Page 1 of 1 11/06/2018 File:///D:/Adlib%20Express/Work

Page 1 of 1

From: Emily Disken Sent: 11/06/2018 11:41:46 To: Contact Planning; Sukhi Dhadwar Subject: EPF/1494/18 - North Weald Park Attachments: ES Vol 1 Main Text North Weald v1.3.pdf

Dear Sir / Madam,

Find attached Volume 1 (Main Text) of the Environmental Statement prepared by Entran to supersede the previous document submitted as part of the original application.

Please could you could acknowledge the receipt of this additional document.

Kind regards,

Emily

Emily Disken Graduate Planner Montagu Evans LLP 5 Bolton Street, London W1J 8BA Direct: 020 7866 7613 Mobile: 07818 012487 Switchboard: 020 7493 4002 Email: [email protected] Website: www.montagu-evans.co.uk

This e-mail is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the transmission. You must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it.

Montagu Evans LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales. Registered number OC312072. A list of members' names is available for inspection at the registered office 5 Bolton Street, London W1J 8BA.

file:///D:/Adlib%20Express/Work/20180611T120501.531/20180611T120501.905/d5e913f2-ab7... 11/06/2018

Quinn Estates

North Weald Park, Epping

Environmental Statement: Volume 1, Main Text

Quinn Estates

North Weald Park, Epping

Environmental Statement: Volume 1, Main Text

Revision Date Notes Author Checked Approved

1.2 25/05/18 E1927 Various Alison Banks Dr Nick Davey

1.3 30/05/18 E1927 Various Alison Banks Dr Nick Davey

Entran Limited 7 Greenway Farm Bath Road Wick Bristol BS30 5RL

T: 0117 937 4077 www.entranltd.co.uk

- CONTENTS PAGE

1 Introduction 1 2 The Site and Surroundings 6 3 Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology 8 4 Alternatives and Design Evolution 12 5 The Proposed Development 14 6 Development Programme and Construction 25 7 Transport and Access 40 8 Air Quality 101 9 Noise and Vibration 146 10 Landscape and Visual Amenity 180 11 Ecology and Nature Conservation 291 12 Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk 347 13 Soils, Geology and Contaminated Land 390 14 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 415 15 Conclusions 434

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Quinn Estates (henceforth known as ‘the Applicant’) is seeking to obtain planning permission for a mixed-use development including residential dwellings, commercial units, educational and community facilities (the ‘Proposed Development’) at a site located at the former North Weald Golf Course to the north of North Weald Bassett (the ‘Site’). The Site location is identified in Figure 1.1.

1.2 The Proposed Development will comprise the following:

“Hybrid planning application with outline planning permission (all matters reserved except for points of access) sought for up to 555 dwellings, including affordable and key worker housing; a 70-bed retirement accommodation (Class C3) and a 70-bed extra care / nursing care accommodation (Class C2); a two-form entry primary school with associated outdoor space and vehicle parking; a Special Educational Needs centre; Class D1 medical facilities; a local centre comprising a Class A1 retail space of up to 500 sq m and a community centre of up to 300 sq m; a sports hub with associated open-air sports pitches, a sports pavilion of up to 400 sq m; a scouts hut facility; B1 office space of up to 3,744 sq m; and formal and informal open space incorporating SuDS, a new Country Park, new planting / landscaping and ecological enhancement works; points of access including new roundabout on the A414.

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 135 dwellings including affordable housing (40%), open space, associated access off Rayley Lane and internal circulation roads, vehicle parking, associated services, infrastructure, landscaping and associated SuDS.

“For clarity - the total number of conventional dwellings proposed across the site is up to 690.”

1.3 The planning application is a hybrid planning application comprising an outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for means of access), together with a detailed application for an initial development phase – Phase 1.

1.4 The ES identifies and records the results of assessments of the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development and considers the potentially significant environmental effects the Proposed Development will create. The ES suggests a range of measures to mitigate the identified effects and, where opportunities exist, to introduce improvement measures.

Figure 1.1: Site Location

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE EIA

1.5 This ES has been prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (hereafter referred to as the EIA Regulations) (Ref. 1.1).

1.6 The EIA Regulations require that, before consent is granted for certain types of development, an EIA must be undertaken. The EIA Regulations set out the types of development which must always be subject to an EIA (Schedule 1 development) and other

developments which may require assessment if they give rise to significant environmental impacts (Schedule 2). The reporting of an EIA takes the form of an Environmental Statement (ES).

1.7 Following consultation with relevant statutory bodies and a review of potential environmental impacts, Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) concluded that an EIA is required for the Proposed Development.

STRUCTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

1.8 The ES has been prepared on behalf of the Applicant, by a team of specialist consultants and also draws on existing studies and information where necessary.

1.9 The ES comprises three parts – the Main Text (Volume 1), the Figures and Technical Appendices (Volume 2) and the Non-Technical Summary (Volume 3). The ES forms part of a suite of reports that will support the planning application for the Proposed Development.

1.10 The ES provides:

 A description of the Site and its surroundings (Chapter 2);  An overview of the approach and methodology of the EIA (Chapter 3);  A description of alternatives and design evolution (Chapter 4);  A description of the Proposed Development (Chapter 5);  Identification of the development programme and construction (Chapter 6);  The results of the analysis of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development for the following disciplines: Transport and Access; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration; Landscape and Visual Amenity; Ecology and Nature Conservation; Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk; Soils, Geology and Contaminated Land; and Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (Chapters 7- 14). Cumulative impacts are assessed within each of the Chapters where relevant; and  A conclusion based on the findings of the EIA (Chapter 15).

1.11 Each of the technical sections of the ES comprises: an introduction; a methodology of assessment, review of relevant policy context, a description of the baseline (existing) conditions; an assessment of the likely environmental effects of the Proposed Development; a description of mitigation measures; a discussion on residual effects; and a summary. Technical Appendices in relation to these Chapters are provided as Volume 2.

1.12 In conclusion, with reference to the EIA Regulations, the ES contains those matters which must be included:

 A description of the development comprising information on the Site, design and size of the development;  A description of measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects;  The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment;  An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant; and  A non-technical summary of the above information (Volume 3).

NATURE OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION

1.13 The Proposed Development, which has been assessed as reported in the ES, is the subject of the hybrid planning application being made to EFDC.

REFERENCES

Ref 1.1: Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.

2 THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The Site covers an area of approximately 63.4 ha and is situated either side of the A414 Harlow to Chipping Ongar Road, to the east of Rayley Lane and to the north of Vicarage Lane West. The northern edge of the Site is formed by Cripsey Brook and existing field boundaries and wooded areas. The Site forms an irregularly shape parcel of land consisting of the former North Weald Golf Course with the main entrance and former Clubhouse served off Rayley Lane near the A414 / Rayley Lane roundabout junction. The golf course is no longer operational. The Site lies within the administrative areas of Epping Forest District Council, Essex County Council, and parish of North Weald.

2.2 The planning application boundary is shown in Figure 1.1.

2.3 The Site lies approximately 5.0 kilometres to the north east of Epping town centre and about 6.5 kilometres to the south east of Harlow town centre. The village of Chipping Ongar and Marden Ash lie about 5.5 kilometres to the east of the Site. To the west of the Site and Rayley Lane is North Weald Airfield and areas of commercial development within the airfield beyond which is open undulating farmland and the M11 motorway and junction 7 whilst to the south east of the Site and Vicarage Lane West is the settlement of North Weald Bassett and areas of residential development adjoining the B181. To the south of North Weald Bassett is the Chipping Ongar Railway line (Heritage railway which connects to the London Underground at Loughton) beyond which is open countryside and farmland extending towards the M25 which is approximately 6km to the south of the Site.

