rosedale Drive;
Low Road;
Sandcliffe Road;
The Avenue; and
Castlegate.
13.2.31. The traffic flow information includes consideration of committed developments. The full list of committed developments can be found in Chapter 11, Paragraph 11.2.20 – 11.2.22.
13.2.32. Air quality modelling has been carried out to predict pollutant concentrations, due to road traffic emissions, for a total of three scenarios:
Scenario 1: 2013 Base and Verification Year;
Scenario 2: 2024 Opening/Future Year (Without Development);
Scenario 3: 2024 Opening/Future Year (With Development);
Meteorological Data
13.2.33. The meteorological data used in the air quality modelling has been obtained from ADM Limited. Meteorological data has been obtained for 2013 from the Cranwell recording station. This is located approximately 17km from the Application Site and is considered to be the most representative of the conditions at the Application Site.
Environmental Statement 411
13.2.34. The meteorological data provides hourly wind speed and direction information. The 2013 wind rose for the Cranwell meteorological recording station is included in Appendix 13.2.
Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.2.35. Twenty four representative existing sensitive receptor locations (identified as ESR 1 to ESR 24) have been considered in the air quality assessment. Details of these are given in Table 13.8 and their locations are shown on the drawing in Figure 13.1.
Table 13.8: Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
Grid Reference Receptor Address Receptor Type Easting Northing
ESR 1 Belton House 492851 339415 Residential
The Old Vicarage, ESR 2 Residential Manthorpe Road 492054 337909
ESR 3 175 Manthorpe Road 491898 337478 Residential
ESR 4 30 Longcliffe Road 491673 337615 Residential
ESR 5 34 Rosedale Drive 491697 337828 Residential
ESR 6 43 Longcliffe Road 491456 337680 Residential
ESR 7 109 Longcliffe Road 491209 338099 Residential
ESR 8 40 Sandcliffe Road 491329 337373 Residential
ESR 9 133 Manthorpe Road 491626 337155 Residential
ESR 10 17 Langford Gardens 491567 336996 Residential
Grantham and District ESR 11 Hospital Hospital 491509 336810
ESR 12† 79 Manthorpe Road 491521 336524 Residential
ESR 13† 40 Manthorpe Road 491522 336412 Residential
The King’s School, ESR 14† School Grantham 491489 336306
Environmental Statement 412
Table 13.8: Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
Grid Reference Receptor Address Receptor Type Easting Northing
ESR 15† 77 Brook Street 491470 336317 Residential
16 Premier Court, Brook ESR 16† Residential Street 491248 336184
ESR 17† 28 Barrowby Road 491069 336212 Residential
ESR 18 12 Priory Court 491083 335775 Residential
ESR 19† 1 Norton Street 491380 335501 Residential
ESR 20† 10a Wharf Road 491488 335502 Residential
ESR 21† Leonard Audus House 491566 335526 Residential
ESR 22† 51 London Road 491672 335403 Residential
ESR 23† 22a High Street 491414 335820 Residential
ESR 24 61 Castlegate 491528 335939 Residential
† Receptors located within AQMA
Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.2.36. Three proposed sensitive receptor locations (identified as PR 1 – PR 3) have been selected along the site boundary to represent the proposed residential areas closest to High Road, Rosedale Drive, Longcliffe Road and Belton Lane.
13.2.37. Pollutant concentrations at the proposed receptor locations have been predicted for scenario 3 (as detailed in paragraph 13.2.32). It is only necessary to consider the ‘with development’ scenario for the proposed receptor locations as they will not experience any ‘without development’ conditions. It is not therefore necessary to consider the changes in pollutant concentrations at the proposed receptor locations.
13.2.38. Details of the proposed sensitive receptor locations are given in Table 13.9. All proposed receptors are shown on the drawing in Figure 13.1.
Environmental Statement 413
Table 13.9: Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations
Grid Reference Receptor Location Receptor Type Easting Northing
Location considered representative of proposed PR 1 491780 337875 Residential residential properties closest to High Road and Rosedale Drive
Location considered representative of proposed PR 2 491268 338155 Residential residential properties closest to Longcliffe Road
Location considered representative of proposed PR 3 491252 338466 Residential residential properties closest to Belton Lane
Model Validation, Verification and Adjustment
13.2.39. Defra Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, 2009, (LAQM.TG(09)) recognises that model validation generally refers to detailed studies that have been carried out by the model supplier or a regulatory agency. The ADMS-Roads model has been validated by the supplier CERC.
13.2.40. Model verification is used to check the performance of the model at a local level. The verification of the ADMS-Roads model is achieved by modelling concentrations at existing monitoring locations in the vicinity of the Proposed Development and comparing the modelled concentration with the measured concentration.
13.2.41. SKDC operates a number of roadside NO2 monitoring locations within Grantham and Manthorpe. These locations, where considered representative and detailed traffic information was also available, have been used in the model verification procedure. As no PM10 monitoring locations are situated along roads where traffic flow data was available, model verification could not be carried out for modelled PM10 concentrations.
Environmental Statement 414
13.2.42. NO2 measurement data from 2013 has been used for the purposes of verification, as this is the most recent year for which bias-adjusted data is available. The monitoring data that has been used in the model verification procedure is detailed in Table 13.10.
Table 13.10: NO2 Monitoring Locations Used for Model Verification
Grid Reference 2013 Bias Adjusted NO SKDC 2 Location Annual Average Reference Easting Northing Concentration* (µg/m3)
SK4 / SK32 / Jet Garage 491496 336354 46.0 SK33
SK12 / SK54 / King’s School 491472 336315 33.3 SK57
SK16 Manthorpe 492069 337874 20.2
SK19 / SK41 / AQM 491387 335523 26.5 SK42
SK35 / SK36 / Bus Station 491492 335505 41.4 SK37
SK38 / SK39 / Wharf Road 491402 335501 44.7 SK40
SK47 / SK48 / High Street 491460 335715 36.7 SK49
SK50 / SK51 / London Road 491602 335485 36.2 SK52
SK58 / Opposite Jet SK59 / 491515 336389 44.2 Garage SK60
Environmental Statement 415
Table 13.10: NO2 Monitoring Locations Used for Model Verification
Grid Reference 2013 Bias Adjusted NO SKDC 2 Location Annual Average Reference Easting Northing Concentration* (µg/m3)
SK62 / Black Dog 491330 336022 33.3 SK63
SK68 / Taste of China 491734 335196 30.2 SK69
Automatic Wharf Road, 491387 335523 25.5 Analyser Grantham
* Obtained from the SKDC 2014 Air Quality Progress Report
13.2.43. LAQM.TG(09) states that ‘where large differences in an adjustment factor are determined for different types of location, undertaking separate adjustments within a model area should be considered in order to avoid over or under-predicting at the different types of location’.
13.2.44. It is considered that the Grantham AQMA is affected by localised factors such as heavy traffic congestion and a lack of dispersion due to street canyon effects. Therefore, it was considered that the derivation of two separate adjustment factors, i.e. one factor derived from diffusion tubes located inside the AQMA and one factor derived from diffusion tubes located outside the AQMA, would be the most appropriate method to ensure greater accuracy of the modelling results and to prevent potential over-prediction at receptor locations outside of the AQMA.
13.2.45. Further details of the model verification are included in Appendix 13.3.
Environmental Statement 416
Significance Criteria
Assessing the Impact of the Proposed Development
13.2.46. Guidance has been prepared by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and the IAQM in relation to the assessment of the air quality impacts of proposed developments and their significance3.
13.2.47. The impact of a development is usually assessed at specific receptors, and takes into account both the long term background concentrations, in relation to the relevant Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL) at these receptors, and the change with the development in place.
13.2.48. The impact descriptors for individual receptors are detailed in Tables 13.11 and 13.12. These apply to pollutants where the annual mean objective is 40µg/m3 (i.e. NO2 and PM10) and 25µg/m3 (i.e. PM2.5).
Table 13.11: Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors (NO2 and PM10)
Percentage Change in Concentration Long Term Relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)* Average Concentration at 2-5% 6-10% 1% >10% Receptor in (i.e. between (i.e. between (i.e. less than (i.e. more than Assessment Year* 0.6 and 2.2 and 0.6µg/m3) 4.2µg/m3) 2.2µg/m3) 4.2µg/m3)
75% or less of AQAL (i.e. less than Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate 30µg/m3)
76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate (i.e. 30-38µg/m3)
95-102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial (i.e. 38-42µg/m3)
3 Environmental Protection UK and the Institute of Air Quality Management, Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, May 2015
Environmental Statement 417
Table 13.11: Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors (NO2 and PM10)
Percentage Change in Concentration Long Term Relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)* Average Concentration at 2-5% 6-10% 1% >10% Receptor in (i.e. between (i.e. between (i.e. less than (i.e. more than Assessment Year* 0.6 and 2.2 and 0.6µg/m3) 4.2µg/m3) 2.2µg/m3) 4.2µg/m3)
103-109% of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial (i.e. 42-44µg/m3)
110% or more of AQAL Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial (i.e. above 44µg/m3)
*Percentage pollutant concentrations have been rounded to whole numbers, to make it easier to assess the impact. As specified in the guidance changes of 0% (i.e. less than 0.5%) should be described as Negligible
Table 13.12: Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors (PM2.5)
Percentage Change in Concentration Long Term Relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)* Average Concentration at 2-5% 6-10% 1% >10% Receptor in (i.e. between (i.e. between (i.e. less than (i.e. more than Assessment Year* 0.38 and 1.38and 0.38µg/m3) 2.63µg/m3) 1.38µg/m3) 2.63µg/m3)
75% or less of AQAL (i.e. less than Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate 18.75µg/m3)
76-94% of AQAL (i.e. 18.75- Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate 23.50µg/m3)
Environmental Statement 418
Table 13.12: Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors (PM2.5)
Percentage Change in Concentration Long Term Relative to Air Quality Assessment Level (AQAL)* Average Concentration at 2-5% 6-10% 1% >10% Receptor in (i.e. between (i.e. between (i.e. less than (i.e. more than Assessment Year* 0.38 and 1.38and 0.38µg/m3) 2.63µg/m3) 1.38µg/m3) 2.63µg/m3)
95-102% of AQAL (i.e. 23.50- Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial 25.50µg/m3)
103-109% of AQAL (i.e. 25.50- Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial 27.25µg/m3)
110% or more of AQAL Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial (i.e. above 27.25µg/m3)
*Percentage pollutant concentrations have been rounded to whole numbers, to make it easier to assess the impact. As specified in the guidance, changes of 0% (i.e. less than 0.5%) should be described as Negligible
13.2.49. Determining the Significance of Effects
13.2.50. Impacts on air quality, whether adverse or beneficial, will have an effect on human health that can be judged as either ‘significant’ or ‘not significant’.
13.2.51. Once the impact of the proposed development has been assessed for the individual impacts, the overall significance is determined using professional judgement. This takes into account a number of factors such as:
The existing and future air quality in the absence of the development;
The extent of the current and future population exposure to the impacts; and
Environmental Statement 419
The influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impacts.
13.2.52. A discussion of the impacts of the Proposed Development, and their significance, is included in sections 13.5 and 13.6 of this report.
Assumptions and Limitations
13.2.53. A construction works programme and associated traffic flows has been included within the COCP and has been submitted as part of the Environmental Statement. However, in regards to the impacts of the construction phase associated with air quality, paragraph 11.5.2 of the Transport ES Chapter states the following:
13.2.54. During peak construction activity on site the total peak period vehicle movements will be substantially less than the level of traffic generated by the Proposed Development when it is fully operational. In fact, the daily traffic generation associated with construction is lower than the peak hour traffic generation of the fully occupied site. It is also intended that construction traffic does not pass through the residential area to the south of the Proposed Development and that the Belton Lane access is used for construction purposes. The impact of the construction process on vehicle numbers will therefore be less than the impact of the fully operational development.
13.2.55. Therefore, it is considered that the temporary impacts associated with emissions from generated traffic, during the construction phase of the Proposed Development, will be less than the impacts associated with the operational phase.
13.3. Planning Policy / Legislative Context
South Kesteven District Council Planning Policy
Local Development Framework for South Kesteven: Core Strategy
13.3.1. The SKDC Core Strategy details the following vision for the district: ‘A successful rural district supported by excellent social and transport infrastructure. Grantham will have developed as a key economic centre not only in Lincolnshire but also sub regionally. This will have been achieved in ways which ensures a good quality of life, health and wellbeing for everyone as well as celebrating the distinctiveness of the districts countryside and
Environmental Statement 420
heritage’. It is suggested that this will be achieved in several ways, including balancing the development needs of the District with the protection with the protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment as well as addressing and mitigating any negative effects of development on the built and natural environment.
13.3.2. Objective 1 (Sustainable Settlements) of the Core Strategy is as follows: ‘To facilitate a pattern of development that meets the diverse economic, social and cultural needs of the whole community and contributes to the environment in a way which ensures that development does not compromise the quality of life of future or existing generations.
13.3.3. Objective 11 (Protection and Enhancement of Environment) of the Core Strategy is as follows: To protect and enhance the high quality built and natural environment through ensuring the conservation and enhancement, sensitive use and management of the District’s natural, historic and cultural assets.
13.3.4. Objective 12 (Protection and Enhancement of Environment) of the Core Strategy is as follows: To protect and promote the enhancement, sensitive use and management of the District's natural, historic and cultural assets and the built environment through good design that respects important local characteristics.
National Planning Policy
13.3.5. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)4, introduced in March 2012, requires that planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of AQMAs and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in AQMAs is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
13.3.6. The NPPF states: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
4 Department for Communities and Local Government. National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012
Environmental Statement 421
Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.
13.3.7. The NPPF also states: Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
13.3.8. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)5, updated in March 2014, states that whether or not air quality is relevant to a planning decision will depend on the Proposed Development and its location. Concerns could arise if the development is likely to generate air quality impacts in an area where air quality is known to be poor. They could also arise where the development is likely to adversely impact upon the implementation of air quality strategies and action plans and/or, in particular, lead to a breach of EU legislation (including that applicable to wildlife).
13.3.9. The PPG states that: When deciding whether air quality is relevant to a planning application, considerations could include whether the development would:
Significantly affect traffic in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site or further afield. This could be by generating or increasing traffic congestion; significantly changing traffic volumes, vehicle speed or both; or significantly altering the traffic composition on local roads. Other matters to consider include whether the proposal involves the development of a bus station, coach or lorry park; adds to turnover in a large car park; or result in construction sites that would generate large Heavy Goods Vehicle flows over a period of a year or more.
Introduce new point sources of air pollution. This could include furnaces which require prior notification to local authorities; or extraction systems (including chimneys) which require approval under pollution control legislation or biomass boilers or biomass-fuelled CHP plant; centralised boilers or CHP plant burning other
5 Department for Communities and Local Government. Planning Practice Guidance: Air Quality, March 2014
Environmental Statement 422
fuels within or close to an air quality management area or introduce relevant combustion within a Smoke Control Area;
Expose people to existing sources of air pollutants. This could be by building new homes, workplaces or other development in places with poor air quality;
Give rise to potentially unacceptable impact (such as dust) during construction for nearby sensitive locations; and
Affect biodiversity. In particular, is it likely to result in deposition or concentration of pollutants that significantly affect a European-designated wildlife site, and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, or does it otherwise affect biodiversity, particularly designated wildlife sites.
13.3.10. Where a Proposed Development is anticipated to give rise to concerns about air quality an appropriate assessment needs to be carried out. Where the assessment concludes that the Proposed Development (including mitigation) will not lead to an unacceptable risk from air pollution, prevent sustained compliance with national objectives or fail to comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, then the local authority should proceed to decision with appropriate planning conditions and/or obligations.
Air Quality Standards and Objectives
13.3.11. The UK National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) was published in March 1997 fulfilling the requirement under the Environment Act 1995 for a national air quality strategy setting out policies for the management of ambient air quality. The Strategy sets objectives for eight pollutants, which may potentially occur in the UK at levels that give cause for concern. These pollutants are: nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, fine
particulates (PM10), benzene, 1, 3–butadiene and ozone.
13.3.12. The Strategy was reviewed and a Review Report6 and Consultation Document7 were published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1999. A revised version (The Air Quality Strategy (AQS) 2000), which supersedes the 1997 Strategy,
6 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, January 1999. Report on the Review of the National Air Quality Strategy, Proposals to amend the Strategy. 7 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1999, The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A consultation document.
Environmental Statement 423
was published in January 2000. The AQS 2000 strengthens the objectives for a number of pollutants with the exception of that for particulates, which was replaced with the less stringent EU limit value.
13.3.13. The objectives for the eight pollutants in the Strategy provide the basis of the implementation of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. The Air Quality Strategy objectives for each pollutant, except ozone, were given statutory status in the Air Quality (England) Regulations, 20008 and Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 20029 (‘the Regulations’).
13.3.14. In 2007 the Air Quality Strategy was revised. This latest strategy10 does not remove any of the objectives set out in the previous strategy or its addendum, apart from replacing the
provisional 2010 objective for PM10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the
exposure reduction approach for PM2.5. The UK Government and the Devolved Administrations have now therefore set new national air quality objectives for particulate
matter smaller than 2.5µm diameter (PM2.5).
13.3.15. The current Air Quality Standards and Objectives, as set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010, are detailed in 13.15.
Table 13.15: Air Quality (England) Regulations 2010. Summary of Current Air Quality Standards and Objectives
Pollutant Averaging Period Limit Value
350µg/m3 not to be exceeded more 1 hour than 24 times a calendar year Sulphur Dioxide 125µg/m3 not to be exceeded more 24 hour mean than 3 times a calendar year 200µg/m3 not to be exceeded more Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour than 18 times a calendar year
8 The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000. SI No 928. 9 The Air Quality (Amendment) Regulations 2002. 10 Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. July 2007.
Environmental Statement 424
Calendar year 40µg/m3
Benzene Calendar year 5µg/m3
Lead Calendar year 0.5µg/m3
50µg/m3 not to be exceeded more 24 hour mean than 35 times a calendar year PM10 Calendar year 40µg/m3
3 st PM2.5 Calendar year 25µg/m to be met by 1 January 2015
Carbon Maximum 8 hour daily mean 10mg/m3 Monoxide Target Value for the total Date by which target value should be Pollutant content in the PM fraction 10 met averaged over a calendar year
Arsenic 6ng/m3 31st December 2012
Cadmium 5ng/m3 31st December 2012
Nickel 20ng/m3 31st December 2012
Benzo(a)pyrene 1ng/m3 31st December 2012
13.3.16. Examples of where the Air Quality Objectives should/should not apply are included in Table 13.16. This table is taken from Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance document LAQM.TG (09)11.
Table 13.16: Examples of where the Air Quality Objectives should/should not apply
Averaging Objectives Should Generally Objectives Should Apply at: Period Not Apply at:
Annual Mean All background locations where Building facades of offices or members of the public might be other places of work where regularly exposed. members of the public do not Building facades of residential have regular access.
11 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995: Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance 2009
Environmental Statement 425
Table 13.16: Examples of where the Air Quality Objectives should/should not apply
Averaging Objectives Should Generally Objectives Should Apply at: Period Not Apply at: properties, schools, hospitals, libraries, Hotels, unless people live there etc. as their permanent residence. Gardens of residential properties. Kerbside sites or any other location where public exposure is expected to be short term.
24 hour All locations where the annual mean Kerbside sites, or any other (daily) mean objectives would apply together with location where public exposure Hotels. is expected to be short term. 1 8 hour mean Gardens of residential properties
1 hour mean All locations where the annual mean Kerbside sites where public and 24 and 8-hour objectives apply. would not be expected to have Kerbside sites (e.g. pavements of busy regular access. shopping streets). Those parts of car parks and railway stations etc. which are not fully enclosed where members of the public might reasonably be expected to spend one hour or more. Any outdoor locations to which the public might reasonably be expected to spend one hour or longer.
15 min mean All locations where members of the public might reasonably be exposed for a period of 15 minutes or longer.
1: Such locations should represent parts of the garden where relevant public exposure is likely, for example where there is seating or play areas. It is unlikely that relevant public exposure would occur at the extremities of the garden boundary, or in front gardens although local judgement should always be applied.
Environmental Statement 426
Local Air Quality Management Guidance
13.3.17. The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, July 2007, establishes the framework for air quality improvements based on measures agreed at a national and international level. However, despite these measures, it is recognised that areas of poor air quality will remain and these should be dealt with through the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process using locally implemented measures.
13.3.18. LAQM legislation in the Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities to conduct periodic review and assessments of air quality. These aim to identify all those areas where the air quality objectives are being, or are likely to be, exceeded.
13.3.19. All authorities were required to undertake the first stage of review and assessment which concluded in September 2001. In those areas identified as having the potential to experience elevated levels of pollutants the authority was required to undertake a more detailed second stage review comprising two steps; Updating and Screening Assessments (USA) and Detailed Assessments. Where it was predicted that one or more of the air quality objectives would be unlikely to be met by the end of 2005, local authorities were required to proceed to a third stage and, if necessary, declare Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and make action plans for improvements in air quality, in pursuit of the national air quality objectives.
13.3.20. In 2007 an Evaluation Report was commissioned by the UK Government and Devolved Administrations. Following this review revised LAQM Technical Guidance was published in February 2009 comprising LAQM.TG(09). This revised guidance draws together previous guidance and the recommendations of the 2007 Evaluation Report. LAQM.TG(09) maintains the phased approach to review and assessment established in previous technical guidance. The intention is that local authorities should only undertake a level of assessment that is commensurate with the risk of an air quality objective being exceeded.
13.3.21. Where a Detailed Assessment indicates that any of the air quality objectives are likely to be exceeded, an AQMA must be designated, or the geographical boundaries of an existing AQMA must be modified. An AQMA should only be declared if a Detailed Assessment has been undertaken.
Environmental Statement 427
13.3.22. Once an AQMA has been declared the local authority is required to undertake a Further Assessment within 12 months of the declaration.
13.3.23. A rolling programme of Updating and Screening Assessment and Detailed Assessment based on a three-year cycle has been laid down by Defra in its LAQM.TG(09) policy guidance. This is supplemented by Progress Reports which are intended to maintain continuity in the LAQM process between the three-yearly cycle of Review and Assessment. Progress Reports are required in the years when the authority is not completing an Updating and Screening Assessment.
South Kesteven District Council Local Air Quality Management Review and Assessment
13.3.24. South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) undertook the First Round of Review and Assessment between 1998 and 2002. Four Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), for
NO2, were subsequently declared in Grantham. Three of the AQMAs, located within close proximity to the A1, were revoked in 2003 following the Updating and Screening Assessment. This left only one AQMA within Grantham, situated within the town centre.
13.3.25. Detailed Assessments, completed in 2010 and 2011, identified the need to expand the Grantham town centre AQMA, incorporating Brooke Street and Manthorpe Road. In 2013, following the 2012 Updating and Screening Assessment, the Grantham town centre AQMA was extended further by incorporating High Street and London Road.
13.3.26. The Proposed Development is located approximately 1.2km to the north east of the existing Grantham AQMA boundary, at the closest point.
13.3.27. The 2014 Progress Report considers monitoring data collected since the previous air quality report. This details one roadside automatic monitoring site in operation in Grantham (Wharf Road) as well as 37 diffusion tube sites, in background and roadside locations.
13.3.28. The closest roadside NO2 monitoring location to the Proposed Development is situated off High Road, Manthorpe (SKDC ref. SK16), located adjacent to the Proposed Development
3 site. This location recorded an annual mean NO2 concentration of 20.2µg/m in 2013. The
closest urban background NO2 monitoring location to the Proposed Development is situated off Hobart Road, Manthorpe (SKDC ref. SK34), located approximately 1km from
Environmental Statement 428
the Proposed Development site. This location recorded an annual mean NO2 concentration of 13.4µg/m3 in 2013
European Union Directive
13.3.29. EU Directive 2008/50/EC12 came into force in June 2008 and was transposed into legislation in England on 11th June 2010 as ‘The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010’13. This EU Directive consolidates existing air quality legislation and provides a new regulatory
framework for PM2.5.
13.4. Baseline Conditions
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
Background Pollutant Concentrations
13.4.1. The ADMS assessment needs to take into account background concentrations upon which the local, traffic derived pollution is superimposed. The data may be derived through long term ambient measurements at background sites, remote from immediate sources of air pollution, or alternatively from the default concentration maps which have been provided for use by Defra with the revised LAQM.TG(09) guidance.