2.4 To the north of the Site is the shallow open valley of the Cripsey Brook and Shonks Brook which converge near the northern corner of the Site with the brook flowing eastwards then southwards to connect with the River Rodding near Marden Ash. The landscape to the north of the Site comprises large-scale open arable farmland extending towards the hamlet of Magdalen Laver / Matching Green to the north and Moreton / Fyfield to the north east of the Site. The landscape is crossed by a network of minor roads, lanes, farm tracks and public right of way (footpaths / bridleways) connecting individual scattered farmsteads and villages.

2.5 To the south the landscape is smaller-scale open and semi-enclosed farmland consisting a mosaic of mixed arable and pasture fields / horse paddocks subdivided by robust hedgerows, hedgerow trees and small copses / wooded areas following a tributary stream to the Cripsey Brook towards North Weald Bassett.

2.6 The topography of the Site is very undulating reflecting its former use as a golf course with landform of the surrounding area gently undulating between 60 to 105m AOD with the land rising to a low ridge to the south of North Weald Bassett.

2.7 The Site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations. The nearest statutory designation to the Site is Church Lane Flood Meadow Local Nature Reserve (LNR), located 475m to the south of the Proposed Development. The Epping Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located 1.9km to the south-west. Part of the SSSI is also subject to international designation as part of Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), although this is located 6km to the south-west of the Site at its closest point. No other international designations are located within 10km of the Site.

3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 The main objectives of the ES comprise:

 Establishing the existing baseline;  Determine environmental conditions. This task was divided into two phases:

(i) collection and review of existing data relating to the Site, including a review of information held by statutory and non-statutory consultees; and

(ii) the enhancement of existing data, where necessary with information collected through site investigation and surveys.

 identifying, predicting and assessing the significance of the environmental impacts including beneficial, adverse, direct, indirect, long term, medium term, short term, temporary, permanent and cumulative impacts which could be expected as a result of the development proposals; and  determining mitigation and management measures, which would be required in order to prevent, reduce or remedy any significant adverse impacts along with consideration of enhancement measures which could be implemented to ensure positive benefits as a result of these proposals.

CONSULTATION

3.2 Consultation is an essential part of the EIA process and has been used to:

 identify available baseline data and the need for any further field surveys; and  identify the main environmental issues that need to be assessed in detail.

3.3 Both statutory and non-statutory consultees have been consulted as part of the ES. In addition, the Applicant has undertaken discussions with local councillors, local residents, businesses and interested organisations, including North Weald Airfield, Epping Youth Football Club, United Karate Association, 3rd North Weald Scouts and local resident’s groups. The Applicant is committed to consultation with local interested residents and parties regarding the development proposals.

3.4 As part of the planning promotion process, Quinn Estates Ltd has also undertaken public consultation with the local communities. Before and during the application for the development, detailed consultation was undertaken with local residents, key stakeholders. EFDC and Essex

County Council (ECC). The Applicant has sought to engage with key stakeholders throughout the pre-application and consultation phase.

3.5 Pre-application consultation with the local community has included a public exhibition event.

3.6 Throughout the pre-application process, the Applicant employed a variety of methods and approaches in accordance with best practice. The feedback received during the consultation exercises have informed and shaped the proposals for this detailed application.

SCOPE OF THE EIA

3.7 The key issues to be addressed have been identified as those upon which the development may have potentially significant effects. These cover the following subjects and were agreed with EFDC in their combined Screening and Scoping Opinion dated 5th February 2018:

 Transport and Access;  Air Quality;  Noise and Vibration;  Landscape and Visual Amenity;  Ecology and Nature Conservation;  Water Quality, Hydrology & Flood Risk;  Soils, Geology, Contaminated Land; and  Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

3.8 A number of criteria have been used to determine whether or not the potential effects of the Proposed Development are significant. Where possible, the effects have been assessed quantitatively.

3.9 The significance of effects have been assessed using one or more of the following criteria:

 international, national and local standards;  relationship with planning policy;

 sensitivity of receiving environment;  reversibility and duration of effect;  inter-relationship between effects; and  the results of consultations.

3.10 The effects that were considered to be significant prior to mitigation have been identified within the ES. The significance of these effects reflects judgement as to the importance or sensitivity of the affected receptor and the nature and magnitude of the predicted changes. For example, a large adverse impact on a feature or site of low importance will be of lesser significance than the same impact on a feature or site of high importance.

3.11 The following terms have been used to assess the significance of effects where they are predicted to occur:

 Major Beneficial or Adverse effect – where the Proposed Development would cause a significant improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment;  Moderate Beneficial or Adverse effect – where the Proposed Development would cause a noticeable improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment;  Minor Beneficial or Adverse effect – where the Proposed Development would cause a barely perceptible improvement (or deterioration) to the existing environment; and  Neutral/ Negligible – no discernible improvement or deterioration to the existing environment.

3.12 Where individual assessment sections deviate from these terms, the alternative terminology has been explained as appropriate within the relevant Chapter.

3.13 A summary impact table that describes the potential impacts, mitigation measures and any residual effects for each of the environmental issues considered is provided at the end of each Chapter, where relevant.

3.14 A non-technical summary of the ES is provided as Volume 3.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

3.15 It was determined in consultation with EFDC that there are currently no significant proposed or committed schemes within the vicinity of the Proposed Development that would

require consideration with regards to cumulative effects. This was also confirmed I the Scoping Opinion dated 5th February 2018 However, the Transport Assessment has been scoped with Highways England and Essex Highways Authority and includes the North Weald Draft Local Plan allocation sites, as identified in Chapter 7.

3.16 A small residential development proposed for the site of the former clubhouse within the golf course was identified within close proximity to the Site, however given the small scale nature of this development, cumulative effects are not considered likely.

4 ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN EVOLUTION

INTRODUCTION

4.1 This Chapter sets out the need for the Proposed Development and the main alternatives considered by the Applicant. The EIA Regulations (Ref 1.1) states that an ES should include:

“a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment.”

4.2 The following sections describe the main alternatives considered by the Applicant in addition to the Proposed Development. Consideration has also been given to and commentary is provided on any alternatives or options considered by the Applicant as follows::

 The ‘No Development' alternative;  Alternative Sites; and  Alternative Designs and Layouts.

‘NO DEVELOPMENT’ ALTERNATIVE

4.3 The ‘No-Development’ option refers to leaving the Site in its current state, which primarily comprises a redundant golf course. This alternative would not contribute positively to housing delivery in the district, which falls below the rate required to meet objectively-assessed housing need.

4.4 As the Proposed Development can contribute up to 690 dwellings to future housing supply and the Site is under the Applicant’s control, the ‘No Development’ scenario has been dismissed.

ALTERNATIVE SITES

4.5 The Applicant has control of the Site and it is available for development. The Proposed Development is specific to the Site and as the Applicant has control of the land, other sites in the immediate vicinity have not been considered.

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS AND LAYOUTS

4.6 The current Proposed Development has evolved over a number of design iterations, responding to local authority planning and development aspirations, public engagement and taking account of the Applicant’s development objectives, design aspirations and prevailing environmental constraints. The evolution of the Development has therefore responded to a variety of design and environmental issues and the resultant proposals are considered to offer the most advantageous design solution.

4.7 Further details of the design evolution are contained in the Design and Access Statement which supports this Application.