13.4.2. SKDC currently operates an urban background NO2 diffusion tube off Hobart Road, Manthorpe, situated approximately 1km from the Proposed Development site. This monitoring location is considered to be representative of conditions at the Proposed Development. The 2013 background NO2 concentration has therefore been obtained from this diffusion tube. The background NOx concentration has been obtained from the 2011- based Defra default concentration maps for the appropriate 1km x 1km grid square.
13.4.3. In the absence of representative background PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring data being available for the local area, background PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations have also been obtained from the 2011-based Defra default concentration maps for the appropriate 1km x 1km grid squares. These are available on the Defra website (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review- and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html). As the receptors are located in more than
12 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe. 13 Statutory Instruments 2010 No. 1001 The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.
Environmental Statement 429
one grid square, the highest PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations has been used to provide a robust assessment.
13.4.4. A sensitivity analysis has also been undertaken to address current evidence, which suggests that background NO2 concentrations are not decreasing in accordance with expected reductions. 2013 background concentrations and emission factors have, therefore, been applied to the 2024 opening / future year scenarios. This is considered to be a conservative approach, as it is likely that there will be some improvement in background air quality, and emission factors, before 2024.
13.4.5. The background pollutant concentrations used in the assessment are detailed in Table 13.17.
Table 13.17: Background Air Pollutant Concentrations. NO2 Concentrations Obtained
from the Hobart Road Diffusion tube. NOx and PM10 Concentrations Obtained from 2011-Based Defra Default Concentration Maps
Pollutant Concentrations (µg/m3) Pollutant 2013 2024
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 18.72 13.92
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 13.40 10.24
Particulates (PM10) 16.89 15.62
Particulates (PM2.5) 11.63 10.39
Modelled Baseline Concentrations
13.4.6. The baseline assessment (i.e. scenarios 1 and 2) has been carried out for the twenty four
existing sensitive receptors considered (i.e. ESR 1 to ESR 24). The corrected NO2 and
uncorrected PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are detailed in Table 13.18 and are also included in Appendix 13.4.
Environmental Statement 430
Table 13.18: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2013 and 2024 ‘Without Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3)
NO * (Corrected) PM (Uncorrected) PM (Uncorrected) Receptor 2 10 2.5 Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 1: 2013 2: 2024 1: 2013 2: 2024 1: 2013 2: 2024
ESR 1 13.93 10.48 16.91 15.63 11.65 10.40
ESR 2 17.63 12.03 17.07 15.79 11.75 10.49
ESR 3 19.07 12.98 17.10 15.82 11.77 10.50
ESR 4 15.06 11.04 16.97 15.69 11.68 10.43
ESR 5 14.04 10.54 16.92 15.64 11.65 10.41
ESR 6 15.03 11.01 16.96 15.69 11.68 10.43
ESR 7 13.87 10.47 16.91 15.64 11.65 10.40
ESR 8 14.67 10.75 16.94 15.67 11.67 10.42
ESR 9 20.93 13.52 17.18 15.88 11.82 10.53
ESR 10 21.96 13.98 17.28 15.99 11.88 10.59
ESR 11 18.70 12.53 17.12 15.84 11.78 10.51
ESR 12† 33.47 19.72 17.36 16.05 11.94 10.63
ESR 13† 34.31 19.80 17.49 16.19 12.01 10.70
ESR 14† 44.66 24.76 17.67 16.31 12.14 10.77
ESR 15† 40.78 22.65 17.55 16.21 12.06 10.71
ESR 16† 52.12 28.59 17.86 16.49 12.26 10.87
ESR 17† 48.44 21.62 17.62 16.13 12.12 10.67
ESR 18 24.26 14.26 17.40 16.06 11.95 10.63
ESR 19† 32.04 17.32 17.38 16.07 11.94 10.63
ESR 20† 31.70 17.44 17.35 16.04 11.92 10.62
Environmental Statement 431
Table 13.18: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2013 and 2024 ‘Without Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3)
NO * (Corrected) PM (Uncorrected) PM (Uncorrected) Receptor 2 10 2.5 Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 1: 2013 2: 2024 1: 2013 2: 2024 1: 2013 2: 2024
ESR 21† 46.33 25.45 17.66 16.32 12.13 10.77
ESR 22† 32.83 18.15 17.43 16.17 11.97 10.69
ESR 23† 31.89 18.54 17.33 16.05 11.92 10.62
ESR 24 17.82 12.33 17.08 15.80 11.75 10.49
* NO concentrations obtained by inputting predicted NO concentrations into the NO to NO calculator14 in 2 x x 2 accordance with LAQM.TG(09). † Receptors located within the AQMA
Scenario 1: 2013 Base Year
13.4.7. The 2013 baseline annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 13.87 to 52.12µg/m3 for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for NO2 (40µg/m3) is predicted to occur at ESR 14 - 17 and 21.
13.4.8. ESR 14 – 17 and 21 are located within the existing boundary of the Grantham AQMA. Roadside monitoring data within the AQMA measured annual mean NO2 concentrations of up to 46µg/m3 in 2013. Therefore, elevated NO2 concentrations would be expected at these existing receptor locations.
13.4.9. The 2013 baseline annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 16.91 to 17.86µg/m3 for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM10 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
14 NOx to NO2 Calculator, Defra Local Air Quality Management web pages (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/tools-monitoring-data/no- calculator.html)
Environmental Statement 432
13.4.10. The 2013 baseline annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 11.65 to 12.26µg/m³ for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM2.5 (25µg/m³) is not predicted to occur.
Scenario 2: 2024 Opening/ Future Year ‘Without Development’
13.4.11. The 2024 ‘without development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 10.47 to 28.59µg/m3 for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for NO2 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.4.12. The 2024 ‘without development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 15.63 to 16.49µg/m3 for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM10 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.4.13. The 2024 ‘without development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 10.40 to 10.87µg/m³ for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM2.5 (25µg/m³) is not predicted to occur.
Summary
13.4.14. The baseline assessment indicates that all predicted NO2 concentrations, at the existing receptor locations considered, will experience concentrations lower than the 40µg/m3 objective level in 2013, with the exceptions of ESR 14-17 and 21. However, ESR 14 – 17 and 21 are located within the existing boundary of the Grantham AQMA and elevated NO2 concentrations would be expected at these existing receptor locations.
13.4.15. For 2024, the baseline assessment indicates a considerable reduction in predicted NO2 concentrations for all existing receptor locations. No exceedances of the 40µg/m3 objective level are predicted.
13.4.16. Similar trends are indicated for predicted concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5, however no exceedances of the respective objective levels (40µg/m3 and 25µg/m3) are predicted for either
Environmental Statement 433
2013 or 2024. The improvement in baseline air quality between 2013 and 2024 reflects improvements in background pollution concentrations and vehicle emission factors.
13.5. Potential Effects
Construction Phase Assessment – Dust and Fine Particulate Emissions
13.5.1. The main potential dust impacts (unmitigated, except measures required by legislation) associated with the construction phase of works are as follows:
Earthworks which may be required prior to the construction phase of works and can include:
Cleaning the Site;
Stripping and stockpiling of topsoil and subsoil;
Ground excavation;
Bringing in, tipping and spreading materials on Site;
Stockpiling materials;
Levelling ground;
Trenching;
Road construction;
Vehicle movements on Site roads; and
Windblown materials from Site.
Construction which will involve the handling of materials, disposal of waste materials, movement of construction vehicles and the construction of individual building access roads, temporary roads, the car parking areas and the buildings themselves; and
Trackout which is the transport of dust and dirt by vehicles travelling from a construction site on to the public road network. This may occur through the spillage of dusty materials onto road surfaces or through the transportation of dirt by vehicles that have travelled over muddy ground on the Site. This dust and dirt can then be deposited and re-suspended by other vehicles.
Environmental Statement 434
Step 2A
13.5.2. Step 2A of the construction phase dust assessment has defined the potential dust emission magnitude from earthworks, construction activities and trackout in the absence of site specific mitigation. Examples of the criteria for the dust emission classes are detailed in the IAQM guidance.
Step 2B
13.5.3. Step 2B of the construction phase dust assessment has defined the sensitivity of the area, taking into account the significance criteria detailed in Tables 13.2 to 13.4, to earthworks, construction activities and trackout. The sensitivity of the area to each activity is assessed for potential dust soiling and human health.
13.5.4. For earthworks and construction activities, there are between 10 and 100 residential properties within 20m of where these activities may take place.
13.5.5. For trackout, there are between 10 and 100 residential receptor locations within 20m of where trackout may occur, for a distance of up to 500m from the site entrance when travelling south along High Road.
Step 2C
13.5.6. Step 2C of the construction phase dust assessment has defined the risk of impacts from each activity. The dust emission magnitude is combined with the sensitivity of the surrounding area.
13.5.7. The risk of dust impacts from each activity, with no mitigation in place, has been assessed in accordance with the criteria detailed in Tables 13.5 to 13.7.
13.5.8. Table 13.19 details the results of Step 2 of the construction phase assessment for human receptors.
Table 13.19: Construction Phase Dust Assessment (Step 2) – Human Receptors
Environmental Statement 435
Activity
Demolition Earthworks Construction Trackout
Step 2A
Dust Emission N/A Largea Largeb Mediumc Magnitude
Step 2B
Sensitivity of Closest N/A High High High Receptors
Sensitivity of Area to N/A High High High Dust Soiling Effects
Sensitivity of Area to N/A Lowd Lowd Lowd Human Health Effects
Step 2C
Dust Risk: Dust Soiling N/A High High Medium
Dust Risk: Human N/A Low Low Low Health
a. Total site area estimated to be more than 10,000m2 b. Total building volume estimated to be more than 100,000m3 c. Estimation of the dust emission class based on the assumption of 10-50 HGV movements per day
d. Background annual mean PM10 concentration taken from the LAQM Defra default concentration maps, for the appropriate grid squares, for 2014.
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.5.9. The impact assessment has been carried out for the twenty four representative existing sensitive receptor locations (i.e. ESR 1 to ESR 24). Table 13.20 shows the changes in pollutant concentrations for the 2024 opening/future year, for both the ‘Without
Development’ and ‘With Development’ scenarios. The corrected NO2 and uncorrected PM10
and PM2.5 concentrations are included in Appendix 13.4.
Environmental Statement 436
Table 13.20: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor Development NO2* PM10 PM2.5 (Corrected) (Uncorrected) (Uncorrected)
Without development 10.48 15.63 10.40
ESR 1 With development 10.48 15.63 10.48
Percentage Change +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 12.03 15.79 10.49
ESR 2 With development 12.00 15.79 10.48
Percentage Change - 0.03µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 - 0.01µg/m3
Without development 12.98 15.82 10.50
ESR 3 With development 13.15 15.84 10.51
Percentage Change + 0.17µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 11.04 15.69 10.43
ESR 4 With development 11.24 15.71 10.44
Percentage Change +0.20 µg/m3 +0.02 µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 10.54 15.64 10.41
ESR 5 With development 10.58 15.65 10.41
Percentage Change + 0.04µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 11.01 15.69 10.43
ESR 6 With development 11.26 15.71 10.44
Percentage Change + 0.25µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 10.47 15.64 10.40
ESR 7 With development 10.78 15.67 10.42
Percentage Change + 0.31µg/m3 + 0.03µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3
Without development 10.75 15.67 10.42 ESR 8 With development 10.90 15.68 10.42
Environmental Statement 437
Table 13.20: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor Development NO2* PM10 PM2.5 (Corrected) (Uncorrected) (Uncorrected)
Percentage Change + 0.15µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 13.52 15.88 10.53
ESR 9 With development 13.71 15.89 10.54
Percentage Change + 0.19µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 13.98 15.99 10.59
ESR 10 With development 14.11 16.00 10.60
Percentage Change + 0.13µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 12.53 15.84 10.51
ESR 11 With development 12.60 15.85 10.51
Percentage Change + 0.07µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 19.72 16.05 10.63
ESR 12† With development 19.88 16.06 10.63
Percentage Change +0.16 µg/m3 +0.01 µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 19.80 16.19 10.70
ESR 13† With development 20.01 16.20 10.71
Percentage Change + 0.21µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 24.76 16.31 10.77
ESR 14† With development 24.84 16.32 10.77
Percentage Change + 0.08µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 22.65 16.21 10.71
ESR 15† With development 22.72 16.21 10.71
Percentage Change + 0.07µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
ESR 16† Without development 28.59 16.49 10.87
Environmental Statement 438
Table 13.20: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor Development NO2* PM10 PM2.5 (Corrected) (Uncorrected) (Uncorrected)
With development 28.22 16.47 10.86
Percentage Change - 0.37µg/m3 - 0.02µg/m3 - 0.01µg/m3
Without development 21.62 16.13 10.67
ESR 17† With development 21.50 16.13 10.67
Percentage Change - 0.12µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 14.26 16.06 10.63
ESR 18 With development 14.26 16.07 10.63
Percentage Change +/- 0.00µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 17.32 16.07 10.63
ESR 19† With development 17.31 16.07 10.63
Percentage Change - 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 17.44 16.04 10.62
ESR 20† With development 17.44 16.04 10.62
Percentage Change +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 25.45 16.32 10.77
ESR 21† With development 25.43 16.32 10.77
Percentage Change - 0.02µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 18.15 16.17 10.69
ESR 22† With development 18.14 16.17 10.69
Percentage Change - 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 18.54 16.05 10.62
ESR 23† With development 18.52 16.05 10.62
Percentage Change - 0.02µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Environmental Statement 439
Table 13.20: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor Development NO2* PM10 PM2.5 (Corrected) (Uncorrected) (Uncorrected)
Without development 12.33 15.80 10.49
ESR 24† With development 12.29 15.80 10.49
Percentage Change - 0.04µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
* NO2 concentrations obtained by inputting predicted NOx concentrations into the NOx to NO2 calculator in accordance with LAQM.TG(09). † Receptors located within the AQMA
Scenario 3: 2024 Opening/Future Year ‘With Development’
13.5.10. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 10.48 to 28.22µg/m3 for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for NO2 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.5.11. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 15.63 to 16.47µg/m3 for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM10 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.5.12. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 10.41 to 10.86µg/m³ for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM2.5 (25µg/m³) is not predicted to occur.
Assessment of Impact
13.5.13. Using the descriptors detailed in Tables 13.11 and 13.12, the impact of the Proposed Development can be assessed at each of the twenty four existing sensitive receptors considered.
Environmental Statement 440
13.5.14. The impact on NO2 concentrations in 2024 is detailed in Table 13.21.
13.5.15. The impact on PM10 concentrations in 2024 is detailed in Table 13.22
Table 13.22: Impact on PM10 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 0% <75% No Change
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 0% <75% No Change
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 9 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 10 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 11 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 12† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 13† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 14† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 15† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 16† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 17† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 18 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 19† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 20† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 21† 0% <75% No Change
Environmental Statement 441
Table 13.22: Impact on PM10 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 22† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 23† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 24 0% <75% No Change
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible † Receptors located within the AQMA
13.5.16. The impact on PM2.5 concentrations in 2024 is detailed in Table 13.23.
Table 13.23: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 0% <75% No Change
ESR 2 0% <75% No Change
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 0% <75% No Change
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 9 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 10 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 11 0% <75% No Change
ESR 12† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 13† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
Environmental Statement 442
Table 13.23: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 14† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 15† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 16† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 17† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 18 0% <75% No Change
ESR 19† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 20† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 21† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 22† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 23† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 24 0% <75% No Change
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible † Receptors located within the AQMA
Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.5.17. Air pollutant concentrations have also been modelled for three proposed receptor locations,
for the 2024 ‘with development’ scenario, as detailed in Table 13.24. The corrected NO2 and
uncorrected PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are included in Appendix 13.4.
Table 13.24: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘With Development’ Scenario
3 Proposed Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m ) Receptor PM NO₂ (Corrected) PM (Uncorrected) 2.5 Location 10 (Uncorrected)
PR 1 10.56 15.65 10.41
Environmental Statement 443
Table 13.24: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘With Development’ Scenario
3 Proposed Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m ) Receptor PM NO₂ (Corrected) PM (Uncorrected) 2.5 Location 10 (Uncorrected)
PR 2 10.47 15.64 10.40
PR 3 10.71 15.65 10.41
Scenario 3: 2024 Opening/Future Year ‘With Development’
13.5.18. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 10.47 to 10.71µg/m3, at the three proposed sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for NO2 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.5.19. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 15.64 to 15.65µg/m3, at the three proposed sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM10 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.5.20. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 10.40 to 10.41µg/m3, at the three proposed sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM2.5 (25µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
Summary
13.5.21. The impact assessment predicts no adverse impacts for any of the existing receptor locations considered with the Proposed Development in place.
13.5.22. All predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, at the existing and proposed receptor locations considered, are predicted to experience concentrations considerably lower than the respective objective levels (i.e. 40µg/m3 and 25µg/m3) in 2024.
13.5.23. Operational Phase Assessment – Emissions from Peterborough to Newark Railway Line
Environmental Statement 444
13.5.24. The East Coast Main Railway Line is located adjacent to the western boundary of the Application Site.
13.5.25. The Defra technical guidance document LAQM.TG(09) provides guidance on the railway lines and associated infrastructure which experience heavy diesel traffic and may therefore need to be assessed in detail. A detailed assessment may be required, for these specific railway lines, where background NO2 concentrations are higher than 25µg/m3 and there is existing or proposed relevant exposure within 30m of the edge of the railway line.
13.5.26. The section of railway line adjacent to the Application Site is not included within LAQM.TG(09). In addition, background NO2 concentrations for this area are below 25µg/m3.
13.5.27. Rail emissions, as a result of the railway line, are not therefore considered to be significant at the Proposed Development.
Operational Phase Assessment – Emissions from Proposed CHP/Biomass/Energy Centres
13.5.28. An assessment was not undertaken for these sources as the Proposed Development will not include a CHP unit or biomass / energy centre.
13.6. Sensitivity Analysis
Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.6.1. Current evidence suggests that NO2 background concentrations are not decreasing in accordance with expected reductions. At present, there is uncertainty about how background NO2 concentrations will change in future years.
13.6.2. To provide a robust assessment a sensitivity analysis has been undertaken for the opening/future year scenarios. This analysis assumes that there will be no improvement in background air quality between 2013 and 2024. 2013 background pollutant concentrations and 2013 emission factors have therefore been applied to the 2024 opening/future year scenarios.
Environmental Statement 445
13.6.3. The results of the sensitivity analysis, undertaken for the twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations are detailed in Table 13.25 and detailed in Appendix 13.5.
Table 13.25: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor PM Development PM10 2.5 NO2* (Uncorrected (Uncorrected (Corrected) ) )
Without development 14.03 16.91 11.65
ESR 1 With development 14.03 16.91 11.65
Percentage Change +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 18.93 17.11 11.78
ESR 2 With development 18.64 17.11 11.77
Percentage Change - 0.29µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 - 0.01µg/m3
Without development 21.07 17.16 11.80
ESR 3 With development 21.10 17.17 11.81
Percentage Change + 0.03µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 15.38 16.98 11.69
ESR 4 With development 15.84 17.00 11.70
Percentage Change + 0.46µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 14.22 16.92 11.65
ESR 5 With development 14.36 16.93 11.66
Percentage Change + 0.14µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 15.27 16.97 11.68
ESR 6 With development 15.75 17.00 11.70
Percentage Change + 0.48µg/m3 + 0.03µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3
Environmental Statement 446
Table 13.25: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor PM Development PM10 2.5 NO2* (Uncorrected (Uncorrected (Corrected) ) )
Without development 13.98 16.91 11.65
ESR 7 With development 14.71 16.95 11.67
Percentage Change + 0.73µg/m3 + 0.04µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3
Without development 14.73 16.95 11.67
ESR 8 With development 15.01 16.96 11.68
Percentage Change + 0.28µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 22.16 17.22 11.84
ESR 9 With development 22.25 17.24 11.85
Percentage Change + 0.09µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 23.98 17.36 11.92
ESR 10 With development 23.89 17.37 11.93
Percentage Change - 0.09µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 19.98 17.17 11.81
ESR 11 With development 19.91 17.17 11.81
Percentage Change - 0.07µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 38.03 17.46 12.00
ESR 12† With development 37.62 17.47 12.01
Percentage Change - 0.41µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 38.70 17.60 12.08 ESR 13† With development 38.42 17.62 12.09
Environmental Statement 447
Table 13.25: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor PM Development PM10 2.5 NO2* (Uncorrected (Uncorrected (Corrected) ) )
Percentage Change - 0.28µg/m3 + 0.02µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3
Without development 49.33 17.81 12.23
ESR 14† With development 49.65 17.81 12.23
Percentage Change + 0.32µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 45.00 17.67 12.14
ESR 15† With development 45.30 17.68 12.14
Percentage Change + 0.30µg/m3 + 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 58.05 18.06 12.39
ESR 16† With development 57.45 18.03 12.38
Percentage Change - 0.60µg/m3 - 0.03µg/m3 - 0.01µg/m3
Without development 43.15 17.58 12.08
ESR 17† With development 42.79 17.57 12.08
Percentage Change - 0.36µg/m3 - 0.01µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 24.58 17.44 11.97
ESR 18 With development 24.58 17.44 11.97
Percentage Change +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 38.07 17.48 12.01
ESR 19† With development 38.05 17.48 12.01
Percentage Change - 0.02µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
ESR 20† Without development 38.27 17.45 11.99
Environmental Statement 448
Table 13.25: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘Without Development’ and ‘With Development’ Scenarios
Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m3) Level of Receptor PM Development PM10 2.5 NO2* (Uncorrected (Uncorrected (Corrected) ) )
With development 38.24 17.45 11.99
Percentage Change - 0.03µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 59.93 17.88 12.29
ESR 21† With development 59.85 17.88 12.29
Percentage Change - 0.08µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 43.98 17.61 12.10
ESR 22† With development 43.87 17.61 12.10
Percentage Change - 0.11µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 36.80 17.45 11.99
ESR 23† With development 36.63 17.45 11.99
Percentage Change - 0.17µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
Without development 18.91 17.12 11.78
ESR 24 With development 18.70 17.12 11.78
Percentage Change - 0.21µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3 +/- 0.00µg/m3
* NO2 concentrations obtained by inputting predicted NOx concentrations into the
NOx to NO2 calculatorin accordance with LAQM.TG(09). † Receptors located within the AQMA
Assessment of Impact
13.6.4. Using the descriptors detailed in Tables 13.11 and 13.12, the impact of the Proposed Development can be assessed at each of the twenty four existing sensitive receptors considered.
Environmental Statement 449
13.6.5. The impact on NO2 concentrations in 2024 is detailed in Table 13.26.
Table 13.26: Impact on NO2 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 0% <75% No Change
ESR 2 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 7 2-5% <75% Negligible
ESR 8 1% <75% Negligible
ESR 9 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 10 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 11 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 12† 1% 94% Negligible
ESR 13† 1% 96% Slight Beneficial
ESR 14† 1% 124% Moderate Adverse
ESR 15† 1% 113% Moderate Adverse
ESR 16† 2-5% 114% Slight Beneficial
ESR 17† 1% 107% Moderate Beneficial
ESR 18 0% <75% No Change
ESR 19† <0.5%* 95% Negligible
ESR 20† <0.5% 95% No Change
ESR 21† <0.5%* 150% Negligible
ESR 22† <0.5%* 110% Negligible
Environmental Statement 450
Table 13.26: Impact on NO2 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 23† <0.5%* 92% Negligible
ESR 24 1% <75% Negligible
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible † Receptors located within the AQMA
13.6.6. The impact on PM10 concentrations in 2024 is detailed in Table 13.27.
Table 13.27: Impact on PM10 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 0% <75% No Change
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 9 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 10 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 11 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 12† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 13† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 14† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
Environmental Statement 451
Table 13.27: Impact on PM10 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 15† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 16† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 17† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 18 0% <75% No Change
ESR 19† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 20† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 21† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 22† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 23† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 24 0% <75% No Change
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible † Receptors located within the AQMA
13.6.7. The impact on PM2.5 concentrations in 2024 is detailed in Table 13.28.
Table 13.28: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 1 0% <75% No Change
ESR 2 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 3 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 4 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 5 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 6 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
Environmental Statement 452
Table 13.28: Impact on PM2.5 Concentrations in 2024
Proposed Annual Mean Receptor Percentage Change Concentration in Impact Location Relation to AQAL
ESR 7 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 8 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 9 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 10 <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 11 0% <75% No Change
ESR 12† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 13† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 14† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 15† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 16† <0.5%* <75% Negligible
ESR 17† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 18 0% <75% No Change
ESR 19† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 20† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 21† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 22† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 23† 0% <75% No Change
ESR 24 0% <75% No Change
* Changes of less than 0.5% should be described as negligible † Receptors located within the AQMA
Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.6.8. Air pollutant concentrations have also been modelled for three proposed receptor locations,
for the 2024 ‘with development’ scenario, as detailed in Table 13.23. The corrected NO2 and
uncorrected PM10 concentrations are included in Appendix 13.5.