4.8 The final layout of the Proposed Development is identified in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5.

5 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

5.1 The Proposed Development comprises a site with an area of approximately 63.4 hectares (ha) and comprises two parcels of land to the north and south of the A414 to the north of North Weald Bassett.

5.2 The planning application is a hybrid planning application comprising an outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for means of access), together with a detailed application for an initial development phase – Phase 1.

5.3 A masterplan has been prepared in order to demonstrate that the parameter plans allow for a scheme that would be entirely appropriate to the surrounding context. The design principles of this masterplan have been informed by the relevant provisions of planning policy and guidance at both the national and local level and consideration of any environmental constraints. The masterplan was also informed by consultation with the Local Planning Authority, statutory consultees and the public.

5.4 The Proposed Development comprises the following:

For clarity - the total number of conventional dwellings proposed across the site is up to 690.

NB – all floorspace figures shown as GIA”

5.5 The proposed site layout is presented in Figure 5.1 and Appendix 5 .

Figure 5.1: Proposed Site Layout

Scale and Massing

5.6 The outline application and design parameters plans set out the key objectives for the scale of development and acknowledge that localised context, physical characteristics and integrating the development at the interfaces with adjacent land uses.

5.7 The Phase 1A parcel of residential development complies with the building height parameter plan in the outline application, with perimeter buildings comprising 2 and 2.5 stores and key landmark buildings potentially extending to 3 storeys in height to provide focus and appropriate spatial containment. Single storey garages will add to an appropriate balance of scales.

5.8 The key objective is to create streets of an appropriate human scale. The houses will be a mix of 2 to 21/2 storeys with varying ridge heights to create an interesting and diverse richness to the street and roof scape. The scale reflects that of adjoining developments and the edge of the settlement location.

5.9 Figure 5.2 illustrates the proposed building heights within the Site.

Figure 5.2: Building Heights

Density

5.10 The residential element of the Proposed Development will have an overall density of 38 dwellings per hectare.

5.11 The proposed density reflects the influence of the setting of the listed buildings to the south, the relationship to existing development to the south and east and the relationship to the existing airfield to the west.

5.12 Densities will be graduated from the higher density areas to the north edge along the A414 and western areas opposite the Airfield. The lower density areas will be to the edges at the south and east of the development areas, as well as the eastern side of the central linear greenway. This will create a balanced approach to density and achieve a varied spatial approach to character areas.

5.13 The proposed density of the Proposed Development is illustrated in Figure 5.3 below.

Figure 5.3: Density

Quantum of Development

5.14 Table 5.1 identifies the quantity of the land proposed for the uses to be provided by the Proposed Development.

Table 5.1: Land Budget Summary

Land Budget Summary

Site Area 63.43 hectares Development Area 28.85 hectares Open Space 34.58 hectares Residential Element Density 38.3 dwellings per hectare Total no of residential dwellings 690 Assisted Living and Residential Care Home 1.01 hectares Local Centre & Mixed Use Retail 500 m2 Community Centre 300 m2 Medical Centre 0.77 hectares Commercial Element Offices – B1 3,744 m2 Education Primary School 1.92 hectares Sports & Community Sports Hub Included in open space Scout Hall 0.54 hectares Transport Infrastructure Onsite Infrastructure 3.29 hectares Potential site for Park and Ride 2.85 hectares Greenspace Existing Woodland & Landscape Buffer 2.97 hectares Natural & Semi Natural Green Space 2.70 hectares Open Space, Amenity & Recreation Parks, Sports Fields, Amenity Greenspace, Play 28.91 hectares Areas & Allotments

5.15 The land uses are illustrated in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4: Land Use Plan

Employment Space

5.16 Employment space is proposed adjacent to North Weald Airfield to complement employment uses there, the aim being to achieve cluster benefits and to provide employment for local people – hopefully reducing the need to travel. The floorspace would include incubator office space and owner-occupier office space adjacent to the Rayley Lane frontage, extending to some 3,744 sq m.

Residential Uses

5.17 To the south of the A414 would be the majority of the proposed built development including all of the proposed housing. There would be up to 690 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing. The housing would be delivered in phases and would comprise a broad range of market and affordable tenures and a variety of dwelling types. It is intended that the precise mix would be agreed with the Council so that the development can best meet prevailing housing need.

5.18 The initial 135 dwellings will be delivered under the detailed application for Phase 1. The housing will be arranged in distinctive residential neighbourhoods around focal points such as the linear parks, village green and local centre, and will be built using a variety of traditional designs. Densities and character will be varied throughout the development and a wide mix of size and typologies will be built which will produce an urban form that is both cohesive and diverse. The incorporation of a mix of dwelling types will provide a balanced, sustainable expansion to the community. A distinct architectural identity is proposed to establish a distinct neighbourhood area within the context of the overall masterplan.

5.19 The development will comprise a full range of housing types, sizes and tenures from one- and two-bedroom flats, and two-bedroom terraced houses to four-bedroom detached houses.

5.20 The predominant character of the site will be traditional family houses with gardens. Since market demand and affordable housing needs will change over the next ten years, it is not considered appropriate to precisely fix the dwelling mix for the whole development now, albeit we set out an indicative mix in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Indicative Dwelling Mix

Dwelling Type Number Percentage of Total 1 bed flats 77 11.2 2 bed flats 163 23.6 2 bed houses 79 11.4 3 bed houses 188 27.2 4 bed houses 168 24.3 5 bed houses 15 2.2 Total 600 100.0

Neighbourhood Centre

5.21 The proposed development will have its own local centre providing a range of services within easy reach of residents of both the new residential areas as well as the wider existing community. This area will focus on non-residential uses including community and retail.

3.8 These uses would be clustered around a new community square, adjacent to the new main street, and would be a focal destination of the new masterplan, easily accessed by both new access roads and pedestrian / cycle routes.

3.9 The key focal buildings will be the Medical Centre, the Community Hall and the convenience store. These will have their own distinctive character and be of a scale which recognises its importance as a key function of the new community.

3.10 A number of residential apartments will be built over the proposed non-residential uses.

3.11 As a group of buildings, these uses will create a harmonious, continuous and ‘active’ frontage and will be up to three storeys in height.

Sports and Clubs

5.22 The Significant new facilities would be delivered adjacent to the education campus for local sports clubs, providing new and accessible sports and recreation facilities for local people. A number of groups / clubs are already signed up to the new facilities (Epping Youth Football Club; UKA; the 3rd North Weald Scout Group; and North Weald Angling Club). Access would be from the new roundabout on the A414, leading to car and bicycle parking areas and a new clubhouse building.

5.23 Two full-size multi-sport pitches will be provided either side of the Clubhouse, with a further two training pitches to the north.

5.24 Buffer planting will be provided to the sports pitches in the form of a shelter belt with a wider landscaped buffer zone provided to the south of the pitches adjacent to the A414.

5.25 The clubhouse building will most likely be two storeys and will provide changing facilities and recreation facilities, including clubrooms, for use by both the sports clubs and the wider community. There would also be new facilities for the local Scouts with dedicated outdoor space provision.

Education

5.26 To the north of the A414 new facilities that would be of district-wide importance are proposed.

5.27 A new school campus is proposed which will deliver a two-form entry primary school with associated outdoor space and vehicle parking and a Special Educational Needs centre.

5.28 The school campus will be accessed from a new roundabout on the A414, via a new tree-lined avenue which leads to a shared entrance square and parking areas. The main entrances to the schools are envisaged off the new square, serving both pupils and staff.

5.29 The proposal clusters the new buildings towards the western edge of the campus such that the new school can benefit from the association with the proposed Country Park (see below). The sports pitches, which would be shared by the schools, would be closest to the eastern and northern edges of the campus. The re-grading works to the site contours will provide a graded site area for the school, such that the requisite gradients are achieved for the school sports pitches.

5.30 Consideration will be given to drop-off and pick-up facilities for the school to ensure that the functionality of the proposed new highways network will not be compromised. Full details of this element will be submitted as part of a reserved matters application at a later date.

Country Park

5.31 As indicated above a new country park would be delivered. This would cover at least 16.12 hectares and would incorporate cycling and walking trails. There would be nature trails and ecological enhancements along with formal and informal recreation areas which would enable the open space to be enjoyed by the wider public as well as providing a valuable resource for people living nearby. Existing public rights of way, including bridleways, would be retained and enhanced.

Medical Facilities

5.32 In addition to the above uses, a single medical facility is proposed on land to the north of the A414. It is envisaged that in addition to primary care facilities (to address need arising from the proposed development) space will be provided to enable the delivery of clinics and out- patient services in a location that is more convenient to the local community than the region’s main hospitals.

Access and Parking

5.33 A series of new access points are proposed for the Development as summarised below:

• Primary access to the majority of the proposed dwellings will be provided via a new roundabout on the A414; • A new secondary roundabout will provide access from Rayley Lane; • A new primary access road will link the new roundabouts, providing a new bus link across the development area; • A pedestrian and cycle access point will be provided at Vicarage Lane, which will link to Church Lane; • Church Lane will be upgraded to provide a dedicated pedestrian and cycle lane, linking the new development area to the existing village; • Links between the northern and southern site areas will be maintained via the existing underpass, which will be upgraded; • The access to the existing facilities will be retained via the existing access on Rayley Lane;  Permeable internal roads will be provided to connect all the on-site use; and Pedestrian and cycle access to the site will be provided from numerous locations along the site frontage as part of a linear park. Internal pedestrian and cycle links will be provided between the site accesses and footways will flank the main internal site roads.

5.34 The planning application is a hybrid / outline application, details of parking provision will be determined at the reserve matters stage.

5.35 The Proposed Development will be designed as an inclusive environment and will meet the needs of all building users. Level access is achievable from the edge of development areas and will be continued to the entrance to all site dwellings. All entrance doors will be sufficient to accommodate full access.

5.36 Highway access will allow fire vehicles and emergency service vehicles to be within 45m of each dwelling. Emergency vehicles will have access to the Site from all vehicle access points.

6 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND CONSTRUCTION

INTRODUCTION

6.1 This Chapter describes the anticipated programme of development works and the key activities that would be undertaken on the Site during the construction phase of the project. It identifies, in general terms, the potential effects associated with construction activities and outlines proposals for their mitigation. Detailed consideration of construction-related environmental effects upon the various technical topics assessed, together with their associated mitigation measures, are provided in each of the technical assessment chapters of this ES.

6.2 It is proposed that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be prepared and implemented for the construction phase of the Proposed Development. This would be discussed and agreed with the relevant planning officers at EFDC prior to the commencement of works at the Site. An outline of the content of the CEMP is provided in this Chapter.

6.3 Planning for construction is necessarily broad at this stage and may be subject to modification. For example, specific construction activities could vary in frequency depending upon the particular stage of works. Consequently, where uncertainty exists, the assessment has assumed a ‘worst-case’ situation. It is considered, however, that sufficient information is available at this stage to enable the likely significant environmental effects relating to the construction works to be identified and their significance assessed.

PROGRAMME OF WORKS

6.4 The construction period is anticipated to be approximately 10 years to complete the Proposed Development in its entirety.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WORKS

6.5 The proposed construction works can be divided into the following main stages:

 Enabling works;  Site preparation;  Construction of the residential development; and  Removal of remaining construction elements.

Enabling Works

6.6 Enabling works will be undertaken prior to the start of the main construction works. The extent of these works would include:

 Establishment of site project offices and construction compound including car designated parking areas for contractors;  Isolation or diversion of utility services impinging upon excavation areas;  Provision of temporary electrical supplies and other required services for the duration of the construction works; and  Erection of site hoardings including provision of a site security system.

Site Preparation

6.7 All existing non-critical infrastructure will be removed. The enabling works would entail the decommissioning and removal of any associated structures and communication infrastructure in all areas within the Site boundary. The works will include the use of heavy plant, with the potential for on-site material selection, dependant on site establishment and space to facilitate necessary plant. All works will be strictly managed to ensure that vehicle movement and dust are controlled and kept to a minimum. Further details on the management of dust are included in Chapter 8: Air Quality.

6.8 Site preparation works will also involve the breaking out of any hardstanding material, crushing and screening to produce stock piles of aggregate hardcore materials for use within the sub-base and foundation structures of the new buildings and roadways.

6.9 All live utilities and any live drainage would be capped off or diverted before any excavation works commence. A method statement will be produced outlining the process for identifying and disconnecting existing services at the Site.

6.10 Once the temporary works are in place, any groundworks or earthmoving would proceed. All material will be re-used on site where possible, or otherwise transported off-site where reuse is not possible.

Construction of the Proposed Development

6.11 This phase will include the construction of the access roads within the Proposed Development.

6.12 The Site would require new mains water, gas, electricity and IT/telephone connections. Statutory services will be brought into the Site as and when the programme dictates, although the trenching works will be carried out alongside the substructure work.

6.13 The operation of construction vehicles and general construction activities may give rise to the potential for surface runoff to become contaminated with hydrocarbons, silt or other construction materials. This may in turn lead to a contamination event should site drainage be allowed to enter watercourses. Excavations may require dewatering (of accumulated rainfall or runoff) during construction. In such circumstances, it will be important to ensure that the quality of this water is sufficiently high to allow discharge to an appropriate point. Further details on drainage are provided in Chapter 12: Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk.

Removal of Remaining Construction Elements

6.14 This last phase will be undertaken at the end of the main construction works or where the construction has progressed to a stage where it can be undertaken at an earlier time. The extent of these works would include:

 Removal of site project offices and construction compound;  Decommissioning of temporary electrical supplies and other required services utilised for the construction works; and  Removal of site hoardings and site security system.

HOURS OF WORK

6.15 It is proposed that hours of work during the construction phase would be as follows:

 0700-1900hrs on weekdays;  0700-1300hrs on Saturdays; and  No working on Sundays or bank holidays.

6.16 These proposed hours would be agreed with the Local Authority Planning department prior to commencement of the works. Special working outside these hours, such as heavy plant activities and crane and equipment assembly, would be kept to a minimum and would be subject to prior agreement with reasonable notice by the Local Authority’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO).

6.17 It is anticipated that none of the works outlined above will be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays without special prior agreement with EFDC and other relevant parties.

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT

6.18 The following plant and equipment is anticipated to be used during the construction works.

Table 6.1: Indicative Plant used during Construction

Enabling Plant and works and Services Construction Fit out Landscaping Equipment Site installation Preparation

Concrete silo and X X X ready-mix lorries

Concrete cutter, saws X X X X and splitters

Cranes and hoists X X

Cutters, drills and X X X small tools

Excavators and X X X X breakers

Floodlights X X X

Fork lifts trucks X X X

Hydraulic benders X X X and cutters

Road Brush Vehicles X X X

Lorries/vans X X X X X

Tarmac laying X X equipment

Scaffolding and X X X access platforms

Temporary supports X X

Tipper lorries X X

Wheel washers X X X X

Enabling Plant and works and Services Construction Fit out Landscaping Equipment Site installation Preparation

Skips & Skip trucks X X X X

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION

Environmental Management Plan

6.19 A principal construction contractor will be responsible for all aspects of construction operations. In line with best practice, the construction contractor will subscribe to the CCS (Considerate Contractors Scheme).