Environmental Statement 453
Table 13.23: Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 Concentrations at Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations for 2024 ‘With Development’ Scenario
3 Proposed Calculated Annual Mean Concentrations (µg/m ) Receptor PM NO₂ (Corrected) PM (Uncorrected) 2.5 Location 10 (Uncorrected)
PR 1 14.27 16.92 11.66
PR 2 13.97 16.91 11.65
PR 3 14.45 16.93 11.66
Scenario 3: 2024 Opening/Future Year ‘With Development’
13.6.9. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean NO2 concentrations (corrected) are predicted to range from 13.97 to 14.45µg/m3, at the three proposed sensitive receptor locations
3 considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for NO2 (40µg/m ) is not predicted to occur.
13.6.10. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean PM10 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 16.91 to 16.93µg/m3, at the three proposed sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM10 (40µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
13.6.11. The 2024 ‘with development’ annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (uncorrected) are predicted to range from 11.65 to 11.66µg/m3, at the three proposed sensitive receptor locations considered. Exceedance of the annual mean objective concentration for PM2.5 (25µg/m3) is not predicted to occur.
Summary
13.6.12. All predicted NO2 concentrations, at the existing receptor locations considered, are predicted to experience concentrations lower than the 40µg/m3 objective level in 2024, with the exceptions of ESR 15, 16 and 17 and ESR 21 and 22However, ESR 15 – 17, 21 and 22 are located within the existing boundary of the Grantham AQMA and elevated NO2 concentrations would be expected at these existing receptor locations.
Environmental Statement 454
13.6.13. All predicted PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations for all of the existing sensitive receptors considered, both within and outside of the Grantham AQMA are well below the respective objective levels (i.e. 40µg/m³ for PM10 and 25µg/m3 for PM2.5 in 2024.
13.6.14. Predicted NO2 concentrations, at the proposed receptor locations considered, are all considerably lower than the 40µg/m3 objective level in 2024. All predicted PM10, in 2024, concentrations are considerably lower than the 40µg/m3 objective level and all predicted PM2.5 concentrations are considerably lower than the 25µg/m3 objective level.
Assessment of Significance
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
13.6.15. The significance of the overall effects of the Proposed Development has been assessed. This assessment is based on professional judgement and takes into account a number of factors, including:
Baseline NO2 concentrations in the 2013 Base Year within the existing Grantham AQMA are elevated, with exceedance of the annual mean objective at five of the
sensitive receptor locations considered. All baseline NO2 concentrations outside of the Grantham AQMA are below 30µg/m³;
In relation to the future baseline (i.e. the 2024 Opening/Future Year ‘without
development’ scenario), the results of the air quality assessment predict that all NO2 concentrations will be below 30µg/m3. However this is considered to be a ‘best case’
scenario. The sensitivity analysis, which represents a ‘worst case’ scenario, predicts NO2 concentrations above 30µg/m3 at all receptors, with exceedances of the annual mean
objective at six of the twenty four receptor locations considered within the AQMA. NO2 concentrations at all of the receptor locations outside of the AQMA are predicted to be below 30µg/m3.
The true future baseline situation is considered to lie somewhere between these two
sets of results and therefore elevated NO2 concentrations are considered likely at receptors located within the AQMA in 2024, without the development in place;
Environmental Statement 455
3 Baseline and future baseline PM10 concentrations are below 30µg/m (i.e. 75% of the AQLA) at all twenty four existing sensitive receptors, in both the air quality assessment and sensitivity analysis;
Baseline and future baseline PM2.5 concentrations are below 18.75µg/m³ (i.e. 75% of the AQAL) at all twenty four existing sensitive receptors, in both the air quality assessment and sensitivity analysis;
The air quality assessment predicts a negligible or no impact on NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at all twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations;
For NO2, receptors located within the Grantham AQMA, the sensitivity analysis predicts a moderate adverse impact at two of the sensitive receptor locations considered. Slight beneficial and moderate beneficial impacts are predicted at three of the existing sensitive receptor locations considered and the remaining six receptors are considered to have a negligible impact. For receptors located outside of the AQMA, the sensitivity analysis predicts a negligible or no impact at the twelve sensitive receptors;
It is considered that the true impact lies somewhere between these two sets of results, and therefore it is likely that there will be more than a negligible impact at some of the receptors considered within the AQMA, as a result of the Proposed Development. However for receptors located outside of the AQMA it is likely that there will be a negligible impact or no impact even when a worst case scenario is considered;
The sensitivity analysis predicts a negligible or no impact on PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at all twenty four sensitive receptor locations;
The air quality assessment and sensitivity analysis predicts NO2, PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations within 75% of the respective AQALs (i.e. 30µg/m³ for NO2 and PM10 and
18.75µg/m³ for PM2.5), at all three proposed sensitive receptor locations.
13.6.16. Based on these factors, the effect of the Proposed Development on human health is considered to be ‘significant’. As a result, mitigation measures will need to be recommended to minimise these effects.
Environmental Statement 456
13.7. Proposed Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase Assessment – Dust and Fine Particulate Emissions
Step 3
13.7.1. During the construction phase, good practice measures will substantially reduce the potential for nuisance dust and particulate matter to be generated.
13.7.2. Step 2C of the construction phase assessment identified that:
The risk of dust soiling effects is classed as high for earthworks and construction activities and medium for trackout; and
The risk of human health effects is classed as low for earthworks, construction activities and for trackout.
13.7.3. This assumes that no mitigation measures are applied, except those required by legislation. Site specific mitigation measures do not need to be recommended if the risk category is negligible.
13.7.4. The risk of dust soiling and human health effects is not negligible for any of the activities and therefore site specific measures will need to be implemented to ensure dust effects from these activities will be ‘not significant’.
13.7.5. A best practice dust mitigation plan, to form part of the Code of Construction Practice, will be written and implemented for the Proposed Development. This will set out the practical measures that could be incorporated as part of a best working practice scheme. This will take into account the recommendations included within the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM), which may include but are not limited to:
Re-vegetate earthworks and exposed areas / soil stockpiles to stabilise surfaces as soon as practicable;
Ensure sand and other aggregates are stored in bunded areas and are not allowed to dry out, unless this is required for a particular process, in which case ensure that appropriate additional control measures are in place;
Environmental Statement 457
Ensure bulk cement and other fine materials are delivered in enclosed tankers and stored in silos and suitable emission control systems to prevent escape of material and overfilling during delivery;
Use water-assisted dust sweeper(s) on the access and local roads, to remove, as necessary, any material tracked out of site. This may require the sweeper being continuously in use; and
Ensure vehicles entering and leaving sites are covered to prevent escape of materials during transport.
Erect solid barriers to Site boundary whenever possible;
Plan Site layout – machinery and dust generating activities should be located away from sensitive receptors;
Hard surface Site haul roads where possible;
No idling vehicles on Site;
Minimise movement of construction traffic around the Site; and
Minimise dust generating activities, using water as a dust suppressant where appropriate.
13.7.6. It is recognised that the final design solutions will be developed with the input of the Contractor to maximise construction efficiencies, to use modern construction techniques and sustainable materials, and to incorporate the particular skills and experience offered by the successful contractor.
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.7.7. An air quality assessment and sensitivity analysis have been undertaken to consider the potential impact of development-generated vehicles on air quality at twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations, all of which are considered to be moderately sensitive, with the exception of ESR 11 (Grantham and District Hospital). ESR 11 is considered to be highly sensitive.
Environmental Statement 458
13.7.8. The air quality assessment predicts that there will be a negligible impact, or no change, on
concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5, at all twenty four of the existing sensitive receptors considered in 2024 with the development in place.
13.7.9. The sensitivity analysis predicts that there will be a moderately adverse impact at two of the existing sensitive receptor locations considered. The sensitivity analysis also predicts a moderately beneficial impact to slight beneficial impact on concentrations of NO2 at three of the twenty four existing sensitive receptors and a ‘negligible/not significant’, or no change, at the remaining receptors. The impacts on PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are predicted to range between negligible and no impact. This presents a conservative approach in assuming that there will be no improvement in air quality associated with reduced background concentrations and improved emission factors.
13.7.10. Exceedance of the NO2 annual mean air quality objective of 40µg/m3 is predicted to occur at six existing sensitive receptors in the sensitivity analysis however exceedances occur within the baseline assessment and therefore the Proposed Development does not lead to an exceedance of any air quality objectives. All other predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are predicted to be below the relevant air quality objectives in all scenarios considered.
13.7.11. It is considered that the Proposed Development will have a significant negative impact on two existing receptors, which are located within the Grantham AQMA. Measures to reduce the impact within the AQMA will, therefore, be required.
Proposed Sensitive Receptor Locations
13.7.12. The air quality assessment and sensitivity analysis have also predicted pollutant concentrations at three proposed receptor locations within the Application Site. These are considered to be representative of the closest parts of the site to High Road, Rosedale Drive, Longcliffe Road and Belton Lane.
13.7.13. Predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are below the annual mean air quality objectives, for 2024, at all three proposed sensitive receptor location considered.
Environmental Statement 459
Recommendations for Mitigation
13.7.14. Based on professional judgement, and a number of factors, the effect of the Proposed Development on human health is considered to be ‘significant’, when a worst case approach is adopted which assumes no improvement in backgrounds or emission factors. Therefore, mitigation measures will be required. Measures to reduce the impact which could be implemented include:
Support for and promotion of car sharing.
Contributions to low emission vehicle refuelling infrastructure.
Provision of incentives for the uptake of low emission vehicles.
Financial support to low emission public transport options.
Improvements to cycling and walking infrastructure.
13.7.15. It is recommended that a scheme for mitigation be discussed and agreed with SKDC at a later stage prior to the onset of construction works.
Air Pollution Damage Cost Calculation
13.7.16. The air pollution damage cost assessment utilises the current DEFRA Emission Factor Toolkit (version 6), available on the Defra website15, to estimate the annual link emissions associated with the additional development generated vehicles over a 5 year period. The calculation attributes a monetary value to those emissions using the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits16 (IGCB) Damage Cost Guidelines.
13.7.17. The total number of 24-hour trips, generated by the Proposed Development, was included within the damage cost assessment to determine the transport related emissions. The total trip generation in a 24 hour period, for both site access points is 1729 vehicles. The average trip length is assumed to be 10km and the average speed as 50kph. The calculation was
undertaken for NOx, which the IGCB gives a central estimated cost (2010) of £955/tonne. It
15 Defra Local Air Quality Management website (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and- assessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html) 16 Defra, Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (https://www.gov.uk/air-quality-economic- analysis#damage-costs-approach)
Environmental Statement 460
is not considered necessary to undertake the damage cost assessment for PM10 and PM2.5 as the impact of both these pollutants was negligible or no change.
13.7.18. The results of the calculation are detailed in Table 13.24. It is considered that the damage cost assessment provides a possible basis for defining the financial commitment required for offsetting potential development-generated emissions.
Table 13.24: Damage Cost Calculation Undertaken Using EFT and by Taking Into Account the IGCB Damage Cost Figures
Step NOx
Emission calculation using EFT spreadsheet 1121.907036kg/yr
Conversion into tonnes per annum 1.211907 tonnes/yr
IGCB air quality damage costs per tonne NOx (Central Estimate): £955
Calculation of air quality damage per year £1,157.37
Calculation of air quality damage over 5 year period £5,786.85
13.7.19. The total damage cost of NOx for the Proposed Development over a five year period is £5786.85. The input and output data for the damage cost calculation can be seen in Figures 13.1 and 13.2, respectively.
Figure 13.1 Damage Cost Calculation Input Data
Environmental Statement 461
Figure 13.2 Damage Cost Calculation Output Data
13.8. Residual Effects
Construction Phase Assessment – Dust and Fine Particulate Emissions
13.8.1. Step 4 of the construction phase dust assessment has been undertaken to determine the significance of the dust effects arising from demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout associated with the Proposed Development.
13.8.2. Good practice measures during the construction phase, such as those detailed in Step 3, will substantially reduce the potential for nuisance dust and particulate matter to be generated and any residual impact will be ‘not significant’.
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
13.8.3. The impact of the operation of the Proposed Development is predicted to be negligible to moderately adverse, when a worst case approach is adopted which assumes no improvement in backgrounds or emission factors.
13.8.4. As adverse impacts are predicted, it is considered that, with implementation of enhanced measures such as those detailed in section 13.8 of this chapter, any residual impact will be ‘not significant’.
13.8.5. Table 13.25 provides a summary of the residual effects associated with the Proposed Development.
Environmental Statement 462
Table 13.25: Summary of the Residual Effects Associated with Proposed Development
Nature of Mitigation / Effect (i.e. Residual Potential Effect Significance Enhancement Permanent or Effects Measures Temporary)
Dust generated during Best practice High to low demolition/ Temporary dust mitigation Not significant risk construction plan phases.
Low emission strategies/ Moderate Emissions of NO incentives with Negligible to 2 beneficial to from development Permanent equal value to slight moderately traffic. that in the beneficial adverse Damage Cost Calculation
Emissions of PM10 from development Permanent Negligible Not applicable Not significant traffic.
Emissions of PM2.5 from development Permanent Negligible Not applicable Not significant traffic.
Emissions from Peterborough to Permanent Negligible Not applicable Not significant Newark Railway Line
13.9. Impact Interactions
13.9.1. The transport assessment interacts with the air quality assessment as emissions from development-generated traffic have the potential to impact upon both existing and proposed sensitive receptor locations. Traffic flow information, as provided by the appointed transport consultant, has been used in the operational phase assessment. A
Environmental Statement 463
Travel Plan will be implemented in order to reduce traffic emissions. The Travel Plan will provide a range of measures designed to reduce reliance on the private car and, therefore, road traffic emissions. These measures will include initiatives to promote walking, cycling and public transport. Information will be provided to residents regarding public transport opportunities, walk and cycle routes and car sharing initiatives. More information on the Travel Plan can be found in the Traffic and Transport ES Chapter and the Transport Assessment that supports the Planning Application.
13.10. Summary
Construction Phase Assessment – Dust and Fine Particulate Emissions
13.10.1. The construction phase assessment has been undertaken to determine the risk and significance of dust effects from earthworks, construction and trackout from the Proposed Development. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the guidance on assessing the impacts of construction phase dust published by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM).
13.10.2. The risk of dust soiling effects is considered to be high for earthworks and construction and medium for trackout. The risk of human health effects is classed as low for earthworks, construction and trackout. Site specific measures to avoid adverse impacts will therefore need to be implemented during the construction phase.
13.10.3. With site specific mitigation measures in place the significance of dust effects for earthworks, construction and trackout are considered to be not significant.
Operational Phase Assessment – Road Traffic Emissions
13.10.4. The air quality assessment and sensitivity analysis have considered air quality at twenty four representative existing sensitive receptor locations, which are all considered to be moderately sensitive with the exception of ESR 11 (Grantham and District Hospital).
13.10.5. The air quality assessment predicts there will be a negligible or no impact on NO2, PM10 and
PM2.5 concentrations at all twenty four of the existing sensitive receptor locations considered. This is however considered to be a ‘best case’ scenario.
Environmental Statement 464
13.10.6. The sensitivity analysis predicts that there will be a moderately adverse impact on NO2 concentrations at two of the existing sensitive receptor locations considered within the AQMA. The remaining receptors located within the AQMA are predicted to experience
negligible to moderately beneficial impacts on NO2 concentrations and all receptors located outside of the AQMA are considered to negligible or no impact as a result of the Proposed
Development. The impacts on PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are predicted to range between negligible to no impact at all twenty four existing sensitive receptor locations considered.
13.10.7. When considering the results of the sensitivity analysis, it should be noted that this presents a conservative approach in that it assumes no improvement in air quality by 2024. In reality, some improvement would be expected before 2024 and therefore the predicted impacts are likely to have been overestimated.
13.10.8. Exceedance of the NO2 annual mean air quality objective of 40µg/m3 is predicted to occur at six existing sensitive receptors in the sensitivity analysis however exceedance are predicted in the baseline assessment and therefore the Proposed Development does not lead to an exceedance of any air quality objectives. All other predicted NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are predicted to be below the relevant air quality objectives in all scenarios considered.
13.10.9. The impact of the operation of the Proposed Development is predicted to range between moderately adverse to moderately beneficial when a worst case approach is adopted which assumes no improvement in backgrounds or emission factors. Without any mitigation measures in place, it is considered that the Proposed Development will have a significant impact on several existing receptors located within the Grantham AQMA. Mitigation measures will, therefore, be required.
13.10.10. A damage cost calculation was carried out in order to provide a possible basis for defining the financial commitment required for offsetting potential development-generated emissions. The total damage cost of NOx for the Proposed Development, over a five year period, is £5786.85.
Environmental Statement 465
13.10.11. It is considered that the implementation of effective mitigation measures, will assist with reducing any potential impacts of the proposed development. It is recommended that a scheme for mitigation be discussed and agreed with SKDC at a later stage prior to the onset of construction works.
Summary
13.10.12. The assessment has demonstrated that the Proposed Development will not lead to an unacceptable risk from air pollution, or to any breach in national objectives, as required by national policy. There are no material reasons in relation to air quality why the Proposed Development should not proceed, subject to appropriate planning conditions.
13.11. Bibliography
13.11.1. The following sources of information have been used in the preparation of this Chapter:
Part IV Environment Act, Chapter 25, Air Quality, 1995;
DEFRA, The UK National Air Quality Strategy, March 1997;
The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;
Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012;
Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Practice Guidance: Air Quality, March 2014;
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(09), February 2009;
Environment Protection UK (EPUK) and Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance: ‘Land Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality’ (May 2015);
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance: ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction’, February 2014;
South Kesteven District Council LAQM Progress Report (2014), November 2014;
Environmental Statement 466
South Kesteven District Council Local Development Framework for South Kesteven: Core Strategy (2010), July 2010;
South Kesteven District Council Air Quality Action Plan (2005), June 2005;
Defra Local Air Quality Management website (http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and- assessment/tools/emissions-factors-toolkit.html) (Accessed June 2015)
Defra, Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits (https://www.gov.uk/air- quality-economic-analysis#damage-costs-approach) (Accessed June 2015)
Meteorological data for 2013 from Cranwell recording station, obtained from ADM Limited; and
Traffic flow information, provided by Odyssey Markides (detailed in Appendix 13.1)
Environmental Statement 467
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 468
14.0 Flood Risk & Hydrology
14.1. Introduction
14.1.1. This chapter, prepared by BWB Consulting Ltd, details the potential receptors and likely effects associated with the Proposed Development.
14.1.2. A detailed project description is included in Chapter 2 of this Environmental Statement, but in summary the proposed development will include 550 new residential dwellings and associated community facilities such as a local Primary school and new local centre.
14.1.3. The construction work will include the construction of the 550 dwellings, school, commercial and community facilities. This will include foundations, associated earthworks, brickwork, glazing and all internal fitments. Externally the development will require the construction of a network of highways together with below ground services bringing electricity, gas, water and telecom services to the Proposed Development.
14.1.4. Foul water drainage will be routed in a below ground drainage network constructed to serve each phase of development that is brought forward. The foul network will discharge to the public foul system at a location near the Manthorpe Mill Pumping station.
14.1.5. This chapter presents the approach and findings of the assessment of water resources in respect of the Proposed Development, (such as surface water discharge quality and quantity) and hydrological issues relating to Flood risk and the water cycle implications thereof. This Chapter presents the scope and methodology followed and provides a review of the baseline conditions in the vicinity of the Application Site and the surrounding area. The Chapter then presents the results of the assessments undertaken on the impact of the Proposed Development on the baseline in order to determine the anticipated magnitude and significance of the effect. Mitigation measures are presented and discussed to minimise the impacts of the Proposed Development during construction and operational phases to an
Environmental Statement 469
acceptable level and subsequent management and maintenance of the water resources regime to be undertaken as part of the Proposed Development.
14.1.6. In its current form, the Application Site is given over to agricultural farmland and is therefore entirely permeable in nature. There are a number of small land drainage features surrounding the Application Site generally conveying runoff away from the Application Site towards the two watercourses on the southern and eastern boundary of the Application Site. Namely the Gonerby Stream and the Running Furrows.
14.1.7. A Flood Risk Assessment and Outline Drainage Strategy for the Application Site has been produced by BWB Consulting Ltd. Identifying and appraising all potential sources of flood risk to the Application Site. The report concludes that the site is not at significant risk of flooding from any source, located within Flood Zone 1.
14.1.8. The surface water drainage strategy has been developed to alleviate any potential risk posed from the increase in impermeable area that the development will pose. Surface water discharge from the development will be restricted through a cascade of ponds and swales via gravity with the final outfall into the Running Furrows.
14.1.9. The attenuation ponds have been designed to provide adequate storage for a 100 year plus climate change event. Recommendations have been made within the Flood Risk Assessment that as part of the development proposals safe overland flow routes are utilised which will direct any exceedance towards the natural outfalls from the Application Site.
14.1.10. Infiltration testing has been undertaken to determine if the shallow soils present would support the construction of a pond to the east of the Running Furrows. Test results summarised that the permeability and drainage characteristics of the soil from sample sites taken was shown to be good.
14.1.11. There are currently two footpath crossings of the Running Furrows indicated on the masterplan, it can be assumed that these would either be free spanning bridge or in a worst case scenario culverted. In this case there is potential for a restriction of
Environmental Statement 470
channel capacity. However these will be designed to the current channel flow capacity in the detailed design process.
14.2. Assessment Methodology
Scope
14.2.1. This chapter assesses the impact of the Proposed Development on flood risk, surface water drainage and water quality within and in close proximity to the Application Site.
14.2.2. The contents of the chapter are predominately based upon a desk top study of the site. However, to aid in the understanding of the Application Site, topography and surface water regime, a site walkover was carried out on 18/09/2014.
Environment Agency
14.2.3. Consultation with the Environment Agency has informed the Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment in terms of identifying and collating data in respect of flood risk arising from the watercourses in the area and other sources. Data provided by the EA includes modelled levels of the Upper Witham and Grantham model (July 2007). This data has been used in FRA and is included in Appendices 5 of the FRA, appendix 14.1 of this report.
Internal Drainage Board
14.2.4. The Internal Drainage Board have been consulted as the Running Furrows lies under their jurisdiction, to confirm design criteria/principles as well as agree the most adequate methodology to evaluate flood risk and surface water management for the technical assessment. The criteria they defined were that the site of the development was allocated the general maximum greenfield run-off rate of 2.1l/s/ha.
14.2.5. Although the Board may consider a higher discharge rate into the watercourse from the Proposed Development, it would need to be proven that there is no increase in the risk of flooding to land/and or property anywhere within the catchment due to
Environmental Statement 471
change, under any return conditions and any conditions in the River Witham into which the Running Furrows discharges.
Anglian Water
14.2.6. Anglian Water have also been consulted and they have provided response in terms of a wastewater services assessment for the Proposed Development. We have been advised that an improvement scheme to upgrade Manthorpe Mill Pumping Station has been designed to cater for all growth in Grantham.
Lincolnshire County Council
14.2.7. Major stakeholders within the Lincolnshire County Council area engage with developers during the application process under the umbrella of a Major Applications Group (MAG) which meets to consider the drainage implications on surface water drainage of proposed development in the area. The proposals have been introduced to the MAG and their suggestions and input have been used to shape the proposed drainage solutions.
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
14.2.8. Impacts in relation to water resources and hydrology will be assessed against the proposed methodology as described below. The definitions have been adapted from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11, Section 2, Part 5 (HA205/08).
Potential Receptors
14.2.9. Firstly, potential receptors will be identified in the water environment and an assessment made according to their sensitivity to environmental change (see Table 14.1). In general, receptors in the water environment include rives and other watercourses, waterbodies such as lakes or reservoirs, groundwater aquifers and estuaries/coastlines. Other receptors from a drainage perspective include the public sewer network, sewage treatment works and pumping stations.
Environmental Statement 472
Table 14.1: Environmental Sensitivity of Receptors
Sensitivity Descriptions
Very High Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very little scale for substitution.
High High importance and rarity, national scale, and limited potential for substitution.
Medium High or medium importance and rarity, regional scale, limited potential for substitution.
Low Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale.
Negligible Very low importance and rarity, local scale
14.2.10. Secondly, the magnitude of an impact upon each receptor could be beneficial or adverse and will be rated from major to negligible, or result in no change (see Table 14.2).
Table 14.2: Magnitude of Impact
Magnitude of Impact Descriptors
Adverse - Loss of resource and/ or quality, severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements. Major Beneficial - Large scale or major improvement of resource quality, extensive restoration or enhancement, major improvement of attribute quality.
Adverse - Loss of resource, but not adversely affecting the integrity. Partial loss of/damage to key characteristics, Moderate features or elements. Beneficial - Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements, improvement to attribute quality.
Adverse - Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to key characteristics, features or elements. Minor Beneficial - Minor benefit to, or addition of key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring.
Environmental Statement 473
Magnitude of Impact Descriptors
Adverse - Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements. Negligible Beneficial - Very minor benefit to, or positive addition of, one or more characteristics, features or elements.
No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; No Change no observable impact in either direction.
14.2.11. The level of significance that a potential impact could have on their receptor is then defined as a combination of the sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of effect. A description of the significance is included as Table 14.3.
Table 14.3: Significance of Effects on Receptor
Significance Descriptors of effect
These effects are generally, but not exclusively, associated Very Large with sites or features of international, national or regional importance that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity.
These beneficial or adverse effects are important Large considerations and are likely to be material in the decision- making process.
These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to have Moderate some influence in the decision-making process.
These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not likely to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative Slight effects of such factors may influence decision-making if they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effects on a particular resource or receptor.
No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, Neutral within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
Environmental Statement 474
14.2.12. The level of significance is determined by considering the magnitude of impact against the sensitivity of the receptor, using a significance matrix as outlined in Table 14.4.
Table 14.4: Significance Matrix
Magnitude of Impact
No Change Negligible Minor Moderate Major
Moderate or Large or Very High Neutral Slight Very Large Large Very Large
Slight or Moderate Large or High Neutral Slight
Moderate or Large Very Large
Neutral or Moderate or Medium Neutral Slight Moderate Slight Large
Sensitivity Neutral or Neutral or Slight or Low Neutral Slight Slight Slight Moderate
Neutral or Neutral or Neutral or Negligible Neutral Slight Slight Slight Slight
Environmental Environmental
14.2.13. This methodology of identifying key receptors, understanding the potential impacts and applying a significance of the impact (either beneficial and adverse) will identify where mitigation is necessary to prevent any detrimental change to the water environment as a result of the development compared to the baseline scenario.
14.2.14. It is considered that impacts of slight or lower significance should not be material in the decision making process and are not significant from an Environmental Impact Assessment perspective.
Environmental Statement 475
Table 14.5: Other Assessment Criteria
Other Assessment Definition Criteria
Short term Occurring in or relating to a relatively short period of time.
Medium term is a period of time which is neither very soon nor very far into the future in contrast to short and long term. Medium term
Long term Occurring over or relating to a long period of time
Assumptions & Limitation
14.2.1. It is currently an assumed that the upgrade of Manthorpe Mill pumping Station will be undertaken as planned. The current strategy is for the Proposed Development to connect into the network at manhole reference number 1101. This connection at present will cause detriment to the performance at Manthorpe Mill Pumping Station. Anglian Water correspondence has indicated that a mitigation scheme to upgrade Manthorpe Mill is being designed to cater for all house hold growth in Grantham. This figure would be confirmed once requisition is received. The timescale for this is yet to be confirmed.
14.3. Planning Policy Content & Legislative Context
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (The Framework)
14.3.1. Prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the National Planning Policy Framework outlines the Government’s planning policies for England. The Framework was published on the 27th March 2012 and replaces all Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements including PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk, which was the previous primary policy relating to flood risk. Many Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and Water Cycle Studies were completed under the guidance of PPS25.
Environmental Statement 476
14.3.2. Within the context of climate change, flooding and coastal change the Government’s objective is that planning should fully support the transition to a low carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. To achieve this objective, the planning system should aim to:
1) Secure reductions in greenhouse gas emissions;
2) Minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to impacts arising from climate change;
3) Avoid inappropriate areas at risk of flooding by directing development away from areas at highest risk or, where development is necessary making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and;
4) Reduce risk from coastal change by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas or adding to the impacts of physical changes to the coast.
14.3.3. Section 10 (Paragraphs 91 – 81) of the Framework outlines how planning policy should meet the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change and retain the ethos of steering new development to areas of lowest flood risk.
14.3.4. The Framework specifies that planning applications should demonstrate through production of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment that development will not increase flood risk elsewhere and that development in flood-prone areas can be made safe.
14.3.5. To support the Framework, a web-based Planning Practice Guidance has been prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government, including further details and clarification on Flood Risk issues. There are also tables included that define flood zones and allocates sequentially appropriate uses to each Flood Zone, by also defining the vulnerability to the impacts of flooding of different land uses.
14.3.6. The relationship between the Application Site the Flood Zones and Vulnerability classification in accordance with the Framework and Planning Practice guidance are set out in detail in the accompanying Flood Risk Assessment at Appendix 14.1.
Environmental Statement 477
Grantham Water Cycle Strategy (2010)
14.3.7. As part of a Government initiative, Grantham was awarded Growth Point Status with a view to increasing the population and employment potential of the area. To support this, South Kesteven District Council appointed Atkins Limited to prepare the Grantham Water Cycle Strategy, which was completed in January 2010.
14.3.8. The Water Cycle Strategy identifies the water infrastructure that will be required to support the proposed increase in housing and employment, highlighting current points within existing infrastructure that will require improvement.
14.3.9. One of the key issues identified was the lack of capacity in the sewer network in storm conditions. The performance of the existing sewer network was not clearly understood and an existing hydraulic model of the sewer catchment was out of date. There were also issues with the model, which could not be verified against the known flooding events.
14.3.10. Stage 2a of the study recommended that this model be updated in line with current practices. This model update is now in progress but it was determined for the purpose of the study that the existing model should be used to understand the issues in the catchment and to use it to determine provisional findings, until such time as the latest model is deemed fit for purpose.
14.3.11. The Water Cycle Strategy identified a major pumping station in Manthorpe spills excess storm flows through a combined storm overflow to the Running Furrows watercourse before discharging to the River Witham. The previous studies had determined that a pollution study was required to understand the issues in the catchment and AWS has now commenced this study.
14.3.12. “The main Sewage Treatment Works (STW) is located in the north of the catchment near the village of Marston. It was determined that the STW was reaching the limits of its biological and hydraulic capacities and funding for process enhancements would be needed in the future to ensure that the proposed growth could be accommodated. However, the trade effluent flows have recently been reduced which
Environmental Statement 478
has had the beneficial effect of freeing up capacity in the sewer network and reducing the biological load on the works.
14.3.13. “It was agreed that following on from the Stage 2a study, the focus of the Stage 2b would concentrate on the issues of the STW performance, overflow performance at Manthorpe Mill Lift station and the investigation of the sewer network to determine the most sustainable option to cater for the flows from the developments.
Grantham Water Cycle Strategy (2010)
14.3.14. As part of a Government initiative, Grantham was awarded Growth Point Status with a view to increasing the population and employment potential of the area. To support this, South Kesteven District Council appointed Atkins Limited to prepare the Grantham Water Cycle Strategy, which was completed in January 2010.
14.3.15. The Water Cycle Strategy identifies the water infrastructure that will be required to support the proposed increase in housing and employment, highlighting current points within existing infrastructure that will require improvement.
14.3.16. One of the key issues identified was the lack of capacity in the sewer network in storm conditions. The performance of the existing sewer network was not clearly understood and an existing hydraulic model of the sewer catchment was out of date. There were also issues with the model, which could not be verified against the known flooding events.
14.3.17. Stage 2a of the study recommended that this model be updated in line with current practices. This model update is now in progress but it was determined for the purpose of the study that the existing model should be used to understand the issues in the catchment and to use it to determine provisional findings, until such time as the latest model is deemed fit for purpose.
14.3.18. The Water Cycle Strategy identified a major pumping station in Manthorpe spills excess storm flows through a combined storm overflow to the Running Furrows watercourse before discharging to the River Witham. The previous studies had
Environmental Statement 479
determined that a pollution study was required to understand the issues in the catchment and AWS has now commenced this study.
14.3.19. “The main Sewage Treatment Works (STW) is located in the north of the catchment near the village of Marston. It was determined that the STW was reaching the limits of its biological and hydraulic capacities and funding for process enhancements would be needed in the future to ensure that the proposed growth could be accommodated. However, the trade effluent flows have recently been reduced which has had the beneficial effect of freeing up capacity in the sewer network and reducing the biological load on the works.
14.3.20. “It was agreed that following on from the Stage 2a study, the focus of the Stage 2b would concentrate on the issues of the STW performance, overflow performance at Manthorpe Mill Lift station and the investigation of the sewer network to determine the most sustainable option to cater for the flows from the developments.
South Kesteven Core Strategy
14.3.21. The south Kesteven Core Strategy was adopted on the 5th July 2010. Its stated aim is to be the key umbrella document of the new Local Development Framework. It will inform the other policy and guidance documents included within the LDF. It provides the spatial policy framework for development and change in the district of South Kesteven for the period to 2026 and establishes the key principles which should guide the location, use and form of development.
14.3.22. The key policy within the core strategy which has bearing and influence on this assessment and the Application Site is policy EN2: Reducing the Risk of Flooding.
14.3.23. Policy EN2 states that “Planning permission will not normally be granted, nor sites allocated for development, in areas identified in the South Kesteven Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as at risk of flooding from any source. Any proposals in these areas will need to demonstrate that there are not any suitable sites at a lower risk of flooding available.”
Environmental Statement 480
South Kesteven Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document
14.3.24. The Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document forms part of the South Kesteven Local Plan. Together with the Core Strategy and the Grantham Area Action Plan it provides the planning policy framework for the District, guiding the location, design, form and use of land and buildings across the District to 2026.
14.3.25. The document sets out a number of sub-objectives that are in conformity with the core strategy.
14.3.26. The most pertinent sub-objective with respect to surface water drainage and flood risk is Housing Sub-objective 10, which states that the plan should reduce the risk of flooding by ensuring that new development is appropriately located and designed, and that consideration is given to the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems on allocated sites.
South Kesteven District Council SFRA (2008)
14.3.27. The South Kesteven District Council SFRA was written in December 2008. It provides a strategic overview of flood risk throughout the District and the wider area of Grantham. It advises how flood risk should be managed throughout the wider catchment.
14.3.28. The South Kesteven District Council SFRA reiterates the need to reduce the risk posed by flooding to existing properties and new development built within the district. It states that due to the defined topography of the main river valleys, there is little change from the present-day Flood Zone maps across the majority of the district, and also that climate change will have relatively little impact on the extent of fluvial flooding in the district.
14.3.29. The SFRA indicates that the minor tributary called Barrowby Stream that flows through west Grantham, and to the south of the Application Site has no Flood Zone associated with it. The stream also possesses a precautionary 50m buffer strip on either bank that has been identified that may possibly have a level of flood risk associated with it. As this is beyond the site boundary, the development does not need to consider this buffer strip.
Environmental Statement 481
14.3.30. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) is to be strongly encouraged. The SFRA recommends that infiltration SuDS are to be used where possible. The use of SuDS and the consideration for ongoing management must be recognised at the early stages of planning, to ensure that drainage and storage can be integrated into the design.
Other Relevant Guidance
14.3.31. Other guidance documents which have been considered within the scope of this assessment are detailed below.
CIRIA C532 (2001) Control of Pollution from Construction Sites
14.3.32. The CIRIA document provides environmental good practice principles for the control of water pollution arising from construction activities. It focuses upon the potential sources of water pollution from within construction sites and the effective methods of preventing its occurrence.
Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines (2004)
14.3.33. The Environment Agency produce a range of pollution prevention guidance notes (PPGs) to advise industry and the public on legal responsibilities and good environmental practice. Each PPG gives advice on law and good environmental practice, to help reduce environmental risks from business activities.
CIRIA C697 (2007) The SuDS Manual
14.3.34. The SuDS Manual provides best practice guidance on the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS).
Water Research Company (WRc) Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition August 2012
14.3.35. This guidance document is intended to guide developers when planning, designing and constructing foul and surface water sewers, lateral drains, pumping stations and rising mains.
Environmental Statement 482
Water Framework Directive & River Basin Management Plans
14.3.36. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes a legal framework to protect and restore clean waters across Europe and ensure their long-term and sustainable use. The WFD relates to groundwater, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters as well as rivers and considers their ecological, chemical and hydro-morphological status.
14.3.37. The overall target of the WFD is to achieve a ‘good status’ for all of Europe’s surface waters and groundwater by 2015.
14.3.38. There are 4 objectives in respect of which the quality of water is protected;
1) General protection of the aquatic ecology
2) Specific protection of unique and valuable habitats (e.g. those supporting wetlands)
3) Protection of drinking water resources (e.g. those identified for drinking water abstraction)
4) Protection of bathing water (e.g. those generally used as bathing areas)
14.3.39. The impacts of proposed works should be assessed against the 4 main objectives to ensure a development is WFD compliant.
14.3.40. WFD classification is assessed by the ecological status classification which considers the;
Biological quality
Chemical/Physio-chemical quality
Water quality in respect to compliance with environmental standards for concentrations of specific pollutants
Hydromorphology
14.3.41. It is also assessed upon the chemical status qualification which considers compliance with environmental standards for chemicals listed in the
Environmental Statement 483
Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC – including priority substances, priority hazardous substances and other pollutants.
14.3.42. Ecological status can be high, good, moderate, bad or poor based upon a ‘one out, all out’ principle which uses the lowest scoring element result to set the overall classification. The chemical status is however measured simply as a ‘pass’ or fail’.
14.3.43. There are slightly differing requirements in relation to surface water and groundwater and also for waterbodies defined as ‘heavily modified or artificial’. By definition heavily modified and artificial water bodies are not able to achieve natural conditions and instead the objectives for these waterbodies are measures against their ecological ‘potential’ rather than ‘status’.
14.3.44. The WFD objectives relating to surface waters and groundwater are outlined below;
Prevent deterioration in status of surface water and groundwater.
Achieve good ecological status / good ecological potential (artificial or heavily modified bodies) of surface water bodies.
Achieve good chemical status of surface water bodies & groundwater.
Achieve good quantitative status for groundwater.
Comply with the standards for protected areas – reduce pollution from priority substances and cease discharges/ emissions/ losses of hazardous substances.
Reduce pollution of surface water and groundwater
14.3.45. To meet the objectives of the WFD Member States have established River Basin Districts and developed River Basin Management Plans (RBMP’s) and programmes required to be taken within each District.
14.3.46. River Basin Management Plans are implemented to outline actions required to enable natural water bodies to achieve good ecological status but are in an iterative state of planning. In 2015, following further consultation, the River Basin Management Plans will be updated and reissued, the exact date of this update is yet to be finalised.
Environmental Statement 484
14.3.47. The Application Site is located is located within an area covered by the Anglian District River Basin Management Plan, published in December 2009. Data relating to the condition of watercourses within the district is available within the formal document but can be more readily accessed online at the Environment Agencies GIS mapping service.
14.3.48. Table 14.5 below sets out the main legislation from a national context in relation to the water environment, which has where relevant been taken into account as part of this assessment.
Table 14.5: National Policy in Relation to the Water Environment
Legislation
Environment Protection Act 1990 The Act makes provision for improved control of pollution arising from certain industrial and other processes and re-enacts the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
Water Resources Act 1991 The Act consolidates enactments relating to the National Rivers Authority. Controls the abstraction and compounding of water.
Water Industry Act 1991 Consolidates previous legislation on water supply and sewerage services.
Water Framework Directive 200/60/EC The overall requirement is that all river & Daughter Directive 2006/118/EC basins must achieve ‘good ecological status’ by 2015 or by 2027 2027 if there are grounds (Transposed into English Law through the for derogation (essentially if it can be proven Water Environment (Water Framework that it is not possible to achieve it by 2015). Directive) (England and Wales) The WFD combines water quantity and (Regulations 2003) quality issues together and, as an umbrella Directive, effectively incorporates and/or supersedes all water related legislation that drives the existing consenting framework.
Water Act 2003 Sets out the framework for abstraction licensing, regulates impoundments, increases competition in water supply and includes
Environmental Statement 485
measures for drought management and flood defence work in England and Wales.
The Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC Aims to protect groundwater against (Transposed English Law through the pollution by ‘List 1 and 2’ Dangerous Groundwater (England and Wales) Reg Substances; 2009
Flood and Water/Management Act2010 The Act is largely aimed at delivering the recommendations of the Pitt Review following the 2007 floods. The Flood and Water Management Act makes the following recommendations, amongst others: Sustainable Drainage Systems SuDS must be the first choice for drainage for all new developments, and the SuDS Approval Body within the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), which is either the Unitary Authority or the County Council, have a duty to adopt the SuDS (subject to approval).
Surface Water Abstraction Directive The Act prescribes a system for classifying 75/440/EEC the quality of inland freshwaters according to (Transposed into English Law through the their suitability for abstraction for supply as Surface Waters drinking water. (Abstraction for Drinking Water Classification) Regulation 1996
14.4. Baseline Conditions
Flood Risk
14.4.1. In accordance with EA requirements and the NPPF a site specific Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken, a copy of which is included as Appendix 14.1.
14.4.2. The Flood Risk Assessment has confirmed the Application Site is situated in Flood Zone 1 (Low Probability), at low risk of flooding from fluvial or tidal sources. Flood Zone 1 is classified as land assessed as having less than a 0.1% annual probability of
Environmental Statement 486
flooding from fluvial and tidal sources. The Framework also identifies land at high and medium probabilities of flooding, called Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 2 respectively. Flood Zone 3 is land shown to be at a 1% or greater annual risk of flooding and Flood Zone 2 is shown as land at between a 1% and 0.1% annual chance of fluvial flooding.
14.4.3. The assessment of fluvial risk detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment is based upon a combination of sources, Including Environment Agency Flood Maps published on line (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency) and a specific hydraulic modelling exercise detailed in the site specific Flood Risk Assessment.
14.4.4. The site specific Flood Risk Assessment has considered the risk to the Application site from all sources of flooding including sewer based groundwater and pluvial based risks. The assessment has concluded that the site is not subject to any significant flood risk.
Watercourses
14.4.5. The closest Main River is considered to be the River Witham located 180m east of the site. The Gonerby Stream is an ordinary watercourse and is located immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Application Site. The Gonerby Stream confluences with the Running Furrows, another ordinary watercourse, in the south eastern corner of the Application Site. An ordinary watercourse is any watercourse, ditch or stream other than a “Main River”. A Main River is a river which is identified as main on the Environment Agency’s maps. The Running Furrows is under the regulatory authority of the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board.
14.4.6. The Running Furrows has been classified in accordance with the Water Framework Directive Assessment within the Anglian River Basin Management Plan. The Running Furrows is part of a waterbody unit called the “Upper Witham” (Waterbody ID GB105030056780). It is considered a Heavily Modified Waterbody with current moderate ecological potential and good chemical quality.
Environmental Statement 487
14.4.7. The designation of this waterbody unit as a Heavily Modified Waterbody denotes its use as part of an irrigation and drainage system. It is part of a WFD system that acknowledges the need for watercourses that are not entirely natural or have been altered to meet essential flood risk or water supply needs.
Groundwater
14.4.8. In terms of groundwater, there is no recorded history of groundwater flooding in the area, and underlying geology is composed primarily of Charmouth Mudstone which is not conducive to rising groundwater levels. Therefore there is no significant risk to the site associated with groundwater.
Topography
14.4.9. The Application Site is located at a high point within the immediate area falling steeply to the south and east towards the Running Furrows and Gonnerby Stream. The topography is conducive to sheet runoff and the surface water flood maps reviewed in the FRA confirm that there are no dominant flood routes within the main body of the site.
Sewers
14.4.10. Given its current use, the Application Site is not served by public sewer infrastructure. Sewer records obtained from Anglian Water and included in the FRA indicate that the nearest public sewer infrastructure is located within High Road towards the eastern extent of the Application Site. Summary
14.4.11. This section has identified the potential receptors within the water environment in relation to the proposed Application Site; Table 14.6 below outlines these receptors in terms of their environmental sensitivity in line with the definitions provided in Table 14.1.
Environmental Statement 488
Table 14.6: Baseline Sensitivity of Receptors
Receptor Sensitivity Justification
Current and predicted ecological quality of the watercourse means it is at risk under the WFD requirements. Connected nature of hydrological River Witham High regime also means any pollution affecting the River Witham may be transported downstream to other waterbodies.
Watercourse is classified in accordance with the Water Framework Directive within the Anglian District River Basin Management Plan as part of the Running Upper Witham system, and so, by connection, is Furrows/Gonerby High similar in sensitivity to the above. Again, the Stream connected system means any impacts on the Running Furrows can move downstream into the Witham.
None within the Application Site, public sewers Public Sewer located in High Road. Additional loadings may Medium Network exceed capacity of the infrastructure for both foul water and potable water supply.
Increased loading on foul water pumping stations Foul Water has the potential to affect the entire drainage Pumping Stations & High catchment. Additional loads may also reduce Sewerage Treatment outgoing quality and increase quantity discharging Work from sewage treatment works.
EA mapping indicates partial Secondary aquifer Groundwater stores in the bedrock below the Application Site. Medium Aquifers There are no Source Protection Zones and limited supply/use from these aquifers.
14.4.12. Should the Proposed Development not proceed it is not anticipated that there will be any significant changes to these baseline conditions within the foreseeable future.
Environmental Statement 489
14.5. Potential Effects
14.5.1. This Section sets out the potential effects that the Proposed Development may have upon flood risk and drainage receptors. Potential effects during the construction phase are considered initially and then the potential effects during the operational phase of the development are considered.
Construction Phase
14.5.2. The construction phase will include all works relating both to the preparation of the site for construction and to the build out each phase of the proposed development.
14.5.3. The majority of construction related activities could give rise to effects on Flood Risk and Drainage, however the following construction activities are of the highest risk:
Topsoil Stripping.
Excavation involving stockpiling of material, this is likely to include all foundation work and the laying of services including drainage.
Earthworks operations involving bulk cut and fill and the transport of materials around the site.
The excavation and construction of attenuation ponds and swales.
Watercourse improvement works undertaken to the Running Furrows.
The pouring of, storage of, working with and washing out of concrete used in foundations and other areas.
The storage and use of oils and fuels for construction vehicles
The storage and use of paints and chemicals used during the works.
The disturbance of soils and transfer of subsoil material off-site caused by delivery vehicles, construction vehicles and construction staff transport.
General waste storage, segregation and transfer including waste from construction activities and waste from site welfare facilities.
The generation of foul waste associated with construction staff.
Environmental Statement 490
14.5.4. Common instances of water pollution during the construction phase can occur from suspended solids, oils and hydrocarbons, concrete and cement products, metals, sewerage and other pollutants and hazardous materials generated during the construction process. Situations in which such substances could enter the water environment include routine operations such as tyre-washing, accidents and vandalism, and dewatering operations as well as from infiltration and rainwater runoff.
14.5.5. One of the most common causes of water pollution from construction sites is from suspended solids. Sources of suspended solids from construction sites include; excavations, exposed ground or stock piles, plant and wheel washing, build-up of dust and mud on site roads, pumping of contaminated surface waters or groundwater accumulated on the development site or disturbance of river beds or banks. The construction of the proposed attenuation features could have a significant impact on the production of sediment containing runoff. Runoff containing suspended solids from construction work could have a direct effect on extensive reaches of the Running Furrows and River Witham. This would be exacerbated during intense rainfall events. Suspended solids in watercourse can have a significant detrimental effect on ecology and visual amenity in watercourses; it can affect fish spawning and has a direct impact on most aquatic species. The introduction of suspended solids can have an impact on geomorphology within watercourses, interfering with the natural erosion and deposition process essential to the natural function of watercourses. However, such are unlikely to be long term, and will occur only during intense rainfall events. The magnitude of this impact could be considered as moderate adverse in the medium term.