6.20 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be prepared by the Principal Contractor which would include details of all relevant environmental management controls necessary for environmental protection during the construction works. This would follow best practice guidelines and would be agreed with the Local Authority Environmental Health Department.

6.21 The CEMP would include:

 Restrictions and targets for specific work activities in order to minimise environmental effects, including disruption and disturbance to local residents (if relevant), workers and the general public;  Details of the means by which appropriate environmental monitoring, record keeping and reporting would be managed to ensure the above targets are being met;  Procedure(s) to deal with necessary ‘abnormal’ works that may result in deviation from the agreed procedures and targets; and  Provision for a programme of regular environmental audits and reviews at key stages in the construction programme.

6.22 The CEMP would place stringent contractual and procedural performance obligations upon trade contractors. These would be maintained and reinforced by commitments detailed below and, where relevant, within Chapters 7-14 inclusive. Such obligations would be secured

by way of planning conditions and/or S106 planning obligations. A clear management structure and description of the responsibilities and authority of a specific Project Environmental Manager (PEM) would be included.

6.23 The PEM would have primary responsibility for liaising with the Planning Authority and other statutory agencies on environmental matters. It is anticipated that regular meetings would take place to review progress and to agree necessary options. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that positive action and reaction by site operatives at the time of any environmental incident or breach of targets are essential components for effective environmental management.

6.24 The CEMP would address requirements in relation to environmental controls and would allow for, and include, the following:

 The appointment of an experienced PEM responsible for the preparation and implementation of the CEMP;  Details of the phasing of the works, including information on construction works that may be carried out by trade contractors;  Procedures for construction activities, highlighting any operations likely to result in adverse environmental effects, with an indication of the mitigation measures to be employed;  Wheel washing and highway cleaning procedures;  Reference to and provision of a framework for compliance with all legislation that would be relevant;  Emergency procedures that would be implemented on the Site;  Prohibited or restricted operations;  Control limits of target criteria for environmental issues, where practicable;  Requirements for monitoring and record-keeping;  Mechanisms for third parties to register complaints and the procedures for responding to complaints;  Provisions for reporting, public liaison and prior notification, especially where dispensations would be required;  Details of construction operations, highlighting the operations most likely to result in disturbance and/or working outside core working hours, together with an indication of the expected duration of each activity;  Possible departures from target criteria and details of how any adverse effects would be minimised or potential complaints addressed;  Details of proposed routes for HGVs travelling to and from the Site;

 Provisions for auditing by the PEM, EFDC and other regulatory authorities, where appropriate;  Details of plant to be used;  Details of all construction works involving interference with a public highway, including temporary carriageway/footpath closures, realignments and diversions; and  Housekeeping procedures and environmental management controls.

Contract Conditions

6.25 Individual trade contracts would incorporate appropriate requirements in respect of environmental control, based largely on the standards of ‘good working practice’ outlined in the EMP in addition to statutory requirements. Contractors would therefore be required to demonstrate how they would achieve the provisions of the EMP, how targets would be met and how potential adverse environmental effects would be minimised.

Management of Construction Works

6.26 The PEM would deal with queries from the public and other complaints and enquiries. This nominated individual would be named at the Site entrance, with a contact number and would be identified to the Local Authority and community groups, prior to the start of the Site activities and whenever a change of responsibility occurs.

6.27 Any complaints would be logged and reported to the relevant individual within the Local Authority (and vice versa) as soon as practicable.

6.28 The CEMP would specify the roles and responsibilities of the PEM and the appropriate Officers within Local Authority in respect of any breaches or complaints from the public. The required actions would be different in each specific case, depending on the operation, equipment or location.

Emergencies and Accidents

6.29 The building contractor would be required to maintain high safety standards on-site and to be fully compliant with current health and safety legislation.

6.30 An Emergency Incident Plan would be put in place to deal with potential spillages and/or pollution incidents. Any pollution incidents would be reported immediately to the regulatory bodies.

Materials Storage and Handling

6.31 Environmental issues would be considered in the procurement of raw materials and manufactured building components and all such materials would be appropriately stored on the Site to minimise damage by vehicles, vandals, weather or theft. Deliveries of hazardous materials would be supervised and a just-in-time deliveries system would be implemented to minimise storage times and reduce the risk of spillage on-site. Tanks and drums of liquid chemicals and fuels would be stored in bunded compounds. Packaging materials would be returned, where possible.

6.32 Contractors and their sub-contractors would be expected to maintain a tidy site and, where practical, to operate a ‘just-in-time’ policy for the delivery and supply of materials for the works.

6.33 Where possible, pre-fabricated elements would be lifted directly into position from delivery vehicles. This would assist in reducing on-site storage and labour requirements and construction noise levels to surrounding sensitive receptors.

6.34 Mobile cranes would be used for general unloading and hoisting during the structural and envelope works. Passenger/goods materials hoists, fork lift trucks and other electric or hydraulically operated plant may be used to distribute and transport materials around the Site.

Waste Management and Minimisation

6.35 Waste would be generated during all stages of the construction works. Although specific materials cannot be identified at this stage of the design, potential sources of waste within the construction process are anticipated to comprise:

 Excavated material;  Packaging – including plastics, wooden pallets, expanded foams;  Waste materials generated from inaccurate ordering, poor usage, badly stored materials, poor handling, spillage; and  Dirty water, for example from Site runoff containing silt.

6.36 It is the intention of the project to use the excavated material whenever possible within the Proposed Development.

6.37 A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) would be developed and implemented detailing how waste created during the construction phase would be managed. This would be prepared by the Contractor in accordance with the Site Waste Management Plan Regulations 2008 and non-statutory guidance on preparation of SWMPs. All relevant Contractors would be required to investigate opportunities to minimise waste arisings at source and, where such waste generation is unavoidable, to maximise the recycling and reuse potential of construction materials. Recycling of materials would take place off-site, where noise and dust are less likely to result in effects to the occupants of surrounding properties. Appropriate waste management and recycling centres close to the Site would be identified prior to the construction works and contracts would be established with registered waste carriers and authorised waste disposers for construction waste.

6.38 All waste would be stored on the Site in accordance with the relevant legislation, in particular the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (Ref 6.1) and no burning of construction waste would be undertaken at the Site.

6.39 The destination of all waste or other materials removed during construction would be notified to the relevant authority by the Contractor/Construction Manager for approval. Loads would only be deposited at authorised waste treatment and disposal sites. Deposition of waste would be in accordance with the requirements of the EA, Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 as amended, the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 (Ref 6.2), the List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005 (Ref 6.3) and the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011.

Traffic and Access Management

6.40 An assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on traffic and the local transportation network is presented in Chapter 7: Transport and Access.

6.41 Specific detail relating to the management of construction traffic will be presented within a dedicated construction transportation plan, which will be submitted for approval by the Local Authority post planning.

6.42 All construction traffic entering and leaving the Site would be closely controlled. Deliveries would be phased and controlled on a 'just-in-time' basis, wherever possible. This would minimise travel time and traffic congestion around the Site.