14.5.6. Concrete production taking place on the construction site, or brought onto the site by ready-mix lorries, can cause small particulates to settle in the surrounding areas. Waste water generated from the washing of the batching plant or through the washing down of lorries and the mixing area can cause particulates to runoff to the watercourses. Without mitigation, the magnitude of such an impact on the Running Furrows and River Witham is considered to be moderate adverse in the medium term. Concrete wash-down and concrete related products have significant impact on
Environmental Statement 491
the water environment as a result of the alkaline nature of the product, however even without mitigation the majority of concrete product will be used for its intended purpose and should not directly enter a watercourse.
14.5.7. Oil, diesel and petrol are also common pollutants from construction sites either caused by spillages of fuels stored on the site or from the vehicles operating during the construction. Hydrocarbons have the ability to enter a watercourse and then lead to the build-up of a film on the surface water. In doing so the oxygen content of the water may be reduced and there could be a moderate adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem in the medium term.
14.5.8. During construction the stripping of site topsoil’s can lead to an increase in runoff rate as natural evapotranspiration is reduced. The impact of such an effect is tempered by the probability of an extreme rainfall event coinciding with the construction activity. Furthermore the small size of the development site in comparison to the size of the wider catchment is such that the impact is unlikely to be particularly onerous. This impact is therefore judged to be minor adverse in the short term.
14.5.9. Ground compaction can also lead to increases in surface water runoff from the site. More runoff will cause an increase in flows in the watercourses potentially exacerbating flood risk downstream of the site, though during the construction phase the impact will be minor adverse in the short term.
14.5.10. During construction there will be a short term increase in demand for foul water disposal for use in construction activities and from welfare facilities by site staff. Consultation will be required with Anglian Water on temporary foul water disposal during construction. However, the potential impact is considered to be minor adverse in the short term.
14.5.11. During construction there will be a short term increase in demand for water supply for use in construction activities and for use by site staff. Consultation will be required with Anglian Water on temporary water supply during construction. Although there will be a minor demand peak the water needs of construction
Environmental Statement 492
operatives are relatively minor and the impact is considered minor adverse in the short term.
14.5.12. In summary, the magnitude of potential impacts on the receptors identified during the construction phase in shown in Table 14.7, including the overall significance of the impact prior to mitigation.
Table 14.7: Construction Impacts without Mitigation
Impact Magnitude Receptor Significance (Sensitivity)
Running Runoff containing Moderate Furrows/River Moderate or Large suspended solids Adverse Witham (High)
Constructing new discharge Running outfalls Negligible Furrows/River Slight causing silt to enter Adverse Witham (High) the watercourse
Washing down of batching Running plant or lorries causing Moderate Furrows/River Moderate or Large sediment to enter the Adverse Witham (High) watercourse
Running Hydrocarbons entering the Moderate Furrows/River Moderate or Large watercourse Adverse Witham (High)
Hydrocarbons infiltrating and entering groundwater Moderate Groundwater Moderate stores Adverse Aquifers (Medium)
Running Uncontrolled release of Major Furrows/River Large or Very Large harmful substances Adverse Witham (High)
Environmental Statement 493
Impact Magnitude Receptor Significance (Sensitivity)
Groundwater Reducing infiltration from Minor Aquifers (Medium) / Slight or Moderate the ground compaction Adverse Running Furrows (High)
Running Increasing runoff rates from Minor Furrows/River Slight or Moderate ground compaction Adverse Witham (High)
Reduced infiltration and Running increased runoff may lead Minor Furrows/River Slight or Moderate to an increase in flood risk Adverse Witham (High) downstream
Surface water flows Minor Public sewer Slight entering public sewer Adverse Network (Medium)
Foul Water Pumping Increased foul water Stations loading from construction Minor & Sewerage Slight activities and staff welfare Adverse Treatment Works on-site (Medium)
Increased demand for Minor Potable Water Slight potable water Adverse Supply (Medium)
14.5.13. In summary, the magnitude of potential impacts on the receptors identified during the construction phase is shown in Table 14.6, including the overall significance of the impact prior to mitigation.
Operational Phase
14.5.14. The operational phase will include all activities related to the day to day activities commonplace within development such as the Proposed Development. In general as there are no industrial or process operations taking place on site the risks associated with the operational phase are less than onerous in terms of pollution than during the construction phase. However the completed development will incorporate more impermeable area and result in more runoff rate potential than at any other point
Environmental Statement 494
during construction and the population of the occupied development will have a significantly greater impact on the foul drainage system than during construction.
14.5.15. Of particular interest to the Flood Risk and Drainage Receptors are the following activities:
The production of foul waste by residents, the school and commercial occupants of the proposed development. This includes activities associated with laundry and food production.
Vehicular movement will create local small scale pollution associated with minor oil spills and the deposition of try rubber.
General household waste production and storage.
Gardening activities, landscaping and home improvement activities.
The hydrological impact of the increase in impermeable area associated with intense rainfall events.
14.5.16. Suspended solids are less likely to enter the water environment during operation as there are generally fewer sources of suspended solids once construction is complete. However, topsoil, silts and other materials associated with gardening and landscaping works could be mobilised by runoff to cause a minor adverse impact on the Running Furrows in the medium term.
14.5.17. Oil, diesel and petrol spillages could potentially occur and are mainly associated with vehicular usage on the site. Accidental spillages can be significant if they enter the watercourse causing a reduction in oxygen content of the water. Although the potential for such incidents is usually limited to roads and parking areas, hydrocarbons could drain to the watercourses via the drainage network. A severe spillage could have a major adverse impact on the catchment, although this is considered unlikely to occur given the proposed use of the site it cannot be ruled out entirely. The consequences of fuel spillages or leakage from traffic on surface water quality within the sewer system could have a minor adverse impact.
Environmental Statement 495
14.5.18. A reduction in infiltration through a greater impermeable area could lead to less recharge of the groundwater. However, as groundwater quantity is not considered to be a significant issue within the area the impact is considered negligible adverse.
14.5.19. The increase in impermeable area could also lead to a change in the runoff rates from the site entering nearby watercourses and sewers. This could result in a major adverse impact in the long term.
14.5.20. During full operation there is likely to be an increase in demand for potable water supply. This will increase pressure on the existing supply and will need to be considered in consultation with Anglian Water. As such, prior to mitigation the potential impact is considered moderate adverse in the long term.
14.5.21. During full operation there is likely to be a significant increase in foul water disposal rates compared to the former uses of the Application Site. Without avoiding potential effects on the loading of the foul sewer network is considered major adverse in the long term if connection is made to manhole 1101.
14.5.22. The magnitude of potential impacts on the receptors identified during the operational phase is shown in Table 14.8, including the overall significance of the impact prior to avoidance of potential effects.
Table 14.8: Operational Phase Impacts prior to avoidance of potential effects
Impact Magnitude Receptor Significance (Sensitivity)
Running Runoff containing Minor Adverse Furrows/River Slight or Moderate suspended solids Witham (High)
Running Hydrocarbons entering Minor Adverse Furrows/River Slight or Moderate the watercourse Witham (High)
Running Hydrocarbons entering Minor Adverse Furrows/River Slight or Moderate the on-site sewer system Witham (High)
Environmental Statement 496
Impact Magnitude Receptor Significance (Sensitivity)
Hydrocarbons entering Groundwater Minor Adverse Slight the groundwater Aquifers (Medium)
Reducing infiltration from Negligible Groundwater Neutral or Slight new impermeable areas Adverse Aquifers (Medium)
Running Greater volume of runoff Major Adverse Furrows/River Moderate or Large entering the watercourse Witham (High)
Increased demand for Moderate Potable Water Moderate potable water supply Adverse Supply (Medium)
Foul Water Pumping Increased pressure on foul Stations & Sewage water sewer system based Major Adverse Moderate or Large Treatment Works on phased development (Medium)
14.6. Proposed Mitigation
14.6.1. This Section sets out the measures which will be employed to mitigate the potential impacts identified in the preceding section. Mitigation proposed for the construction phase is considered initially and then the potential effects during the operational phase of the development are considered.
14.6.2. Many mitigation systems can be employed during construction but remain in place throughout the operational phase of the development.
Construction Phase
14.6.3. For any proposed works in, or near to watercourses the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guideline no. 5 should be used and adhered to. This document provides useful background documentation on legal responsibilities. It goes on to recommend a series of precautionary measures designed to prevent pollution of watercourses as expanded below.
Environmental Statement 497
14.6.4. It is also recommended that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is prepared which will set out detailed methodologies and monitoring requirements to prevent unnecessary adverse effects on the water environment. The CEMP should provide a stage by stage plan identifying how runoff will be directed and controlled at each stage of the process in addition to identifying safe methods of working with respect to the handling of oils, chemicals, paint etc. as set out below.
14.6.5. During the construction phase, one of the main sources of suspended solids and other contaminants reaching the Running Furrows is from the erosion of exposed topsoil (including the erosion of stockpiled materials) caused by rain or wind. Therefore any large areas of exposed top soil or similar materials will be kept contained and covered where possible and when not in use.
14.6.6. Where possible water should be kept out of the construction area using appropriate isolation techniques such as cofferdams or bypass channels in combination with silt fencing.
14.6.7. Appropriate construction techniques including covering areas of exposed soils, minimising unnecessary stockpiles on the construction site, preventing the build-up of dust and silts, and appropriate working techniques will reduce the residual risk of suspended solids reaching the watercourse.
14.6.8. Silt fences will be used to protect the watercourses from contaminated runoff. These silt fences should be located adjacent to the watercourse and will intercept any contaminated natural runoff.
14.6.9. The above ground surface water drainage treatment systems for the development should be constructed as a priority before the main built development in line with the proposed phasing of the site. This first phase of construction represents the highest period of risk, it is imperative that silt fences are utilised during this phase in order to protect the watercourses whilst these permanent protection features are being constructed. The construction period for these particular elements is unlikely to be significantly lengthy and the actual risk posed is relatively low provided appropriate precautions are taken.
Environmental Statement 498
14.6.10. Ideally concrete should be mixed off site to reduce the risks on site. However this is not always appropriate and therefore any wastewater from the washing down of ready-mix lorries or from the production of concrete on the site should be carried out in a designated area. This area should be bunded and activities must take place over an impermeable surface to prevent water runoff reaching the watercourses and infiltration affecting groundwater quality. Any waste water will need either to be directed to the foul sewerage system or treated and then discharged to an appropriate receptor. Flows from wheel washing would be negligible therefore it can be assumed that there would be current capacity to outfall to the existing network without any detriment.
14.6.11. Vehicles used on site should be regularly inspected and maintained in order to reduce risk of leakages of fuels or oils. Vehicle wash-down areas should be at least 10 metres away from any surface waterbody and bunded, over impermeable surfacing.
14.6.12. If there are to be any refuelling facilities on the site during construction these will need to take place in a bunded area over an impermeable surface to prevent runoff and infiltration. Re-fuelling activities should comply with the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 7 by regular testing of the storage tanks and pipes.
14.6.13. If oils or fuels are to be stored in bulk quantities on the construction site, the storage facilities will comply with the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 2 for above ground oil storage tanks. The use of drip trays under stationary vehicles can be used where appropriate and would allow oil to be collected and contained.
14.6.14. Bulk quantities of other pollutants and hazardous substances should not be stored on the site and the purchasing of site materials should be suitably planned to avoid unnecessary long-term storage of materials, particularly those which can be hazardous to the environment.
14.6.15. Disposal of hazardous materials such as paints and detergents will be to appropriately licenced facilities. Subject to the approval from Anglian Water, after
Environmental Statement 499
the completion of the pumping station upgrade, some of these areas may drain to the foul sewer. Other substances not acceptable for disposal via the sewerage system will be stored in compliance with relevant guidelines and removed by a registered waste disposal operator.
14.6.16. Hazardous materials should be stored in appropriate bunded and impermeable areas in accordance with the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines. Any storage containers should be clearly marked and an emergency spillage kit kept on site in case of accidental spillage. Runoff from this area should also be treated using sediment and oil interceptors before being discharged into the surface water sewer or to a watercourse, subject to the approval of the Environment Agency.
14.6.17. Consultation with Anglian Water will be required to establish a temporary supply of water to the site for use by construction personnel.
Operational Phase
14.6.18. The configuration of the proposed surface water drainage strategy, which drains water via a series of pipes, swales and basins means that there are a number of stages of treatment being applied to surface water runoff.
14.6.19. These levels of treatment will eliminate almost entirely the amount of suspended solids running off from the site and entering the watercourse.
14.6.20. The drainage strategy is fully detailed in the appended Flood Risk Assessment. In summary it is proposed that across the bulk of the western development surface water will be collected from highways, hardstanding and roofscapes by a combination of below ground pipes and surface water swales. These initial features will convey flow southwards towards the primary treatment train where a selection of ponds and swales will provide flow rate attenuation and water quality treatment. The precise details will be confirmed during detailed design stage.
14.6.21. It is envisaged that alternating dry and wet ponds will be used and each stage will include independent outfall and overflow controls. To the eastern extent of this train there is a single larger terminal treatment and attenuation pond, the bulk of
Environmental Statement 500
the proposed attenuation volume will be located here before being discharged to the running furrows via a single outfall at the rate agreed with the IDB. This rate is less than that which would be expected from the existing greenfield site.
14.6.22. In discussion with the Environment Agency, and Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board, the proposed drainage strategy restricts all surface water runoff from the Proposed Development to an equivalent greenfield runoff rate of 2.1l/s/ha, providing on-site storage for all return period events up to the 100 year storm, including an appropriate allowance for climate change.
14.6.23. The eastern development is much smaller in extent and in this area a single treatment and attenuation pond is proposed, it is anticipated that this pond will operate as a two stage feature providing some initial settlement in a forebay before being discharged to a secondary attenuation basin.
14.6.24. In combination with upstream permeable paving, and some smaller roadside swales it is anticipated that at least three stages of treatment will be provided on both the eastern and western parts of the Proposed Development.
14.6.25. Accidental spillages, leaks and drips from vehicles should be prevented from entering the surface water drainage systems by use of oil/Petrol interceptors. Petrol interceptors which should be installed in accordance with the recommendations of PPG 3 where needed.
14.6.26. Runoff from hardstanding areas will be through trapped gullies which will help to settle out initial settled solids, where trapped gullies are not used swales or small scale bio retention areas will be considered.
14.6.27. Some aspects of the drainage strategy incorporate infiltration to the ground. This will replenish groundwater aquifer stocks, and following a number of stages of treatment, will also improve the quality of groundwater.
14.6.28. The Grantham Water Cycle Strategy identifies that potable water supply is not a significant barrier to development.
Environmental Statement 501
14.6.29. The current foul water strategy is for the Proposed Development to connect into the network at manhole reference number 1101 at national grid reference (NGR) SK921738100.
14.6.30. This connection however will cause detriment to the performance of Manthorpe Mill Pumping Station which is downstream of this connection point if no mitigation is put in place. Through correspondence, Anglian Water have confirmed that a proposal to upgrade Manthorpe Mill Pumping Station has been designed and can be put in place without causing any detriment to the Pumping Station or receiving foul system. An Outline Foul Strategy has been undertaken as part of the FRA.
14.6.31. The connection to the public sewerage system is via a route entirely within the Application Site, public highway and Anglian Water property. A connection to the system can therefore be made under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act or by a requisition process if preferred.
14.7. Residual Effects
14.7.1. This section sets out the effects which are considered to remain following the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the previous section.
14.7.2. With appropriate mitigation the significance of the risk of concrete and cement products entering the watercourse can be reduced to negligible adverse in the short term.
14.7.3. Through appropriate agreement the residual effect on water consumption is considered negligible adverse given that additional water will be provided by the appropriate body.
14.7.4. Providing a CEMP is put in place and construction is undertaken in accordance with recommended best practice the impact of construction of the outfalls on the receptor is considered to be Negligible Adverse.
Environmental Statement 502
14.7.5. Following appropriate mitigation, the magnitude of impacts associated with suspended solids entering the water environment is considered to be Negligible Adverse.
14.7.6. The potential residual impact on the water environment/sewer system and groundwater from hydrocarbons is considered to be Negligible Adverse due to the fact that the risk of accidental spillages cannot be ruled out entirely, appropriate mitigation previously identified will limit the potential impact to as low as reasonably practicable.
14.7.7. The impact of decreased surface water runoff rates can also be considered to be minor beneficial, due to the implementation of SuDS and surface water drainage strategy to restrict the flow into the downstream receptors at less than the baseline rate.
14.7.8. In the event of any exceedance flows it has been recommended that as part of development proposals safe overland flow routes are utilised. These will direct any exceedance towards the natural outfalls, associated drainage and infrastructure.
14.7.9. Subject to mitigation measures being implemented, the magnitude of impact from the release of harmful substances with residual effects from both constructional and operational phases would be considered to be Negligible Adverse.
14.7.10. Ensuring mitigation measures have been put in-place and that Anglian Water have been consulted formally to ensure appropriate connection and the proposal to upgrade Manthorpe Mill Pumping Station has been undertaken there should be no future detriment to the sewerage network from the Proposed Development; this would be considered to be Negligible Adverse.
14.7.11. Whilst the risk of increased runoff and decreased infiltration causing a downstream flood risk has been largely negated, extreme events and blockages acting in combination could conceivably still occur, accordingly the magnitude would be considered to be Negligible Adverse.
Environmental Statement 503
14.7.12. Following avoiding potential effects, Table 14.9 outlines the significance of effect on the receptors previously identified.
Table 14.9: Construction and Operational Residual Effects
Impact Magnitude Receptor Significance (Sensitivity)
Running Runoff containing Negligible Furrows/River Slight suspended solids Adverse Witham (High)
Constructing new discharge Running outfalls Negligible Furrows/River Slight causing silt to enter Adverse Witham (High) the watercourse
Washing down of batching Running plant or lorries causing Negligible Furrows/River Slight sediment to enter the Adverse Witham (High) watercourse
Running Hydrocarbons entering the Negligible Furrows/River Slight watercourse Adverse Witham (High)
Hydrocarbons infiltrating Negligible Groundwater and entering groundwater Slight Adverse Aquifers (Medium) stores
Running Slight Uncontrolled release of Negligible Furrows/River harmful substances Adverse Witham (High)
Reducing infiltration from Negligible Groundwater Slight ground compaction Adverse Aquifers (Medium)
Running Increasing runoff rates from Negligible Furrows/River Slight ground compaction Adverse Witham (High)
Reduced infiltration and Running Negligible increased runoff may lead to Furrows/River Slight Adverse an increase in flood risk Witham (High)
Environmental Statement 504
Impact Magnitude Receptor Significance (Sensitivity) downstream
Increased demand for Negligible Potable Water Slight potable water Adverse Supply (Medium)
Running Hydrocarbons entering the Negligible Furrows/River Slight on-site sewer system Adverse Witham (High)
Allowing infiltration to Minor Groundwater groundwater from proposed Slight Beneficial Aquifers (Medium) infiltration basins
Reduction in runoff Running Minor entering the watercourse for Furrows/River Slight or Moderate Beneficial most return periods Witham (High)
Foul Water Pumping Increased pressure on foul Negligible Stations & Sewage Slight water sewer system Adverse Treatment Works (Medium)
14.8. Impact Interactions
14.8.1. Potentially Flood Risk and Drainage will have impact interactions on an ecological level however there will be no detrimental interactions. The beneficial interaction may be the construction of a sustainable drainage system with ponds and swales which will lead to habitat creation.
14.8.2. For further detail please see the Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment also produced by BWB Consulting Ltd.
14.9. Summary
14.9.1. In summary, an assessment of the construction and operational effects of the Proposed Development on Flood Risk and Hydrology has been undertaken. An FRA has been prepared to show the offset of the environmental impacts. Avoidance
Environmental Statement 505
measures have been established to help reduce any potential effects posed from the Proposed Development to Flood Risk & Hydrology.
Environmental Statement 506
15.0 Soils and Agricultural Land
15.1. Introduction
15.1.1. Wardell Armstrong LLP have been appointed to undertake an assessment of the Proposed Development with respect to agriculture and soil resources. The proposals are for residential development with associated local centre, a primary school and strategic open space and new woodland as described within Chapter 2 of this Environmental Statement.
15.1.2. The Application Site is in agricultural use, either as grassland or as arable land. Agriculture would consequently be a receptor of potential effects arising from the Proposed Development.
15.1.3. The soil within the Site is otherwise largely undisturbed and acts as a filter to attenuate and immobilise substances falling on it, regulates rainfall movement to surface water and groundwater, and supports ecological habitats and biodiversity. The sustainable management of soil and land is a central pillar in sustainable development and, consequently, any effects on soil will also be important.
15.2. Assessment Methodology
Scope
15.2.1. The assessment is designed to assess the effect on four receptors: agricultural land, soil resources, agricultural drainage systems, and farm business.
Sources of Information
15.2.2. Baseline data regarding the soils and agricultural land quality within the Site was obtained from available published data sources from the Soil Survey of England & Wales and MAFF (now Defra):
1) Soil Survey of England and Wales 1984 Soils and their Use in Eastern England and accompanying 1:250,000 map Sheet 4.
2) MAFF 1988 Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales: Revised guidelines and criteria for grading the quality of agricultural land.
Environmental Statement 507
3) Met Office 1989 Climatological Data for Agricultural Land Classification: Gridpoint datasets of climatic variables at 5km intervals for England and Wales.
4) MAFF 1993 1:250,000 Provisional Agricultural Land Classification Sheet, Midlands and Eastern Region.
15.2.3. Additional site data were gathered during Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) surveys, results of which are reported in Appendix 15.1 Soils and Agricultural Land Classification and Appendix 15.2 ALC map and details of the assessment.
15.2.4. The ALC is a standardised method for classifying agricultural land according to its versatility, productivity and workability, based upon inter-related parameters including climate, relief, soil characteristics (texture, structure, depth etc.) and drainage. These factors form the basis for classifying agricultural land into one of five Grades (with Grade 3 land divided into Subgrades 3a and 3b) on the basis of its potential productivity and cropping flexibility. Best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV) is classified as Grades 1 and 2 and Subgrade 3a, and is afforded a degree of protection against development within planning policy. Moderate, poor and very poor quality land is designated Subgrade 3b or Grades 4 and 5 respectively, and is restricted to a narrower range of agricultural uses.
Study Area
15.2.5. The 37.8ha Site is located on the northern edge of the Grantham urban area, wholly or partially, on eight agricultural fields which range in area from 1ha to 10ha. At the time of the 2009 survey, the three largest fields were supporting winter wheat, with the smaller fields to the south-east of the site largely consisting of grassland scrub and grazing. From the information provided by Brown & Co. who act as the land agent for the Site, the use has not changed since then.
Assessment Process
15.2.6. In order to produce a robust assessment, appropriate criteria were selected to quantify the significance of effects associated with the Proposed Development. Unlike other environmental issues, such as noise and dust, there are very few, if any, published national, regional or local guidelines and criteria for assessing the
Environmental Statement 508
environmental effect of development upon agriculture or soils. As such, the impact assessment criteria were selected on the basis of professional knowledge and experience, with reference made to published guidelines and criteria, where possible.
15.2.7. The effects of development can be adverse, causing significant negative effects on a receptor; beneficial, resulting in advantageous or positive effects on a receptor; or non-significant, causing no, or only a negligible effects.
15.2.8. The criteria were selected for three main groups of potential effects:
1) effects upon agricultural land (based on ALC);
2) effects upon soil resources;
3) effects upon agricultural drainage systems; and
4) effects upon agricultural business viability.
Sensitivity of receptors
15.2.9. The sensitivity of the existing environment is set out in Table 15.1. The criteria relate to soil resources, agricultural land, agricultural drainage, and farm business viability.
15.2.10. BMV agricultural land (Grades 1, 2, and Subgrade 3a) is considered to be a finite national resource and is given special consideration under national policy, therefore it can be considered to be of higher sensitivity than land in Subgrade 3b, and Grades 4 and 5. The actual sensitivity criteria will vary regionally. In areas where BMV land is not uncommon, Grade 1 and 2 can be considered to be of high sensitivity, Subgrade 3a of medium sensitivity and Subgrade 3b and Grades 4 and 5 of low sensitivity. In area of the country with little best and most versatile land, Subgrade 3a might be of high sensitivity and Subgrade 3b of medium sensitivity. In the absence of accurate estimates of BMV land within the region, it is assumed that all BMV land will be of high sensitivity and Subgrade 3b of medium sensitivity.
Environmental Statement 509
15.2.11. Assessing the sensitivity of soils is more complicated as soil is a multi-functional resource that provides a range of ecosystem services. In the absence of more accurate criteria the ALC grading is used as a proxy for establishing the sensitivity of soil resources.
Table 15.1: Sensitivity of Receptors
Receptor Sensitivity Justification
Agricultural land and soil resources
Best and most versatile soils High Land capable of producing a and agricultural land (ALC very wide range to a Grades 1, 2 and 3a) moderate range of crops.
Moderate quality soils and Medium Land capable of producing a agricultural land (ALC range of crops. Grade 3b)
Lower quality soils and Low Land capable of producing a agricultural land (ALC narrow range of crops or Grade 4 and lower) suited to use as improved grassland and rough grazing.
Agricultural drainage and farm business viability
Agricultural drainage Medium Agricultural drainage (e.g. a systems field drain system) controlling soil water level for crop production.
Farm business Medium Farming enterprise operating on the land.
Magnitude of change
15.2.12. For agricultural land, the guideline criteria for determining the magnitude of change from the baseline (pre-development) condition are based on a threshold of the loss of 20 ha of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, which is taken from Natural England Technical Information Note TIN049 and referenced in the National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Development, 2012). In the absence of specific and documented guidance relating to the
Environmental Statement 510
determination of the magnitude of change from baseline conditions in relation to the soil resources and drainage, other criteria are based, as mentioned above, on professional experience.
15.2.13. For agricultural land the magnitude of the change from baseline conditions is defined by reference to Table 15.215.2.
Table 15.2: Magnitude of change to agricultural land
High >20 ha of BMV land (ALC Grade 1, 2 or 3a) permanently developed for non-agricultural use.
Moderate >20 ha of BMV land (ALC Grade 1, 2 or 3a) temporarily developed in non-agricultural use.
Low >20 ha of non-BMV land (ALC grade 3b, 4 or 5) developed for non-agricultural use.
Basis of assessment:
A 20 ha for loss of best and most versatile agricultural land threshold follows the approach of Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595, The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, Schedule 4, part y. This stipulates that Natural England should be consulted before the grant of permission.
Natural England Technical Information Note TIN049; Second edition, 19 December 2012.
15.2.14. For soil resources, the magnitude of change from baseline conditions is defined by reference to Table 15.3.
Table 15.3
Environmental Statement 511
Table 15.3: Magnitude of change to soil resources
Magnitude Damage to soil resources Loss of soil resources
Very high Permanent irreversible <25 % of soil resources damage to soil resources retained on site quality through handling, stockpiling etc.
High Long term temporary / 25–50 % of soil resources reversible damage to soil retained on site resources quality through handling, stockpiling etc.
Moderate Moderate term temporary / >50 % of soil resources reversible damage to soil retained on site resources quality through handling, stockpiling etc.
Low Short term, reversible >50 % of soil resources damage or disruption to soil retained on site resources quality through handling, stockpiling etc.
15.2.15. For agricultural drainage systems the magnitude of change from baseline conditions is defined by reference to Table 15.4.
Table 15.4: Magnitude of change to agricultural drainage systems
Magnitude Disruption to agricultural drainage systems
High Permanent (irreversible) disruption to on-site or off-site drainage
Moderate Long term (reversible) disruption to on-site or off-site drainage
Environmental Statement 512
Low Short term, reversible disruption to on-site or off-site drainage
Note: Criteria based on consultant’s experience
15.2.16. For the farm business the magnitude of change from baseline conditions is defined by reference to Table 15.5.
Table 15.5: Magnitude of change to farm business
Magnitude Disruption to farm business
High Over 10% of the total land farmed lost or severe fragmentation of the fields or loss of agricultural buildings
Moderate 5–10% of the total land farmed lost or moderate fragmentation of the fields
Low Less than 5% of the total land farmed lost, access to the fields maintained, negligible fragmentation
Note: Criteria based on consultant’s experience
Significance criteria
15.2.17. The scale of impacts is determined in relation to the sensitivity of the receptor and magnitude of change from baseline conditions, using the matrix shown in Table 15.6. Only impacts rated as moderate or major are considered to result in significant effects on the receptor.
Table 15.6: Scale of Impact Matrix
Magnitude of Sensitivity of receptor change High Medium Low
Very high / High Major Major Moderate
Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor
Low Minor Minor Negligible / none
Environmental Statement 513
Mitigation
15.2.18. Upon determining the scale of impacts and the significance of the effects associated with the Proposed Development, appropriate mitigation measures are proposed. Mitigation measures reduce the scale of impacts with the aim of removing significant effects where possible. Residual (post-mitigation) impacts are then identified.
Assumption and Limitations
15.2.19. The assessment was carried out without undue limitations.
15.2.20. There are no published or universally accepted assessment criteria for effects on agricultural land, soil resources, agricultural drainage or farm business, but it is considered that the assessment criteria used are well founded, as explained above.
15.2.21. Information about the current farming businesses was obtained from Brown & Co. who act as the land agent for the Site. The potential impact of the Proposed Development on the farm enterprises currently operating within the Application Site was discussed over the telephone in May 2015.
15.2.22. Any potential impacts to the viability of the farm businesses are considered to be fully mitigated through the process of discussion and negotiation between the developer, the landowner and agricultural tenants. It is considered that such negotiations have already reached a satisfactory stage whereby landowners and/or tenants will be effectively compensated for all potential losses of revenue to farm business resulting from the Proposed Development.
15.3. Planning Policy
European level
Seventh Environment Action Programme
15.3.1. The European Union’s Soils Thematic Strategy (COM (2006) 231) was adopted in 2006, with the objective of protecting soils across the European Union (EU). This was followed by the proposed Soils Framework Directive (COM (2006) 232) which set out the principles for soil protection through a comprehensive Thematic
Environmental Statement 514
Strategy. The proposed Soils Framework Directive was never formally adopted and was withdrawn by the European Commission in May 2014.
However, the Seventh Environment Action Programme (EAP) was adopted in November 2013. The 7th EAP sets out nine priority objectives and will guide European environment policy until 2020. Additionally, in order to give more long- term direction, the EAP also sets out a vision for 2050. The EAP recognises that soil degradation is a serious challenge and requires that all land within the Union is managed sustainably by 2020, so that soils are adequately protected. The EAP commits the EU and its Member States to increasing efforts to reduce soil erosion, increase soil organic matter and to remediate contaminated sites.
National level
National Planning Policy Framework
15.3.2. Paragraphs 111 and 112 of the Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012) promote the sustainable management and protection of soils and agricultural land consistent with the economic, social and environmental needs of England. These paragraphs state:
“Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land;” and “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development on agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.”
15.3.3. Consequently, impacts on soil resources and BMV agricultural land are to be considered and the resources protected against development, where their importance overrides the economic benefits of the development itself.
15.3.4. The National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) also makes specific reference to the protection of soils and BMV agricultural land in paragraph 026:
Environmental Statement 515
“Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.”
15.3.5. Together, this National Framework encourages the sustainable management of BMV agricultural land, and encourages the protection of its soils.
Soil Strategy for England
15.3.6. The National Strategy for England; Safeguarding our Soils (DEFRA, 2009a), provides a long-term guide to direct policy regarding the protection of soils in England. The strategy highlights the importance of the protection of soils, especially in agricultural landscapes and during development. Protecting soils ensures the protection of their related ecosystem services, the mitigation of climate change, and prevention of contamination.
15.3.7. In particular, Chapter 1 of this document ensures soils are sustainably managed and degradation threats are successfully dealt with, whilst Chapter 2 puts this into the context of agricultural landscapes. Chapter 6 ensures effective soil protection during development and construction, with a focus on the protection of soil-related ecosystem services. Furthermore, in response to this DEFRA has constructed a series of best practice guidelines for the handling and storage of soil resources during development, which are referred to later within this report.
Local planning policy
South Kesteven Core Strategy, 2010
15.3.8. The South Kesteven Core Strategy was formally adopted in July 2010 and is the key "umbrella" document of the LDF. It provides the spatial policy framework for development and change in the district of South Kesteven for the period to 2026 and establishes the key principles which should guide the location, use and form of development.
15.3.9. Paragraph 1.7.8 of the Core Strategy states that outside of the District’s market towns, agriculture has traditionally been the main industry, with 87% of the land in Lincolnshire in agricultural production, compared with 72% for England as a whole.
Environmental Statement 516
This indicates the abundance of agricultural land across the District. However, none of the policies within the Core Strategy directly reference soils or agricultural land quality
South Kesteven Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document
Paragraph 5.3.2 of the Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document asserts that “National policy is to protect the countryside from inappropriate development”. However, none of the policies within the document directly reference soils or agricultural land quality.
15.4. Baseline Conditions
15.4.1. This section summarises soils and the ALC of the Application Site. Detailed soil characteristics and the results of the ALC survey are presented in Appendix 15.1 Soils and Agricultural Land Classification and Appendix 15.2 ALC map and details of the assessment.
Soils
15.4.2. According to the Soil Survey of England and Wales maps, there are two main soil types (soil associations) present at the Site: Denchworth and Blackwood. The Denchworth association is characterised by slowly permeable, seasonally waterlogged clayey soils. Typical land uses include winter cereals and short term grassland in drier lowlands. The Blackwood association is characterised by deep, permeable, sandy and coarse loamy soils. Typical land uses include cereals, potatoes and sugar beet, as well as some grassland and coniferous woodland.
15.4.3. A detailed soil survey was carried out within the agricultural land on the Application Site to provide further details of the soil characteristics and to provide data to inform the ALC. Topsoil across the Application Site has clay loam or sandy clay loam texture; whilst the subsoil predominantly has a silty clay texture, except for the pastures in the south-east of the Application Site where it has sandy clay texture. Generally, the subsoil has a strong structure and coarse prismatic ped (soil fragment) shape and is mottled (with spots and blotches of different colour), indicating periodic saturation with water (waterlogging).
Environmental Statement 517
Agricultural land quality
15.4.4. MAFF’s 1:250,000 ALC mapping for the region (1993) indicates the Proposed Development is, Grade 3, good to moderate quality, agricultural land. However, is no differentiation made between Subgrades 3a and 3b at the scale of map provided and therefore the scale of mapping cannot be used to identify the ALC grade of the land at the field level. Therefore, in order to determine the ALC grade at a field level, detailed soil and ALC surveys were undertaken, as detailed in Appendices 15.1 and 15.2. The studies showed that the ALC grade of the agricultural land within the Application Site is limited to Subgrade 3b (moderate quality) due to soil wetness, with the topsoil demonstrating a relatively high clay content and the soil profile generally demonstrating seasonal wetness. However, this is considered a borderline classification that has the potential to be raised to ALC Subgrade 3a (good quality and BMV) through improvements in underdrainage in conjunction with soil and crop management techniques.
Agricultural drainage
15.4.5. The agricultural land has a gently sloping or level topography, predominantly draining south-east to a Running Furrows, flowing in a general west to east direction. The grazing land to the south-east drains in a general north-west direction, also toward Running Furrows. There were no areas within the Application Site which exhibited surface wetness at the time of inspection. No formal drainage measures were observed at the Application Site; and neither the land agent nor the landowner were aware of any existing underdrainage system within the Application Site.
Farming business
15.4.6. There are two agricultural businesses using the land within the Application Site. The first user is Pask Farms, who farm on the arable land west of Running Furrows on a business tenancy basis. The second farm business leases 5ha of the pastures located to the south-east of the Running Furrows. This land is farmed on a short- term tenancy basis.
Environmental Statement 518
15.5. Potential Effects
15.5.1. In respect of agricultural land, soil resources and agricultural drainage systems, the only impacts arise during construction phase of the Proposed Development. No operational phase impacts were identified. The loss of agricultural land occurs already during construction phase, there is no further loss or restoration of agricultural land planned for the operational phase.
Agricultural land
15.5.2. Due to the presence of non-BMV agricultural land (Subgrade 3b) within the Application Site, according to the criteria in Table 15.1, the agricultural land is considered to be receptor of medium sensitivity. The nature of the development is such that all agricultural land within the Application Site boundary would be permanently lost to agricultural use. Therefore, based on the criteria set out in Table 15.2, the magnitude of change, in the absence of mitigation, would be low; and based on the criteria in Table 15.6, the impact of the Proposed Development on agricultural land would be minor adverse and would result in a non-significant effect.
Soil resources
15.5.3. The Proposed Development would result in disturbance to soil resources. The activities of the construction phase which have an impact upon soil resources include:
Stripping, stockpiling, handling and reinstatement of topsoil and subsoil;
Ground excavation;
Stockpiling materials on soil surface;
Levelling ground;
Trenching;
Road construction; and
Vehicle movements on site.
Environmental Statement 519
15.5.4. The adverse effects of such operations on soil resources include:
Damage to the structure and compaction;
Loss of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen);
Loss of soil biota (e.g. bacteria, fungi, earthworms) and reduction of its activity; and
Mixing of soil horizons (especially topsoil with subsoil) reducing their potential for reuse.
Removal of soil resources from the site
15.5.5. The soil resources present on Application Site are considered to be a receptor of medium sensitivity due to the presence of non-BMV land (Table 15.1). In the absence of mitigation and appropriate soil handling and storage practices, the Proposed Development has the potential to cause permanent irreversible damage to soil resource quality; and potentially for the permanent loss or removal of the soil resource from Application Site. Therefore based on the criteria
15.5.6.
15.5.7.
15.5.8.
15.5.9. Table 15.3, the magnitude of change would be very high. Therefore, based on the criteria in Table 15.6, the impact of the Proposed Development in the absence of appropriate mitigation would be major adverse and would result in a significant effect.
Agricultural drainage
15.5.10. No formal agricultural drainage or under drainage measures were identified during the Application Site inspection or through discussions with the landowner and their agent. However it is known that extensive underdrainage network has been
Environmental Statement 520
installed in the 1970’s and it may be present in the arable fields on the land west of Running Furrows. The potential impacts of the Proposed Development upon agricultural drainage systems therefore include severance of the underdrainage, which in the absence of drainage plans can only be determined during groundworks; and disruption of surface water runoff, which could lead to the disruption of off-site agricultural drainage or increased waterlogging external to the Application Site.
15.5.11. Agricultural drainage is a receptor of medium sensitivity (Table 15.1). In the absence of mitigation, based on the criteria in Table 15.4, the magnitude of change would be high due to permanent (irreversible) disruption to off-site agricultural drainage. Therefore, based on the criteria in Table 15.6, the impact of the Proposed Development would be major adverse and would result in a significant effect.
Farm business viability
15.5.12. Pask Farms farm significant other land in the region (precise number not disclosed, but landholding exceeds 3,200ha). The land take of the Proposed Development would therefore be less than 1% of the total area farmed by the enterprise, what constitutes a negligible impact (no effect) on the financial viability of the overall farm business.
15.5.13. The land farmed by the second business, even though it falls within the planning application boundary, would not form part of the built development and would remain as agricultural grazing land. Therefore there would be no impact on this farming business.
Environmental Statement 521
Table 15.7: Potential Impacts associated with the Proposed Development (in the absence of mitigation)
Potential Impact Cause Sensitivity of Magnitude of Scale of Impact Effect receptor change
Permanent loss Soil stripping, handling and storage; MEDIUM LOW MINOR ADVERSE Non-significant of agricultural Construction of buildings and infrastructure. land
Loss of soil Soil stripping, handling and storage; MEDIUM VERY HIGH MAJOR ADVERSE Significant resources Levelling ground; Vehicle movements on site; Landscaping operations.
Disruption/seve Soil stripping, handling and storage; MEDIUM HIGH MAJOR ADVERSE Significant rance to Vehicle movements on site; agricultural Landscaping operations. drainage
Farm business Loss of land and buildings, severance of fields. MEDIUM LOW NEGLIGIBLE Non-significant
Environmental Statement 522
15.6. Proposed Mitigation
Agricultural Land
15.6.1. The scale impact of the Proposed Development on the agricultural land is minor adverse, which is considered to result in a non-significant effect which does not require mitigation. The permanent and irreversible loss of agricultural land within the Application Site to built development cannot be mitigated as this could only be achieved by the creation of new agricultural land elsewhere in the locality, which is not possible. However, some impact on the agricultural land would be avoided as approximately 5ha of agricultural land in the south-east part of the Application Site, which is currently used as a grazing land, would be retained in its current form, as described above.
Soil resources
15.6.2. On the basis of the sealed land footprint (such as building foundations, roads and pavements) of 45%, according to the illustrative masterplan (Figure 2.1), it is assumed that more than 50% of soil resources would be retained on the Application Site for reuse in the creation of residential gardens and soft landscaping etc. In the event that a proportion of soil resources cannot be reused on the Application Site these would be put to beneficial use elsewhere in the locality using approved contractors with appropriate Environmental Agency permits in place.
15.6.3. According to the illustrative masterplan (Figure 2.1) approximately 55% of the Application Site surface area would not be permanently developed, i.e. the pasture land to the south-east of Application Site, ecological enhancement areas, residential gardens and other landscaping areas. Soil functions, such as carbon storage, water and air filtration, flood attenuation, providing habitat to soil organisms, and supporting plant life would be retained in these areas.
15.6.4. Soil resources would be protected against damage during stripping, handling and stockpiling by adoption of appropriate up to date guidance measures. The current guidelines: Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on
Environmental Statement 523
Construction Sites (Defra, 2009b) for typical working methods and techniques used to protect topsoil resources include the following:
The handling of soil resources only when sufficiently dry, generally limiting soil operations to the months April to September (although this period may be extended during dry periods);
The stripping, handling and storage of topsoil separately from subsoil;
Appropriate seeding of soil storage mounds if required for a period longer than 6 months, to prevent erosion and to maintain soil structure, nutrient content and biological activity;
Protection of the stockpiles from contamination by other materials;
Minimising the number of machine movements across topsoil to minimise compaction and to retain soil structure, and avoiding traffic in areas which do not need to be disturbed;
Spreading topsoils only if the subsoil has been decompacted (cultivated with a subsoiler); and
Using any surplus topsoil beneficially elsewhere.
15.6.5. These measures would be included in the detailed design and Construction Environmental Management Plan. These measures, and the soil and land functions that they are designed to protect are summarised in below.
Environmental Statement 524
Table 15.8: Design/Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the main effects of construction on soil and land functions
Soil/land function Design measure
Landscape support Retention and re-use of stripped soil. Minimising soil compaction in landscaped areas. Avoidance of traffic on undisturbed areas.
Food and fibre production Retention of 4ha of grassland.
Transformation and buffering Maximising use of porous surfaces. Minimising soil compaction.
Supporting habitats/biodiversity Minimising soil compaction in landscaped areas. Avoidance of traffic on undisturbed areas. Provision of range of biodiversity features within landscape areas.
Storing and filtering water Maximising use of porous surfaces. Minimising compaction in landscaped areas.
Drainage
15.6.6. During construction, measures to prevent excessive runoff to adjacent land, such as the creation of temporary grips and bunds or temporary holding lagoons would be in place. Additionally, impacts to existing on-site drainage would be mitigated through the implementation of sustainable drainage measures. A Sustainable urban Drainage System (SuDS) has been incorporated into the illustrative masterplan (Figure 2.1) to ensure that existing runoff rates are maintained. The detailed design and construction of the SuDS for the Application Site would require approval by the Environment Agency.
15.6.7. If during the excavations in the arable field in the central section of the Application Site underdrainage is identified, suitable outfalls to drainage ditches will be provided to maintain its functionality.
Environmental Statement 525
15.7. Residual Effects
15.7.1. The impacts of the Proposed Development have been reassessed taking into account the mitigation and avoidance measures referred to above.
Agricultural Land
15.7.2. The retention of a part of the agricultural land to the south-east of the site for agricultural use (grazing) will reduce the loss of agricultural land. However the area of loss would remain in excess of 20ha and the permanent loss of this land to agricultural use cannot be mitigated. Therefore, the impact to agricultural land would remain minor adverse resulting in a non-significant effect.
Soil Resources
15.7.3. Some impacts to the soil resource, such as to the soils structural integrity, its water holding capacity and nutrient holding capability, cannot be entirely mitigated, and therefore contribute to its loss and partial loss of function.
15.7.4. However, implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above, would result in the correct handling and storage of the soil resources, whilst minimising the volume of soils lost through erosion. The resulting damage or disruption to the soil resources would therefore be classed as short-term and reversible; and the magnitude of change from the baseline condition would be reduced to low (
15.7.5.
15.7.6.
15.7.7.
15.7.8. Table 15.3. The residual scale of impact to the soil resource would therefore be minor adverse, which is considered to be not significant (Table 15.6).
15.7.9. The soil resources within the areas of Application Site to be used for ecological enhancement, would only undergo changes to their management regime and would
Environmental Statement 526
not be physically disturbed. Similarly the retained grazing land to the south-east of the Application Site would not undergo physical disturbance and would continue its current land use. There would be no impact to soil resources in these areas.
Drainage
15.7.10. With mitigation measures in place, the Proposed Development would only result in short term reversible disruption to both on-site and off-site drainage. Therefore the magnitude of change is reduced to low (Table 15.4) and the overall impact is reduced to minor adverse to negligible, which is considered to be not significant (Table 15.6).
15.7.11. No other residual impacts were identified in association with the construction or operation phase of the Proposed Development.
Table 15.9: Residual environmental effects
Impact identified Scale of Design/Mitigation Scale of Effect impact pre- measures impact mitigation post- mitigation
Permanent change of MINOR Retention of MINOR Non- use of non-BMV ADVERSE approximately 5ha ADVERSE significant agricultural land (13%) of the Site as a grassland (retaining agricultural capability)
Loss of soil resources MAJOR Maximising on-site MINOR Non- ADVERSE reuse of soil ADVERSE significant resources; Following soil handling guidelines (Defra, 2009b).
Disruption/severance MODERATE Use of grips and MINOR Non- to agricultural ADVERSE bunds etc. to ADVERSE significant drainage prevent excessive surface water
Environmental Statement 527
Impact identified Scale of Design/Mitigation Scale of Effect impact pre- measures impact mitigation post- mitigation runoff. The implementation of SuDS as necessary and agreed by the Environment Agency.
15.8. Summary
15.8.1. This chapter presents the assessment of impact of the Proposed Development on agricultural land, soils and agricultural drainage. The assessment was based on a desk study using published data sources; a site survey to investigate soil characteristics across the Application Site; and the calculated ALC grading (agricultural land quality) of the Application Site, which was based upon the findings of the desk based assessment and soil survey.
15.8.2. These baseline data were then used to assess the impact of the Proposed Development based on the sensitivity of environmental receptors (agricultural land, soil resources and agricultural drainage) and magnitude of change from the baseline condition, giving the scape of the impact experienced.
15.8.3. Mitigation measures were proposed to minimise the scale of impacts in order to remove significant effects where possible. Residual (post-mitigation) impacts were then identified.
15.8.4. The desk study and soil survey identified the soils present on the Application Site as being prone to waterlogging due to slowly permeable clayey subsoils. This means that the agricultural land quality is limited by wetness to Subgrade 3b (moderate quality), covering the entire Application Site.
Environmental Statement 528
15.8.5. In the absence of appropriate mitigation and as a worst-case there was the potential for all soils within the Application Site to be lost or permanently damaged; for all agricultural land to be irreversibly removed from productive agricultural use; and for permanent disruption to on- and off-site agricultural drainage. Under these unmitigated scenarios the Proposed Development could potentially result in minor adverse impact to agricultural land, major adverse impact to soils, and a major adverse impact to agricultural drainage. Significant effects on soil resources and agricultural drainage where therefore identified
15.8.6. The loss of agricultural land to built development cannot be mitigated. However, approximately 5ha, or 13% of the Application Site would be kept as productive agricultural grazing land, meaning that there would be no impact on the farming business using this land. While impact on the farming business managing the remaining land on the Application Site would be negligible as its loss would constitute less than 1% of the land farmed by this enterprise.
15.8.7. The damage and loss of soil resources stripped as a result of built development would be reduced through the use of appropriate soil handling techniques and the reuse of stripped soils on the Site. According to the illustrative masterplan (Figure 2.1) it is estimated that approximately 45% of the area would be permanently developed. Soil functions would be retained in the remainder of the land in uses such as ecological enhancement zones, public greenspace, hedgerows and private gardens. Disruption to agricultural drainage would be mitigated by rerouting of the affected drainage ditches and incorporation of SuDS into the Application Site design.
15.8.8. With the mitigation measures outlined above, the residual impacts to agricultural land, soil resources and agricultural drainage would be minor adverse. The effects of the Proposed Development would therefore be not significant.