6.43 The majority of all deliveries would be made by standard HGVs, with no special access / delivery requirements.

6.44 The Traffic Management Plan would detail the management of the above measures as well as the management of car parking on the Site and the Site labour force travel to the Site. No parking on public roads would be allowed and the Contractor/Construction Manager would be responsible for enforcing this requirement. Provision would be made within the Site for essential on-site parking. Any local traffic management measures for Site access would be agreed with the relevant authorities.

Air Quality and Dust

6.45 Site-specific best practice measures would be implemented by contractors to minimise the disturbance to local residents and other potentially sensitive receptors. These measures would include:

 Damping down surfaces during dry weather;  Providing appropriate hoarding and/or fencing to reduce dust dispersion and restrict public access;  Sheeting buildings, chutes, skips and vehicles removing wastes with the potential for dust generation;  Appropriate handling and storage of materials, especially stockpiled materials;  Restricting drop heights onto lorries and other equipment;  Fitting all equipment with dust control measures such as water sprays wherever possible;  Using a wheel wash, limiting speeds on the Site to 5 mph, avoidance of unnecessary idling of engines and routing of Site vehicles as far from sensitive properties as possible;  Using gas powered generators rather than diesel, if possible (these are also quieter) and ensuring that all plant and vehicles are well maintained so that exhaust emissions do not breach statutory emission limits;  Switching off all plant when not in use;  No fires would be allowed on the Site; and

 Ensuring that a road sweeper is available to clean mud and other debris from hardstanding, roads and footpaths.

6.46 Full assessments of the potential effects of the construction works on air quality are presented in Chapter 8: Air Quality.

Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Land

6.47 Prior to construction, the Contractor would be required to prepare a Method Statement and Risk Assessment demonstrating how the safety of construction workers and the public would be addressed in terms of potentially harmful substances. Protective measures would include:

 Provision of adequate facilities and procedures for personal washing and changing;  Provision and use of personal protective equipment (PPE);  Implementation of dust suppression methods; and  Implementation measures to avoid surface water ponding and the collection and disposal of the Site runoff.

6.48 Such measures should be carried out in accordance with the Protection of Workers and the General Public during the Development of Contaminated Land document and CIRIA Report 132: A Guide for Safe Working on Contaminated Sites (Ref 6.4).

6.49 Other practical methods of limiting risks from hazardous materials and contaminated land would include:

 The storage of all potentially hazardous materials on hard surfaced areas, with bunding to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency;  The storage of ground tank oil in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations, 2001 (Ref 6.5); and  The treatment of any excess dewatering effluent prior to discharging to the foul sewerage system and only on the achievement of an approved discharge consent.

Site Drainage and Effects on Water Resources

6.50 The assessment of the potential effects of the Development proposals on water resources is presented in Chapter 12: Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk. In summary, a precautionary approach would be adopted to appropriately manage construction-derived surface water run-off. As such, particular care would be taken to prevent any release or mobilisation of pollutants, which could pose a potential risk to receptors such as surface water and groundwater.

6.51 Best practice pollution prevention measures would be put in place to isolate environmentally damaging substances and prevent their release. These measures would be agreed in consultation with the Environment Agency and the utility company and would include:

 Secure, careful siting and bunding of fuel storage facilities and any areas used for the storage of potentially hazardous materials;  Use of drip trays when filling smaller containers from tanks or drums to avoid drips and spills;  Works involving concrete would be carefully controlled and ready-mix concrete wagons would be washed out in a safe designated area;  The avoidance of stockpiling materials wherever possible to prevent spills and, where undertaken, sheeting and covering these stockpiles and haulage vehicles loads;  Management of the Site drainage to prevent sediment laden contaminated runoff entering the wider environment;  Surface drainage would pass through settlement and oil interceptor facilities where required;  Provision for the treatment and safe disposal of wastewaters, including water from dewatering pumping operations should these be undertaken;  Appropriate management and transportation of the Site waste including the establishment of dedicated waste storage areas designed to prevent pollution, regular inspections and the implementation of waste minimisation and management plans as described above; and  Ensuring that any water which may have come into contact with contaminated material would be disposed of in accordance with the Water Resources Act (1991) and other legislation, to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency.

6.52 Furthermore, any piling systems would be designed to minimise the risk of potential pathways for contamination to reach groundwater resources.

6.53 An Emergency Plan would be implemented, forming part of the CEMP, outlining procedures to follow in the instance of any accidents involving spillages. This would involve the provision of on-site equipment for containing spillages, such as emergency booms and chemicals to soak up spillages. Should an incident occur, the Environment Agency would be contacted immediately.

Protection of Ecological Resources

6.54 An assessment of the potential effects of the Development on ecological resources is presented in Chapter 11: Ecology and Nature Conservation.

6.55 Chapter 11 details the measures that will be taken to mitigate effects from the Proposed Development can be broadly summarised as follows:

 Screening during construction;  No trenches or excavations to be left open, though if unavoidable, exit ramps will be put in place;  No night-time working or lighting during construction;  Adherence to the EA’s Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes;  Careful timing of works; and  Ecologically-informed lighting strategy for operational phase.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.56 The construction effects of the Proposed Development would be managed through the development of a project and site-specific CEMP. The CEMP would be agreed with the Local Authority and other relevant bodies prior to the commencement of works which, as a minimum, would comply with the mitigation measures set out in this ES. The CEMP would outline methods for contractor and general public liaison, hours of work, methods to deal with complaints and outline management practices to control dust, traffic and access, waste, water pollution, ecological and archaeological effects, ensuring a high level of control throughout the construction works.

6.57 The procedures within the CEMP would ensure the delivery of a high level of environmental control throughout the construction phase, thereby minimising the potential for adverse effects. Further detail regarding specific mitigation during construction works for the Proposed Development is presented within Chapters 7 to 14 of this ES.

REFERENCES

Ref 6.1: HMSO (2011) The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

Ref 6.2: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations, SI 2005 No.894. HMSO, Norwich.

Ref 6.3: HMSO (2005) The List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005

Ref 6.4: CIRIA (2002) CIRIA Report 132 Good Practice Guidance For The Management of Contaminated Land. Safe Working Practices on Contaminated Sites.

Ref 6.5: HMSO (2001) Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations..

7 TRANSPORT AND ACCESS

INTRODUCTION

7.1 This report chapter has been prepared by Connect Consultants Limited and assesses the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of highway access and transportation considerations, and incorporates a summary of the Transport Assessment (TA) which is included as Appendix 7.1.

7.2 The chapter describes: the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions at the Site and surroundings; the likely significant environmental effects; the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed. The cumulative effect of all developments within North Weald (Epping Local Plan) has been fully assessed.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Scope of the Assessment

7.3 This chapter will analyse the likely significant transport effects having regard to the following considerations.

7.4 The location of the Site in relation to its environs and the extent to which it is capable of being accessed by rail, bus, cycle and pedestrian routes (non-car accessibility) as well as the existing highway infrastructure. In this regard consideration will be given to:

a Impacts on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users (accessibility). b Pedestrian amenity. c Severance.

7.5 The quantum of development, the potential for the scheme to result in changes to traffic flows on the local highway network and the effect that any such changes may have in relation to highway capacity and road safety. In this regard consideration will be given to:

a Journey length / driver delay and travel patterns. b Driver stress. c Pedestrian, cyclist and public transport user delay

7.6 The identification of, where necessary, mitigation measures.

7.7 Assessing the effect of any proposed mitigation measures.

7.8 In describing the significance of transport related environmental effects in this assessment, the appropriate test of significance is defined based on the authors’ professional judgement. As set out above, receptor sensitivity is determined as High, Medium, Low or Negligible and effect significance is determined as Neutral, Minor, Moderate and Major (either Adverse or Beneficial).