15.9. References Defra 2009a, Safeguarding our Soils: A Strategy for England, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /69261/pb13297-soil-strategy-090910.pdf (accessed 30/01/2015).
Environmental Statement 529
Defra 2009b, Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /69308/pb13298-code-of-practice-090910.pdf (accessed 15/01/2015).
Department for Communities and Local Development 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy- framework--2 (accessed 30/01/2015).
Environmental Statement 530
16.0 Cumulative Assessment
16.1. Introduction
16.1.1. In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the EIA needs to consider the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development in combination with the environmental effects of other developments on sensitive receptors identified through the EIA process.
16.1.2. This chapter draws together the findings from the individual inputs in the ES; defines inter-relationships between the other developments in the area surrounding the site; and establishes whether there are any other cumulative effects on the identified sensitive receptors which may require additional mitigation not previously identified.
16.1.3. Sensitive receptors have been identified in individual chapters of the ES and these have varying degrees of sensitivity to change as a result of the Proposed Development. Regard has been given to the sensitivity of the identified receptors to ensure that consideration is then given to those which are particularly the most sensitive to impact, taking into account the extent of the effects arising. The professional judgement of those undertaking the ES as well as topic specific criteria, legislation or guidelines have been used to identify the degree of sensitivity.
16.2. Methodology and Assessment Criteria
16.2.1. This section provides the methodology and assessment criteria and a summary of those developments that have been identified for consideration as part of the cumulative assessment.
16.2.2. Best practice dictates that cumulative assessments of this nature should only have regard to those schemes which are ‘reasonably forseeable’ (i.e. usually those under consideration or with planning permission). The assessment is only capable of being carried out based on the information available at this time.
16.2.3. A review of the SKDC planning register was undertaken to identify those developments which are factored into the cumulative assessment.
Environmental Statement 531
16.2.4. The cumulative assessment considers major development and infrastructure projects within a 3km radius of the Application Site and which have a reasonable prospect of coming forward before or at the same time as the Proposed Development.
16.2.5. Projects considered in the site search include the following:
1) Major developments where construction has commenced on site but has not yet been completed;
2) Major development sites identified in the Adopted SKDC Core Strategy (2010) which have a realistic prospect of progressing on site before completion of the Proposed Development; and
3) Major developments where a planning application has been submitted but remains under consideration by SKDC.
16.2.6. For the purposes of the cumulative assessment, major developments are defined as any development or infrastructure projects falling within the definitions set out in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations 2011 or where, in relation to housing and employment projects, the overall development exceeds 5ha in area.
16.3. Identification of cumulative assessment developments
16.3.1. For the purposes of cumulative assessment, only those projects which are likely to secure planning permission and have a realistic prospect of making a reasonable start on site by completion of the Proposed Development have been considered. The developments factored into the cumulative assessment as requiring consideration in relation to the potential indirect or cumulative effects are listed in Table 16.1. Collectively the locations of the developments are shown on Figure 16.1.
Environmental Statement 532
Table 16.1: Developments Factored into the Cumulative Assessment
No. Planning Name/Locatio Description of Status Reference n Development No./ SHLAA ref
Major sites where construction has commenced but not yet completed
1. S08/1231- North West A mixed use Constructio GRA14-62 Quadrant Phase urban extension n currently 1/ Poplar Farm. comprising up to underway 1800 dwellings, community facilities, open space, a new road and road bridge.
Major development sites identified in the Adopted SKDC Core Strategy (2010) and which have a realistic prospect of progressing on site before completion of the Proposed Development
2. GRA14 - North West n/a Site is 197/198 and - Quadrant phase allocated in 199 2 South Kesteven Adopted
Core Strategy (2010)
Major development sites where a planning application has been submitted and is currently under consideration
3. S14/2953, Land North of Residential Planning GRA14-149 Dysart Road development of application 227 dwellings, has been public open submitted, space, play area but not yet and associated determined. infrastructure.
Environmental Statement 533
4. S14/3571, Land south of Residential Planning GRA14-119 Barrowby Road development of application up to 300 has been dwellings, open submitted, space and but not yet landscaping. determined.
16.4. Cumulative Effects
16.4.1. The potential for cumulative effects arising from developments referred to in Table 16.1 are considered on a topic by topic basis below. The assessment has been carried out on the basis of the construction of the Proposed Development commencing in 2016 and being completed in 2024. Where no cumulative effects are identified then this is also stated.
16.5. Socio-Economics
16.5.1. Due to the scale and location of the Proposed Development relative to those other developments referred to in Table 16.1, cumulative Socio-Economic impacts would be limited and where they do occur are likely to be diffused across the Grantham Urban Area.
16.5.2. There are likely to be cumulative effects with other development on population, housing and the economy. All these impacts are positive and beneficial and are consistent with the growth agenda for Grantham.
16.5.3. Overall, population impacts are positive as, in accordance with the growth agenda, the Proposed Development will contribute to a significant increase in the Town’s population, with the associated benefits that this will confer. Effects on housing will also be positive, as the proposed housing will contribute to a quantitative and qualitative increase in market and affordable housing, again underpinning the local growth agenda. Effects on the local economy will be positive, through the contribution of an estimated £11.8 million per annum additional local spend by future residents and through direct and indirect job creation/retention. The positive effects relating to the school, community hall and neighbourhood centre are likely
Environmental Statement 534
to be localised to this part of Grantham as are the positive effects in terms of open space.
16.6. Landscape and Visual
Introduction
16.6.1. A search area from the Application Site (typically of a similar scale to the study area) has been used to judge what is included in the Cumulative Assessment. Operational and consented developments are typically treated as being part of the landscape and visual baseline. i.e. it is assumed that consented schemes will be built except for occasional exceptions where there is good reason to assume that they will not be constructed. Initial cumulative ZTVs, showing the likely areas where schemes may be visible have been used to inform such discussions.
16.6.2. For this assessment, the following major sites have commenced construction, but not yet completed:
North West Quadrant Phase 1/Poplar Farm
16.6.3. For this assessment, the following major sites have been submitted for planning and currently under consideration by the Council within 3km of the Application Site:
Land North of Dysart Road (planning ref: S14/2953 and SHLAA ref: GRA14-149)
Land south of Barrowby Road (planning ref: S14/3571 and SHLAA ref: GRA14- 119)
16.6.4. Schemes which are at the stage of scoping for ES purposes are also noted, but are not included within the assessment unless they become active applications before the LVIA is submitted, with occasional exceptions for schemes where reliable information is available with respect to the scheme design, and the application is known to be imminent. However, for this assessment, the following sites identified in the Adopted SKDC Core Strategy (2010) have been judged as having a realistic prospect of progressing on site before completion of the Proposed Development, and therefore represent potential cumulative sites:
Environmental Statement 535
North West Quadrant (NWQ) Phase 2 (SHLAA ref: GRA14-197/198 and 199)
16.6.5. The cumulative assessment examines the same groups of landscape and visual receptors as the assessment for the Proposed Development. In addition, the effects on users of routes through the area, from which developments may be sequentially visible as one passes through the landscape are also considered.
16.6.6. The assessment is informed by cumulative ZTVs, showing the extent of visual effects of the schemes in different colours to illustrate where visibility of more than one development is likely to arise.
16.6.7. Landscape and visual cumulative assessment considers cumulative effects in two ways::
Combined cumulative effects are the effects that would arise from multiple developments being completed at around the same time. The effects may be the same as for the Proposed Development alone, or greater (where the influence of multiple schemes would increase effects, or where schemes other than the Proposed Development would have the predominant effects).
Incremental cumulative effects are the effects that would arise if the Proposed Development was to be delivered with other schemes already in place. The effects may be the same as for the Proposed Development alone, or reduced (where the influence of other schemes would be such that were they considered to be part of the baseline, the incremental change arising from the addition of the Proposed Development would be less).
Subject to the distance and degree of intervening landform, vegetation and structures there may be no cumulative effects.
Assessment Scenarios and Methodology
16.6.8. As is common practice for cumulative assessment including a number of schemes in planning, this assessment considers a number of different scenarios that may arise. In each scenario, the existing and approved schemes listed above form the baseline, i.e. they are assumed to be constructed. Therefore NWQ Phase 1 is referred to within
Environmental Statement 536
the baseline of the LVIA at Chapter 7 of the ES. Scenarios which do not include the Proposed Development are not assessed, as those are not material to this application.
16.6.9. It can also be seen from Table 16.1 that there are potentially a large number of scenarios which may arise. In order to reduce this complexity, the following steps have been taken:
Sites at north of Dysart Road and south of Barrowby Road have been scoped out of the cumulative assessment as the ZTV backed up by field observations indicate that there is no intervisibility between the Proposed Development and the aforementioned sites. Therefore no cumulative landscape or visual effects will arise.
16.6.10. The schemes omitted from detailed assessment are not included in the text descriptions below except where they are of particular relevance.
16.6.11. The assessed scenarios are therefore as indicated in the table below:
Table 16.2: Landscape and Visual cumulative scenarios assessed
Scenario Description
Scenario 1 Proposed Development plus existing and approved development (i.e. NWQ Phase I). This is the same as the effects for the Proposed Development on its own and is provided within this section for comparison purposes.
Scenario 2 Proposed Development, existing and approved developments plus NWQ Phase 2
Receptors Assessed
16.6.12. Cumulative effects are assessed on the same group of landscape and visual receptors as the assessment for the main scheme. Landscape and visual receptors that are considered to receive effects of Low to Negligible or Negligible magnitude (both localised and overall) from the Proposed Development are not included in this assessment, as an effect of such low magnitude manifestly adds nothing or very little regardless of the distribution of other developments. If significant cumulative
Environmental Statement 537
effects arise on those receptors, they would be as a result of other developments and as such are not relevant for consideration as part of this application.
ZTV Studies
16.6.13. The following cumulative ZTV studies have been prepared to aid this assessment as follows:
Figure 7.3 – Proposed Development and existing developments, which establishes the pattern of visibility for Scenario 1
Figure 16.2 – Proposed Development, existing developments and NWQ Phase 2
16.6.14. Figure 16.2 illustrates that NWQ Phase 2 has a larger ZTV than the Proposed Development with potential visibility extending up the scarp slopes to the east of Grantham as well as along upper slopes to the south of the town and Barrowby. Notably, theoretical visibility of NWQ Phase 2 spills out west across the low lying land of the Trent and Belvoir Vales beyond the scarp slopes associated with Grantham. Seeing development associated with Grantham within this area west of the town would set a precedent for development other than the hill top villages of Great Gonerby and Barrowby. The ridgeline associated with Gonerby Hill prevents theoretical visibility of NWQ Phase 2 from areas in close proximity to the Application Site, such as east of Great Gonerby and within Belton Woods Golf Course. Therefore there is no cumulative visibility (where both sites can be seen simultaneously) from this area. It is also notable that the ZTV highlights slightly greater theoretical visibility of the NWQ Phase 2 scheme within Belton Park than the Proposed Development. This indicates that the higher ground level of the NWQ Phase 2 site would appear to have more of a potential effect on Belton Park than the Application Site which is at a lower ground level, even though the latter is closer to the Park boundary.
Environmental Statement 538
Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character
16.6.15. The following landscape character areas are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of the Development Proposal, and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects:
Grantham Scarps and Valleys (South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment)
Grantham Scarps and Valleys
16.6.16. As described in Chapter 7, and illustrated on Figure 7.6, the Proposed Development has an extremely localised effect on the character of the immediate surrounding landscape, effectively urbanising an area of countryside associated with the lower lying ground related to Grantham. The completion of NWQ Phase 2 located upon higher ground (c. 100-110m AOD) will encroach on the key characteristic ‘Built development in Grantham…generally on the lower lying land in the valleys’.1 The loss of this rising area of undeveloped land and open ridgeline will have wide ranging indirect effects on the character area with views towards open countryside, being replaced by new urban development extending up the hill slope to the crest of the hill. Therefore, the loss of higher ground and open ridgeline to development associated with NWQ Phase 2 will have a larger scale of effect on the key characteristics of the Grantham Scarps and Valleys than the Application Site, and contravenes the Landscape Management Objectives to “avoid built development encroaching on the higher scarp slopes, or ‘skylining’”2. The incremental cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a lower value as the Site is generally in keeping with the settlement pattern of Grantham, being located within “lower lying land in the valleys”.3
1 South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment, 2007, FPCR 2 South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment, 2007, FPCR 3 South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment, 2007, FPCR
Environmental Statement 539
Cumulative Visual Effects
16.6.17. The assessment considers two types of cumulative effect, namely effects arising from combined and sequential views. These comprise:
Combined views which ‘occur where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint’. Combined visibility may either be in combination (where several developments are within the observer’s arc of vision at the same time) or in succession (where the observer has to turn to see the various developments); and
Sequential views which ‘occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different developments’.
16.6.18. This section assesses the anticipated cumulative visual effects arising from the Proposed Development in combination with the existing and approved developments. The main linear routes that share combined intervisiblity in the study area are then summarised to anticipate the likely sequential views.
Cumulative Effects on Settlements
16.6.19. The following settlements are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of the Proposed Development and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects:
Grantham (including Manthorpe); and
Great Gonerby
Grantham (including Manthorpe)
16.6.20. The development of the Application Site will extend the northern edge of Grantham (and the western edge of Manthorpe to a lesser extent) with most effects limited to the northern edges of the residential areas off Longcliffe Road and Rosedale Drive. Elevated views towards the Site and the associated extension to the town will be available from the northern edge of Gonerby Hill Foot. The arrival of NWQ Phase 2
Environmental Statement 540
will extend urban development up the hill slope of Stubbock Hill, beyond the line of the existing built extent of development associated with Gonerby Hill Foot, thereby enclosing the neighbourhood to the south. Views towards NWQ Phase 2 will be more readily available from parts of Grantham within the centre of the town and within suburbs to the east, on the opposite rising scarp. Therefore the presence of NWQ Phase 2 rising up the hill slope will be visible from a greater area of Grantham than will be the Proposed Development. As a result, the combined cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a greater scale of effect than the incremental cumulative effect, which would be the same as for the Proposed Development alone.
Great Gonerby
16.6.21. The Application Site will extend the northern edge of Grantham, changing elevated middle distance views towards open fields from the eastern edge of the village to views of built development. However, the Proposed Development will be perceived upon the lower lying ground associated with the existing settlement of Grantham, with open countryside separating the two settlements. The development of NWQ Phase 2 will extend urban development up the slope of Stubbock Hill, beyond the existing extents of Gonerby Hill Foot associated with Grantham to almost match the westerly extents of the village of Great Gonerby. The development of NWQ Phase 2 would be at the same height as built development associated with Great Gonerby, thereby eroding the prominence of the village on the hill top with Grantham lying below. Therefore, NWQ Phase 2 will replace the current middle distance open views across a rural landscape to the south from the southern edges of the village with built development. Views towards NWQ 2 will largely be available from the southern edge of Great Gonerby and along the High Street. From this location, no views towards the Proposed Development will be available to the east. As a result, the combined cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a greater scale of effect than the incremental cumulative effect.
Environmental Statement 541
Cumulative Effects on Roads and Rail
16.6.22. The following routes are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of the Development Proposal, and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects:
A607
East Coast Main Line
Belton Lane
16.6.23. However following analysis of the ZTV and field observation, the A607 and Belton Lane will have no visibility towards NWQ Phase 2 therefore these routes are not assessed further within the cumulative assessment.
East Coast Main Line
16.6.24. The East Coast Main Line travels in a north-south direction through the centre of Grantham. The Proposed Development would affect a short stretch of the line where views facing east towards the Site, currently of open agricultural fields, will be replaced with an acoustic bund and built development immediately adjacent to the Site boundary. Views further north or south of the Site Boundary are restricted by either embankments leading to a tunnel or by built development associated with Grantham respectively. To the south of the Site, the railway passes the far eastern edge of NWQ Phase 1, where the track then splits with the East Coast Main Line continuing north and the railway line to Nottingham heading west, following the northern edge of NWQ Phase 1 and 2. Where the track divides into two, the railway line is on an embankment with elevated views facing west into NWQ Phase 1 and up the slope towards NWQ Phase 2. Views at this location will see the approved development of NWQ Phase 1 extending up the hill slope in a westerly direction. NWQ Phase 2 will be more distant from the East Coast Main Line and will be perceived as development on the skyline of the hill. The development along the top of the hill will completely urbanise the hillside, along with the completed development of NWQ Phase 1. Therefore there will be no combined views towards the Proposed Development and NWQ Phase 2, but there will be sequential views
Environmental Statement 542
albeit that they will be from different sides of the passing coaches. The scale of NWQ Phase 2 will be more apparent to the receptor as it progresses up the hill with development set against the skyline, whereas the Site will be well contained behind the proposed acoustic bund. Therefore the combined cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a slightly greater scale of effect than the incremental cumulative effect.
Cumulative Effects on Recreational Routes
16.6.25. The following routes are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of the Development Proposal, and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects:
PRoW through south of Site
PRoWs between East Coast Main Line and Great Gonerby
PRoWs on Hall’s Hill
16.6.26. However, following analysis of the ZTV and field observation, the PRoW through the south of the Site and PRoWs between the East Coast Main Line and Great Gonerby will have no visibility towards NWQ Phase 2, therefore these recreational routes are not assessed further within the cumulative assessment.
PRoWs on Hall’s Hill
16.6.27. The Proposed Development will extend the existing urban settlement of Grantham in the middle distance to the north, viewed above the existing extents of the town from this elevated location on Hall’s Hill. The scale of the Site will be apparent due to the elevated location, but the Proposed Development will be perceived on the lower lying ground associated with the existing settlement pattern of Grantham. NWQ Phase 2 will be clearly visible opposite the receptor (refer to Viewpoint 6 at Volume III of ES) with open countryside rising up the slope of Stubbock Hill to the west, seen in succession with the Proposed Development. NWQ Phase 2 will extend built development to the west where development will be set against the skyline, connecting existing development to the north (Gonerby Hill Foot) and to the south (south of A52). Therefore, even though both the Proposed Development and the
Environmental Statement 543
NWQ Phase 2 sites will have the full extent of development revealed due to the elevated location of the visual receptors, the rising slope of Stubbock Hill opposite the receptor will present a more discernible difference to the view with the built form associated with NWQ Phase 2 than the northern extension of the town associated with the Application Site. As a result, the combined cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a greater scale of effect to the incremental cumulative effect.
Cumulative Effects on Accessible and Recreational Landscapes
16.6.28. The following designated landscapes are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of the Proposed Development and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects:
National Trust Belton House and Park
National Trust Belton House and Park
16.6.29. There would be cumulative visual effects from Bellmount Tower (Viewpoint 1 of Volume III of the ES) and the associated rising scarp slopes of Belton Park. Views further down the slope, as with the Proposed Development, are generally screened by intervening vegetation associated with the Deer Park. From the elevated locations of Belton Park, cumulative views in combination with the Proposed Development and NWQ Phase 2 are available facing south-west towards Grantham. The Proposed Development would be perceived upon the lower lying ground associated with the existing settlement of Grantham, and only seen as a sliver of development with retained agricultural fields to the north-east and west of the Site. Whereas NWQ Phase 2 will be seen extending up the rising slope of Stubbock Hill, replacing views of open countryside on upper valley sides to urban development. NWQ Phase 2 will encroach on the bare skyline and landmark clump of trees associated with Rectory Farm, punctuating the horizon. NWQ Phase 2 will be seen in the context of Gonerby Hill Foot to the north and development south of the A52 to the south. In combination, these will start to erode the hill top dominance of Great Gonerby and Barrowby. As a result, the combined cumulative effect of the Proposed Development
Environmental Statement 544
with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a greater scale of effect than the incremental cumulative effect.
Cumulative Effects on Specific Viewpoints
16.6.30. No specific viewpoints have been identified that require specific assessment associated with the effects of the Proposed Development.
Cumulative Effects on Designated Landscapes
16.6.31. The following designated landscapes are judged to receive Low magnitude or greater effects (locally or overall) as a result of the Development Proposal, and are therefore assessed for cumulative effects:
Belton House and Park Registered Historic Park and Garden
Belton House and Park Registered Historic Park and Garden
16.6.32. There would be cumulative visual effects from Bellmount Tower (Viewpoint 1 of Volume III of the ES) and the associated rising scarp slopes of Belton Park. Views further down the slope, as with the Proposed Development, are generally screened by intervening vegetation associated with Deer Park. From the elevated locations of Belton Park, cumulative views in combination with the Proposed Development and NWQ Phase 2 are available facing south-west towards Grantham. The Proposed Development would be perceived upon the lower lying ground associated with the existing settlement of Grantham, and only seen as a sliver of development with retained agricultural fields to the north-east and west of the Site. Whereas NWQ Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be seen extending up the rising slope of Stubbock Hill, replacing views of open countryside to urban development. NWQ Phase 2 will encroach the bare skyline and landmark clump of trees associated with Rectory Farm, where towards the south of this site, development will be perceived on the skyline of the hill, punctuating the horizon. NWQ Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be seen in the context of Gonerby Hill Foot to the north and development south of the A52 to the south. In combination, these will start to erode the hill top dominance of Great Gonerby and Barrowby. As a result, the combined cumulative effect of the
Environmental Statement 545
Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2 will be of a greater scale of effect than the incremental cumulative effect.
16.7. Cumulative Effects Summary Tables
16.7.1. The following tables (16.3 and 16.4) provide the assessment of effects following the analysis above on the various landscape and visual receptors that may potentially receive a cumulative effect from the delivery of the Proposed Development with NWQ Phase 2. Table 16.3 provides the combined cumulative effects arising from multiple developments being completed at around the same time. Table 16.4 provides the incremental cumulative effects arising if the Proposed Development was to be delivered with other schemes already in place.
Table 16.3: Total Combined Effects over the baseline of existing developments
Receptor Sensitivity Scenario 1- Scenario 2 - As Proposed Scenario 1 plus Development NWQ Phase 2 plus existing and approved development (i.e. NWQ Phase I).
Cumulative viewpoints – note ratings indicate Permanent scales of effect
Viewpoint 1: High-Medium Small to Medium-Small Bellmount Tower Negligible
Viewpoint 6: High-Medium Small Large - Medium Public footpath at Hall’s Hill
Effects on receptors – ratings indicate magnitude and significance of Permanent effects
Landscape Character
Grantham Scarps High-Medium Negligible Medium and Valleys Minimal Moderate Negative
Environmental Statement 546
Receptor Sensitivity Scenario 1- Scenario 2 - As Proposed Scenario 1 plus Development NWQ Phase 2 plus existing and approved development (i.e. NWQ Phase I).
Settlements
Grantham High-Medium Negligible Low Minimal Moderate Negative Neutral
Great Gonerby High-Medium Negligible Low Minimal Moderate Neutral Negative
Roads and Rail
East Coast Main Medium-Low Negligible Low-Negligible Line Minimal Slight-Minimal Neutral Negative
Recreational Routes
PRoWs on Hall’s High-Medium Low High-Medium Hill Moderate-Slight Major-Moderate Neutral Negative
Accessible and Recreational Landscapes
National Trust High-Medium Negligible Low Belton House and Minimal Moderate-Slight Park Neutral Negative
Specific Viewpoints
None assessed
Environmental Statement 547
Receptor Sensitivity Scenario 1- Scenario 2 - As Proposed Scenario 1 plus Development NWQ Phase 2 plus existing and approved development (i.e. NWQ Phase I).
Landscape Designations
Belton House and High Negligible Low Park Registered Slight Moderate Historic Park and Neutral Negative Garden
Table 16.4: Total Incremental Effects of adding the Proposed Development if the planned developments in the scenario were already constructed
Receptor Sensitivity Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Cumulative viewpoints – note ratings indicate Permanent scales of effect
Viewpoint 1: High-Medium Small to Negligible Small to Negligible Bellmount Tower
Viewpoint 6: High-Medium Small Small Public footpath at Hall’s Hill
Effects on receptors – ratings indicate magnitude and significance of Permanent effects
Landscape Character
Grantham Scarps High-Medium Negligible Negligible and Valleys Minimal Minimal Neutral Neutral
Environmental Statement 548
Receptor Sensitivity Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Settlements
Grantham High-Medium Negligible Negligible Minimal Minimal Neutral Neutral
Great Gonerby High-Medium Negligible Negligible Minimal Minimal Neutral Neutral
Roads and Rail
East Coast Main Medium-Low Negligible Negligible Line Minimal Minimal Neutral Neutral
Recreational Routes
PRoWs on Hall’s High-Medium Low Low Hill Moderate-Slight Moderate- Slight Neutral Neutral
Accessible and Recreational Landscapes
National Trust High-Medium Negligible Negligible Belton House and Minimal Minimal Park Neutral Neutral
Specific Viewpoints
None assessed
Landscape Designations
Belton House and High Negligible Negligible Park Registered Slight Slight Historic Park and Neutral Neutral Garden
Environmental Statement 549
16.8. Ecology
16.8.1. A review of ecology information for the developments referred to in Table 16.1 was undertaken where publically available and residual ecological effects were identified for all of these developments for grassland, hedgerows, woodland, wetland, mature tree cover, bats, birds, and white clawed crayfish. A positive effect from the Proposed Development is predicted for each of these receptors, no significant negative effects are predicted on ecology receptors arising from the Proposed Development. Where a neutral or no residual effect is anticipated in respect of the Proposed Development a cumulative assessment is not considered to be necessary.
16.8.2. The results of this review are summarised in Table 16.5. Sources of information are listed in the References section at the end of this section. Data were identified by reviewing information present on the SKDC planning portal (accessed 10th June 2015).
Table 16.5: Effects of Developments listed in Table 16.1 on grassland, hedgerows, woodland, wetland, mature tree cover, bats, birds, and white clawed crayfish.
No. Name/Location Details of likely Ecology Effects on Receptors Included in this Assessment
1. North West The Ecology Chapter for the Environmental Statement Quadrant phase 1/ (ES) for the development identifies that: Poplar Farm, No significant residual effects on habitats are predicted. Grantham No significant residual effects on bats are predicated. Significant effect at the local level on breeding bird assemblage is predicted due to lack of mitigation options for skylark and yellowhammer. White-clawed crayfish is not identified as an ecological receptor in the Ecology Chapter of the ES. No effect upon this species is therefore anticipated.
2. North West A review of aerial photography (Bing Maps 10/6/15) Quadrant phase 2, indicates that the site includes a mix of arable and grass fields, allotments and immature woodland. Hedgerows
Environmental Statement 550
No. Name/Location Details of likely Ecology Effects on Receptors Included in this Assessment Grantham and a watercourse are also shown as are mature hedgerow trees. The SKDC Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) of the SKDC Core Strategy (Adopted July 2010) identifies in its evaluation of policies and suggested mitigation with respect to this site that possible impacts include: “The use of a greenfield site may have a negative impact upon biodiversity”. Mitigation identified in the SA/SEA in relation to this possible impact is: “Impact on biodiversity can be mitigated against through requirements to assess and, where appropriate, protect identified areas of interest through the development scheme”. Providing that the impacts are mitigated as suggested in the SA/SEA no residual ecology effect from the development of phase 2 of the Northwest Quadrant is anticipated.
3. Land north of Dysart The PJC Ecology report for the site (June 2011) identifies Road, Grantham that: Semi-improved grassland is present, but this is not highlighted as being of ecological value other than as potential habitat for reptiles. The hedgerow within the site is not considered to be of value for nature conservation and not assessed as important under the Hedgerow Regulations. Value as bird breeding and connective habitats is identified and hedgerows are recommendation for retention. No woodland is present; therefore no effect on woodland is anticipated. Wetland (a stream and wet grassland) is present and is recommended for retention. Some mature tree cover is present on the site boundaries,
Environmental Statement 551
No. Name/Location Details of likely Ecology Effects on Receptors Included in this Assessment which is anticipated to be retained and therefore be unaffected. No trees with bat roosting potential are identified, the potential for the site to be used by foraging bats is identified. The wetland areas and stream (which are both recommended for retention) are identified as being of particular value in this respect. Suitable bird nesting habitat within hedgerows is identified. These are recommended for retention. White-clawed crayfish is not identified as a receptor in the report, no effect upon this species is therefore anticipated. Providing the recommendations of the report are implemented a loss of a limited amount of low quality bat foraging habitat (semi-improved grassland) is the only anticipated residual effect.
4. Land South of The FPCR ecology report for the site (November 2014) Barrowby Road identifies that: (A52) Species-poor semi-improved grassland is identified on site; this is not assessed in the FPCR report to be a significant ecological constraint to development. The loss of hedgerows which will result from the proposal is, not quantified in respect of extent or significance, a recommendation is included to compensate for loss by new hedgerow planting. The loss of woodland is identified as not significant. Wetland (including wet woodland) is either retained or identified in the FPCR report to not be an ecological constraint to development. The site is identified to be of low habitat quality for bat foraging. One tree with bat roosting potential is identified and recommended to be retained. Recommendations are made for the mitigation of effects and enhancement of the site for bat roosting and foraging. With the
Environmental Statement 552
No. Name/Location Details of likely Ecology Effects on Receptors Included in this Assessment implementation of mitigation the effects of bats of the development are considered to be negligible with the possibility of minor positive effects as habitats created as part of the development mature. No significant effect upon local bird populations is predicted. A number of enhancement measures for birds such as nest boxes are identified. White-clawed crayfish is not identified as a receptor in the report, no effect upon this species is therefore anticipated. Providing the recommendations of the report are implemented, no residual ecological effects are anticipated other than a potential long term minor positive effect for local bat populations bats.
16.8.3. The potential for cumulative effects to occur as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Development in combination with the four developments referred to in Table 16.1 is considered for each receptor below.
Grassland
16.8.4. Developments 1 to 4 all include grassland within the existing baseline. The loss of grassland associated with the development proposals is either not identified to be ecologically significant for any of the developments or losses are capable of being adequately mitigated, in the case of Development 2.
16.8.5. It is therefore considered that there is no potential for cumulative effect on grassland arising from these developments.
Hedgerows
16.8.6. Developments 1 to 4 all include hedgerows. The loss of hedgerows associated with the development proposals is not identified to be ecologically significant for any of the developments or unable to be mitigated, in the case of Development No. 2. The
Environmental Statement 553
loss of hedgerow anticipated in respect of Development 4 does not affect connectivity of the Proposed Development in the wider landscape.
16.8.7. It is therefore considered that there is no potential for cumulative effect on hedgerows arising from these developments.
Woodland
16.8.8. No significant effect on woodland is predicted for any of Developments 1 to 4. It is therefore considered that there is no potential for cumulative effect on woodland arising from these developments.
Wetland
16.8.9. No significant effect on wetland is predicted for any of Developments 1 to 4. It is therefore considered that there is no potential for cumulative effect on wetland arising from these developments.
Mature tree cover
16.8.10. No significant effect on mature tree cover is predicted for any of developments 1 to 4. It is therefore considered that there is no potential for cumulative effect on mature tree cover arising from these developments.
Bats
16.8.11. Development No. 3 will result in the loss of low quality bat foraging habitat; Development No. 4 has the potential to have a minor positive effect for bats in the long term. The Proposed Development is predicted to give rise to a positive effect for bats. Overall the cumulative effect of these developments with the Proposed Development is predicted overall to remain positive.
Birds
16.8.12. Significant effect at the local level for the breeding bird assemblage is predicted for Development No.1 due to lack of mitigation options for skylark and yellowhammer. No effect from the other developments is predicted for breeding birds. There is
Environmental Statement 554
therefore potential for cumulative effect between the Proposed Development and Development 1.
16.8.13. The construction phase effect for birds for the Proposed Development is predicted to be neutral therefore consideration of cumulative effect at the construction phase is not appropriate.
16.8.14. The operational phase effect for birds for the Proposed is predicted to be positive. The mitigation and enhancement measures for the Proposed Development, which give rise to a predicted positive effect, are therefore considered likely to act to ameliorate the negative effect predicted for Development No. 1. The cumulative effect of Development No. 1 in combination with the Proposed Development is predicted overall to be neutral.
White-clawed crayfish
16.8.15. No significant effect on white-clawed crayfish is anticipated for any of Developments 1 to 4 and it is anticipated that each development would be required to follow industry best practice in respect to work to and around watercourses, for example with respect to siltation. It is therefore considered that there is no potential for cumulative effect on white-clawed crayfish arising from these developments.
Conclusion
16.8.16. The negative effect of Development No.1 on birds is considered to act in combination with the Proposed Development to result in a cumulative neutral effect, when both schemes are considered together.
16.8.17. The positive effects predicted for the Proposed Development are otherwise unchanged by the cumulative assessment and no additional mitigation measures are proposed or considered necessary.
References: SKDC Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Adopted 05 July 2010.
SKDC Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Adopted July 2010.
Environmental Statement 555
PJC Ecology report Dysart Road, Lincolnshire. Extended Phase 1 Survey, Badger Survey, Tree Assessment for Bats, Water Vole Survey, Hedgerow Assessment, June 2011.
FPCR Ecological Appraisal Report, Land South of Barrowby Road Grantham, November 2014.
FPCR Ecological Impact Assessment, Popular Farm, Barrowby Road, Grantham, September 2008.
16.9. Built Heritage
16.9.1. This section assesses any effects that may arise as a result of incremental changes caused by those developments listed in Table 16.1 in combination with the effects of the Proposed Development.
16.9.2. Only two developments are considered to be of direct relevance to this assessment: North West Quadrant Phase 1 and North West Quadrant Phase 2. The other developments are unlikely to result in any material effect on the cumulative effect on the heritage receptors. Both developments provide the potential for a cumulative effect on Belton Registered Park and Garden (Grade I) and Bellmount Tower (Grade II*).
16.9.3. Both North West Quadrant Phase 1 and Phase 2 will only be visible from the elevated ground in the east of Belton Park, and from Bellmount Tower. Views further south, down the slope, are generally screened by intervening vegetation associated with the Park and Belton Park Golf Club.
16.9.4. The landscape west of Belton Park and Bellmount Tower is mixed and has lost many of its historical characteristics. It is open but also developed. For example Belton Woods Golf Club is a modern addition to the view, while the edge of development associated with Grantham provides a further urbanising influence.
16.9.5. North West Quadrant (Phase 1 and 2) would be perceived as a further incremental change to a much altered setting of Belton Park. The Proposed Development would lie within the lower lying ground associated with the existing settlement of
Environmental Statement 556
Grantham, and only seen as a sliver of development with retained agricultural fields to the north-east and west of the Application Site.
16.9.6. Phases 1 and 2 of the North West Quadrant would be seen as additional urban forms rising towards Stubbock Hill.
16.9.7. These two cumulative developments rise behind the western part of Grantham. Phase 2 will encroach on part of the skyline that is currently undeveloped either through buildings or planting. This development would be seen as an extension of the built up area of Grantham and not noticeably out of place. Thus, the cumulative developments provide a further urbanising influence, but not so substantially as to undermine the general character of the setting of Belton Park. Hence, the critical view, from Bellmount Tower, will experience only a very marginal change.
16.9.8. The residual effects referred to in Chapter 9 will therefore remain unchanged.
16.9.9. In summary, there will be no cumulative effects of the Proposed Development with those listed in Table 16.1 on both Belton House Registered Park and Garden and Bellmount Tower.
16.10. Archaeology
16.10.1. In terms of archaeological sites, cumulative impacts will principally arise where each development removes individual areas of preserved archaeological remains resulting in a gradual erosion and fragmentation of the total archaeological resource of the region. The Proposed Development would contribute to the cumulative physical loss of archaeological remains from development in general within the region.
16.10.2. However in all cases of development this would be offset by the beneficial contribution made to archaeological understanding of the area through excavation and recording of information which may otherwise have been lost or remained unrecorded.
Environmental Statement 557
16.11. Transport, Accessibility and Movement
16.11.1. The methodology for assessing the effects of traffic generated by the Proposed Development was agreed with Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) in order to ensure a consistent approach to forecasting traffic flows. LCC required use of their strategic SATURN model of Grantham for an assessment year of 2024. The 2024 baseline scenario (i.e. without the Proposed Development) already includes a number of development proposals that have the potential to be operational by that time and are described in the SATURN modelling report provided by LCC as committed developments. The committed development assumptions within the SATURN model include the North West Quadrant, Land North of Dysart Road and Land South of Barrowby Road and the cumulative impact of these sites is therefore already considered within the assessment included in Chapter 11
16.12. Noise and Vibration
16.12.1. The only aspect of the Proposed Development that will produce noise impacts on existing receptors is operational traffic and this impact has been assessed using vehicle movement data used in the road traffic assessment. The Transport Assessment includes the cumulative impact of other developments and therefore by default the noise assessment considers these developments also.
16.12.2. All of the developments that may contribute to traffic movements are located significant distances from the Application Site and have no effect on the noise impact of this Proposed Development.
16.13. Air Quality
16.13.1. It is considered unlikely that any cumulative effects on air quality would occur during the construction phase as the closest committed development (North West Quadrant) is located approximately 1.3km south west of the Application Site.
16.13.2. The operational phase assessment for road traffic emissions outlined in Chapter 13 utilises detailed traffic flow information. This data takes into consideration various committed developments within the Grantham area, including those listed in Table
Environmental Statement 558
16.1 and therefore by default the air quality assessment considers these developments also.
16.14. Flood Risk and Hydrology
16.14.1. The Grantham Water Cycle Strategy includes comprehensive recommendations for improvements to the foul water infrastructure including pumping stations and sewage treatment works to enable all of the proposed developments referred to in Table 16.1 to be constructed.
16.14.2. In the event that all developments were to go ahead then the improvements to the overall infrastructure would benefit the Proposed Development and nearby developments.
16.14.3. With regard to flood risk and surface water drainage matters, it is assumed that all future developments would adhere to the same planning policy context as this Proposed Development, providing appropriate restrictions on surface water discharge to the appropriate receptors.
16.14.4. Therefore it can be considered that there will be no negative cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Development proceeding in addition to any other developments in the catchment.
Agriculture and Land Use
16.15. Cumulative effects are not considered relevant to the assessment of soil resources and agriculture, as these are by nature site specific. There are thus no cumulative effects anticipated on land use, soil resources or land classification following the Proposed Development.
Environmental Statement 559
This page has been left intentionally blank
Environmental Statement 560
17.0 Summary of Mitigation
17.1. Introduction
17.1.1. This chapter sets out the mitigation measures designed to address adverse effects of the Proposed Development on the surrounding environment.
17.1.2. Mitigation measures can be used to prevent, avoid, reduce and offset the environmental effects of a development project, and may even enhance the receiving environment. As such mitigation measures can be classified in the following way:
1) Avoidance: making changes to the design of the project to avoid adverse effects on environmental features. This is considered to be the most acceptable form of mitigation;
2) Reduction: where avoidance is not possible, adverse effects can be reduced through sensitive environmental treatments/design;
3) Compensation: where avoidance or reduction measures are not available, it may be appropriate to provide compensatory measures. It should be noted that compensatory measures do not eliminate the original adverse effect, they merely seek to offset it with a comparable positive one;
4) Remediation: where adverse effects are unavoidable management measures can be introduced to limit their influence; and
5) Enhancement: projects can have positive effects as well as negative ones, and the project preparation stage presents an opportunity to enhance these positive features through innovative design.
17.2. Mitigation Measures Presented in this ES
17.2.1. In accordance with this approach, this ES set out a range of appropriate mitigation measures to address the specific effects predicted to occur. In all instances, care has been taken to ensure that the mitigation measures proposed are both deliverable (in terms of practical, logistical, financial and planning parameters), and acceptable in terms of stakeholder agreement.
Environmental Statement 561
17.2.2. Mitigation measures falling into the category of 'avoidance' are not necessarily discussed in the individual chapters of this ES because the measures are embodied in the design of project, as detailed in Chapter 2: Project Description and Chapter 4: Alternatives.
17.2.3. The specific mitigation measures applicable to each environmental topic are set out in detail in Table 17.1, which includes the delivery method to ensure the mitigation measures are implemented.
Environmental Statement 562
Table 17.1Summary of Mitigation Measures
Environmental Mitigation Measure Type of Delivery Method (e.g. Effect/Receptor Mitigation: planning condition, S106, Avoidance, design etc.) Reduction, Compensation , Enhancement
Socio-economics
Need for Affordable Policy Compliant on-site provision Enhancement S106 Agreement Housing
Increased demand for Financial Contribution (directed to The Priory Ruskin Compensation S106 agreement Secondary School places Academy)
Increased demand for Financial Contribution (net of value of the school site Enhancement S106 Agreement Primary School Places provided by the Applicants) for construction of on-site 1-form-entry Primary School.
Increased demand for Pre- Financial Contribution Compensation S106 Agreement School Places
Environmental Statement 563
Increase demand for Financial Contribution Compensation S106 Agreement primary healthcare
Landscape and Visual
Adverse visual effects Topsoil mounds will be located away from the Avoidance Planning Condition northern edge of the Application Site (i.e. highest parts of the Application Site) and not in close proximity to the Manthorpe Conservation Area. The height of topsoil mounds will be limited in order to reduce visual effects. This will be secured within the Construction Environmental Management Plan
Ecology
Loss of ridge and furrow Earthwork Survey of the surviving ridge and furrow Compensation Planning condition earthworks and and a programme of environmental sampling located palaeoenvironmental to the east of the Running Furrows. remains to the east of Running Furrows
Internal Residential Noise Internal layout of houses along the western edge will Reduction Planning Condition Exposure ensure that non-habitable spaces such as kitchens, bathrooms, hallways etc will be located on the noise exposed façade.
Environmental Statement 564
Grassland Creation of at least 2 ha species rich grassland in the Enhancement Planning condition requiring an south-east and north-west of the Application Site as Ecological Management Plan well as in the vicinity of surface water attenuation (EMP). features utilising nutrient poor subsoil’s yielded from excavations to replace the loss of 2 ha of species-poor semi-improved grassland.
Hedgerow/Habitat of Creation of at least 450m species rich hedgerow using Enhancement Planning condition requiring an Principal Importance (HPI) species native to the local area to replace the loss of up EMP to 390m linear metres of species-poor hedgerow.
Birds/Species of Principal Creation and management (including long-term Compensation/ Planning condition requiring an Importance (SPI) management) of 30 ground nesting bird plots in arable Enhancement EMP farmland and field margins to the north of the Proposed Development to replace the loss of available potential habitat for use by ground nesting birds. Alternatively an extensive grazing regime designed for ground nesting birds may also be employed in some or all of the agricultural area, which would be reseeded to create pasture under this alternative. This would include a maximum stocking rate of between 0.2 and 0.5 livestock units per hectare between March and August in any year.
Birds (SPI) Creation of at least 1000 linear metres of wide field Compensation Planning condition requiring an
Environmental Statement 565
margins in the arable land to the north of the EMP Application Site of between 7 to 20m width, variously sown on rotation with pollen and nectar, wild bird seed, and tussock grassland seed mixes to replace the loss of available potential foraging and nesting habitats for birds.
Woodland (HPI) Creation of deciduous woodland using species native Enhancement Planning condition requiring an to the local area which will provide a benefit to a EMP habitat of principal importance and Lincolnshire LBAP habitat.
Traditional Orchard (HPI) Creation of at least 0.2 ha traditional orchard, will Enhancement Planning condition requiring an provide a benefit to a habitat of principal importance EMP and Lincolnshire LBAP habitat.
Green corridors Additional strengthening and creation of green Enhancement Planning condition requiring an corridors, through gapping up and tree planting on EMP retained hedgerows and creation of swales on either side, and planting of new hedgerow to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF.
Mature tree cover Tree planting to establish the next generation of Enhancement Planning condition requiring an individual trees to provide long-term presence of EMP mature trees and structure within more open habitats within the Application Site to provide a benefit in the
Environmental Statement 566
context of the requirement of the NPPF.
Woodland (HPI) Enhancement of existing woodland through removal Enhancement Planning condition requiring an and control of non-native species such as Leyland EMP cypress and Himalayan balsam to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF.
Woodland (HPI) Enhancement of ground flora in existing woodland Enhancement Planning condition requiring an through the use of bulbs, plug planting and a seed mix EMP of woodland species native to the local area to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and to a habitat of principal importance.
Birds/Bats (SPI) Creation of bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities Enhancement Planning condition requiring an through the installation of bird and bat boxes in EMP mature trees and existing woodland, including two barn owl boxes in mature trees in farmland to the north and east of the development to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for species of principal importance.
Birds/Bats (SPI) Creation of bird and bat nesting and roosting Enhancement Planning condition requiring an opportunists through the installation of bird boxes on EMP houses and bird and bat boxes on the school building to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement
Environmental Statement 567
of the NPPF and for species of principal importance.
Birds/Bats (SPI) Creation of additional bat and bird foraging areas, such Enhancement Planning condition requiring an as traditional orchard, woodland and species rich EMP grassland to provide a benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for species of principal importance.
White-clawed crayfish (SPI) Ecological improvements to the Running Furrows Enhancement Planning condition requiring an watercourse through engineering of ledges to stabilise EMP banks and to facilitate appropriate bank management. The aim of the improvements is to enhance the watercourse for use by white-clawed crayfish to provide a biodiversity benefit in the context of the requirement of the NPPF and for specific species of principal importance.
Habitats and Species (HPI Long-term positive management to enhance the Enhancement Planning condition requiring an and SPI) ecological value of retained and created habitats such EMP as woodland, wetland, orchard, species rich grassland.
Hedgerows, birds and bats Long-term positive management of hedgerows to Enhancement Planning condition requiring an (HPI and SPI) provide additional structural diversity and allow EMP
Environmental Statement 568
flowering and setting of seed to provide diverse bird nesting habitat and enhanced foraging opportunities for birds and bats.
Mature tree cover Long-term management of trees within the Enhancement Planning condition/S106, Application Site to ensure continued cover of mature requiring an EMP trees.
Lighting
Lighting impacts during the Adoption of the Construction Code of Practice for the Avoidance Planning Condition construction phase control and management of construction lighting
LED lamp sources for construction lighting Reduction Design
Transport
Access to sustainable A financial contribution to enable the existing Route 1 Compensation S106 and Design transport bus route to serve the Application Site and provision of and pedestrian and cycle links through the Application Site Enhancement to access the existing network of routes that are available.
Junction Performance Introduction of signal control at the junction of Belton Enhancement S106 / S278 Lane and the B1174 Newark Hill. This improves the junction beyond the baseline situation.
Environmental Statement 569
Vehicle Trip Generation A Sustainable Travel Plan Reduction Planning Condition
Hydrology
Increase in flood risk from Agree connection location and financial contribution Avoidance Planning Condition foul connection with Anglian Water to improve wider network where required to accommodate flows.
Increase in Flood Risk Limit discharge rate from the Application Site and Enhancement Planning Condition caused by increase in attenuate volume in series of SuDS features limited to impermeable area less than existing discharge rate.
Decrease in downstream Implementation of the Construction Environment Avoidance Planning Condition water quality associated Management Plan which will set out detailed with the construction methodologies and monitoring requirements to phase prevent unnecessary adverse effects on the water environment.
Decrease in downstream Construction of SuDS features to provide at least three Avoidance Planning Condition water quality associated stages of treatment to eliminate any contaminated with finished development runoff before discharge
Noise
Existing Residential Implementation of a Construction Environment Avoidance/ Planning Condition Properties – Construction Management Plan to control potential noise effects Reduction
Environmental Statement 570
Noise Exposure taking into account the recommendations of BS5228:20039
Internal Residential Noise Internal layout of houses along the western edge will Reduction Planning Condition Exposure ensure that non-habitable spaces such as kitchens, bathrooms, hallways etc will be located on the noise exposed façade.
Air Quality
Dust soiling and human Implementation of a CoCP which sets out the practical Avoidance/ Planning condition health effects as a result of measures that could be incorporated as part of a best Reduction constructing the Proposed working practice scheme. It will take into account the Development recommendations included within the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance.
Human Health effects as a Measures, such as low emission strategies / incentives, Reduction Planning condition / S106 result of development equal in value to the cost calculated within the agreement generated emissions of NO2, Damage Cost Assessment
PM10 and PM2.5
Agriculture and Land Use
Degradation of onsite Soil Adoption of the DEFRA 2009: Construction Code of Avoidance/ Planning Condition Resources Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Reduction
Environmental Statement 571
Construction Sites. Incorporation of soil management into the site working strategy (e.g. Construction Environmental Management Plan).
Securing export of surplus soil from the Site for Enhancement beneficial use elsewhere in the locality according to the Defra’s Code of Practice.
Agricultural drainage If underdrainage is identified during the excavations in Avoidance Planning Condition systems the arable field on the land west of Running Furrows, suitable outfalls to drainage ditches will be provided to maintain field drainage functionality.
Environmental Statement 572