Accessibility Receptor Sensitivity, Magnitude of Change and Effect Significance

7.9 The receptor sensitivity of the accessibility of the Site by non-car travel modes has been determined based on the Proposed Development uses and the characteristics of the Site location. As the uses include residential, the access by non-car modes is therefore important to the success of the development, and the sensitivity is high.

7.10 The effect magnitude, based on a high sensitivity receptor, has been determined based on the following table.

Table 7.1 – Non Car Accessibility Effect Significance

Significance Definition

Non-car access facilities are inadequate for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR existing local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public Major Adverse transport facilities are removed, WHICH RESULTS IN, a required modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes AND/OR a reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development. Non-car access facilities are deficient for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR a worsening to local pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or Moderate Adverse public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, some modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes AND/OR some reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development. Non-car access facilities are broadly adequate for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR minor worsening in local pedestrian Minor Adverse facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, possible modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes AND/OR minimal reliance on private car for trips to/from the proposed development. Non-car access facilities are adequate for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR no notable change to local pedestrian facilities, cycle Neutral facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, no/negligible modal shift to private car travel modes by existing users of non-car routes AND/OR non-car trips to/from the Proposed Development is an attractive / realistic travel option. Non-car access facilities are adequate and reasonably attractive for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR minor enhancement to local Minor Beneficial pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, possible modal shift to non-car travel modes by existing private car users AND/OR non-car trips to/from the Proposed Development are realistic and attractive. Non-car access facilities are adequate and very attractive for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR Enhancement to local pedestrian facilities, Moderate Beneficial cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, some modal shift to non-car travel modes by existing car users AND/OR non-car trips to/from the Proposed Development are realistic and very attractive. Non-car access facilities are adequate and preferred for access to the Proposed Development by non-car modes AND/OR substantial enhancement to local Major Beneficial pedestrian facilities, cycle facilities or public transport facilities, WHICH RESULTS IN, a modal shift to non-car travel modes by existing car users AND/OR non-car trips to/from the Proposed Development are realistic and preferred.

Road Safety Receptor Sensitivity, Magnitude of Change and Effect Significance

7.11 Receptor sensitivity of Road Safety has been determined by reference to the road collision history of highway links and road junctions. The following table sets out the matrix for determining receptor sensitivity in relation to the collision history of the junctions or roads within the study area.

Table 7.2 – Road Safety Sensitivity Matrix Sensitivity of Receptor Road Collision Statistics No, or a negligible number of, collisions occurred within the Negligible 5 year assessment period, and there were no fatalities. A typical number of collisions occurred within the 5 year Low assessment period, there were no fatalities, and no pattern of incidents identified. A higher than average number of collisions occurred within the 5 year assessment period, there were no fatalities, and Medium no clearly identifiable pattern of incidents attributable to road layout is established. A high number of collisions occurred within the 5 year assessment period and a clearly identifiable pattern of High incidents attributable to road layout is established, or a fatality occurred within the 5 year assessment period.

7.12 The following table sets out the method for determining effect significance, based on a change in peak hour traffic flows.

Table 7.3 – Road Safety Effect Significance based on change in Traffic Volume

Sensitivity of Receptor Effect Magnitude High Medium Low Negligible

High (90% increase in Minor to Major Major Moderate traffic) Moderate Increase / Medium (60% Minor to Major Moderate Minor Decrease increase in traffic) Moderate

in Peak Low (30% increase in Minor to Moderate Minor Neutral Hour traffic) Moderate Traffic Negligible (<30% Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral increase in traffic)

7.13 The percentage increases at Table 7.3 above are stated at paragraph 3.17 of ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Assessment’.

Peak Hour Junction Capacity Receptor Sensitivity, Magnitude of Change and Effect Significance

7.14 Receptor sensitivity of highway link and junction capacity has been determined by reference to the highest importance road forming an arm of a junction (these being local access, district, sub-regional (county level), regional or national) and to its operation relative to the available capacity. The following table sets out the matrix for determining receptor sensitivity in relation to the position of the junction or road within the road hierarchy.

Table 7.4 – Peak Hour Junction Receptor Sensitivity Matrix

Road Hierarchy Receptor Sensitivity National Regional Sub-Regional District Local

>1.0 / >100% High High High High High 2016/17 Peak

Hour 0.85 – 1.0 / High High Medium Medium Low Maximum 90%-100% Ratio of Flow 0.6 – 0.85 / to Capacity / High Medium Medium Low Negligible 60%-90% Maximum Degree of 0.0 – 0.6 / Saturation Medium Low Low Negligible Negligible 0%-60%

7.15 The following table sets out the method for determining effect significance, based on a change in peak hour traffic flows.

Table 7.5 – Peak Hour Junction Capacity Effect Significance

Sensitivity of Receptor Effect Magnitude High Medium Low Negligible

High (90% increase in Minor to Major Major Moderate traffic / delay) Moderate

Increase / Medium (60% increase Minor to Major Moderate Minor Decrease in in traffic / delay) Moderate

Peak Hour Low (30% increase in Minor to Moderate Minor Neutral Traffic traffic / delay) Moderate

Negligible (<30% Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral increase in traffic / delay)

7.16 The percentage increases at Table 7.5 above are stated at paragraph 3.17 of ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Assessment’.

7.17 There are always some inherent uncertainties in the process of predicting future traffic movements and their effects. This assessment seeks to minimise these uncertainties by applying reasonably robust assumptions at the stages outlined in this report chapter.

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

7.18 The policy and guidance that has been referred to in this chapter are as follows:

a National Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (2012). b Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013: The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development (2013). c Essex Transport Strategy: The Local Transport Plan for Essex LTP3 (2011). d Essex County Council (ECC): Development Management Policies (2011). e Essex County Council (ECC): Parking Standards, Design and Good Practice (2009). f Epping Forest Local Plan: Epping Forest District, Draft Local Plan, Submission Version (2017). g Harlow Local Development Plan: Harlow Local Development Plan, Emerging Strategy and Further Options, Consultation Summary Report (2014).

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

7.19 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and establishes a framework for local authorities to produce their own local plans. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF highlights that there are three dimensions to providing sustainable development, which includes economic, social and environmental roles. Socially, the residential requirements of a local community should be met by “accessible local services”.

7.20 Paragraph 29 of the NPPF highlights the need for a sustainable transport system highlighting that “the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel”.

7.21 These objectives are reiterated in paragraph 32 provided below:

“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 limits 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.”

7.22 Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, which is provided below, identifies how developments should be located to protect access by sustainable travel modes.

“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.”

7.23 Paragraph 36 of the NPPF, which is provided below, identifies that all developments that generate significant amounts of movements should provide a Travel Plan. A Travel Plan has been produced for the residential element of the development.

“A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan. All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan.”

Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013

7.24 The Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 is a document that sets out the way in which Highways England will “engage with communities and the development industry to deliver sustainable development and, thus, economic growth, whilst safeguarding the primary function and purpose of the strategic road network.” It was produced in September 2013 to replace DfT Circular 02/2007.

7.25 The document states the following in relation to proposed developments:

“Development proposals are likely to be acceptable if they can be accommodated within the existing capacity of a section (link or junction) of the strategic road network, or they do not increase demand for use of a section that is already operating at over-capacity levels, taking account of any travel plan, traffic management and/or capacity enhancement measures that may be agreed. However, development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

Local Planning Policy

The Local Transport Plan for Essex (LTP3)

7.26 The Local Transport for Essex (LTP) document is Essex’s third Local Transport Plan (LTP3), produced in June 2011. “It is a long-term plan covering 15 years which sets out our aspirations for improving travel in the county, demonstrating the importance of our transport network to achieving sustainable long-term economic growth and enriching the lives of our residents.”

7.27 The introduction of the plan advices:

“The Essex Transport Strategy will seek to achieve five broad outcomes that have been developed in parallel with those being sought from the Council’s Highways Strategic Transformation (HST) programme:

 Provide connectivity for Essex communities and international gateways to support sustainable economic growth and regeneration

 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve air quality through lifestyle changes, innovation and technology

 Improve safety on the transport network and enhance and promote a safe travelling environment

 Secure and maintain all transport assets to an appropriate standard and ensure that the network is available for use

 Provide sustainable access and travel choice for Essex residents to help create sustainable communities.”

ECC: Development Management Policies (2011)

7.28 The Development Management Policies document, produced in February 2011, outlines a number of “transport development control policies to deal with development pressures.”

“These policies reflect the balance between the need for new housing and employment opportunities, the regeneration and growth agenda, and protecting the transport network for the safe movement of people and goods and have the following aims:

 Protect and maintain a reliable and safe highway infrastructure.

 Improve access to services in both rural and urban locations.

 Offer where possible alternative travel options to the private car.

 Support and enhance public transport provision.

 Address the impact of commercial vehicles on the highway network and communities.

 Support the aims and objectives of the County Council as the Highway Authority.”

7.29 Policy DM2 related to highway access policies from strategic routes / main distribution routes. This is relevant to the proposed development as the A414 that passes through the site is a strategic route. Policy DM2 is outlines below.

“Policy DM2 Strategic Routes / Main Distributors

Between Defined Settlement Areas:

The Highway Authority will protect the function of Strategic Routes/Main Distributors between defined settlement areas by:

i. prohibiting direct access;

ii. prohibiting intensification of use of an existing access;

iii. requiring improvements to existing substandard accesses.

Exceptions may be made where access is required to developments of overriding public, environmental, national and/or regional need.

Within Defined Settlement Areas:

The Highway Authority will protect the function of Strategic Routes/Main Distributors within defined settlement areas by:

iv. ensuring the number of access points is kept to a minimum;

v. ensuring that where safe access is available to a lower category of road in the Development Management Route Hierarchy, this is used;

vi. ensuring that new access points will be designed and constructed in accordance with the current standards;

vii. requiring improvements to existing substandard accesses.”

ECC Parking Standards (2009)

7.30 The Essex Parking Standards, Design and Good Practice Guide was adopted by Essex County Council in September 2009. The document introduction is shown below:-

“The purpose of this document is to support the aspirations expressed in PPS3 and provide the highest quality advice to local authorities. It is intended to:

 Assist the LPA’s in determining appropriate standards for their areas;

 Advise members of the public in a readily comprehensible manner;

 Assist intending developers in preparing plans for the development of land; and,

 Expedite the determination of planning applications by ensuring that applications submitted include an appropriate level and location of car parking provision that also contributes to the public realm.”

7.31 Section 4 of the document specifies the parking standards used within the TA.

Epping Forest Draft Local Plan Consultation (2016)

7.32 The Epping Forest Draft Local Plan Consultation document was produced in October 2016, prior to a 6 week public consultation period.

7.33 The consultation has now been completed and a further local plan document produced.

Epping Forest Local Plan Submission Version (2017)

7.34 The Epping Forest Local Plan submission document was produced in December 2017. The introduction below is taken from the consultation document:-

“The Epping Forest District Local Plan sets out the strategy for meeting the District’s needs from 2011 up to 2033. It is based on up to date evidence and the results of the previous consultations undertaken in 2010/11, 2012, and 2016.

This Submission Plan is now published for representations on soundness prior to the submission of both the plan and those representations to the Secretary of State for examination by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Local Plan sets out the approach and detailed policies for the whole District for the period up to 2033. It sets out:-

 the Council’s vision and objectives for the District’s development over the plan period;

 policies to ensure that development delivers high quality and sustainable homes,

 built to a high quality of design and maintains our high quality built and natural environment;

 the future distribution for housing growth and requirements for affordable housing;

 policies to build a strong, competitive economy and set out the future distribution for new employment land space and thus new jobs;

 policies to maintain and enhance the vibrancy and vitality of our town centres policies to support a sustainable transport and road infrastructure network; and

 proposals for delivery including an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to demonstrate the infrastructure requirements necessary to support the site allocations.”

7.35 The document has a two draft policies relating to transport. Policy T1 and T2 are presented below:-

Draft Policy T1: Sustainable Transport Choices:

“A: The Council will work in partnership to promote a safe, efficient and convenient transport system.

B: Development should minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to services and support the transition to a low carbon future.

C: Development proposals will be permitted that; Integrate into existing transport networks, provide safe, suitable and convenient access for all potential users, provide an on-site layouts that are compatible for all potential users with appropriate parking and servicing provision and do not result in unacceptable traffic generation or compromise highway safety.

D: Development proposals that generate significant amounts of movement must be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment and will normally be required to provide a Travel Plan. Development proposals which generate a significant number of heavy goods vehicle movements will be required to demonstrate by way of a Routing Management Plan that no severe impacts are caused to the efficient and safe operation of the road network and no material harm caused to the living conditions of residents.

E: Development will, where appropriate, ensure that transport infrastructure will be of a high quality, sustainable in design, construction and layout, and offer maximum flexibility in the choice of travel modes, including walking and cycling, and with accessibility for all potential users.

F: Development will be permitted where it; does not result in cumulative severe impact on the operation and safety of, or accessibility to, the local or strategic highway networks; mitigates impacts on the local or strategic highway networks, arising from the development itself or the cumulative effects of development, through the provision of, or contributions towards, necessary and relevant transport improvements, including those secured by legal agreement; protects and where possible enhances access to public rights of way; provides appropriate parking provision, in terms of amount, design and layout and cycle storage arrangements, in accordance with adopted Parking Standards and which mitigates any impact on on-street parking provision within the locality. Reduced car parking, including car free, development in sustainable locations will be supported; and; ensures that, where appropriate, development proposals provide a coordinated and comprehensive scheme that does not prejudice the future provision of transport infrastructure on and through adjoining sites.

G: In order to accommodate the use of low emission vehicles to support improvements in air quality within the District the provision of electric vehicle charging points will be required within all new developments which make provision for car parking for vehicles.”

Draft Policy T2: Safeguarding of routes and facilities:

“A: Land required for proposed transport schemes as identified in Plans and Programmes including Essex County Council’s Highways and Transport Investment Programmes, the Highways England Route Investment Strategies, Network Rail Investment Strategies and Transport for London Investment Strategies will be protected from other developments which would prevent their proper implementation. B: Local filling stations and car repairs facilities will be protected from redevelopment for alternative uses unless it can be demonstrated through evidence, that the current use on site is no longer viable or necessary, and that the site has been effectively marketed at a rate which is comparable to local market value of its existing use.”

7.36 The document also has a policy relating to North Weald Bassett itself (Policy P6), with a number of sites surrounding the proposal site already allocated for development. These are different to those presented within the 2016 Draft Local Plan Policy P6. The vision for North Weald Bassett presented within the Local Plan is as follows:

“North Weald Bassett Bassettt will become more self-sufficient, enabling the settlement to realise a long-term future as a larger provider of employment, housing and services within Epping Forest District. The distinct local character of the settlement, surrounded by greatly valued green open space, will be retained by maintaining key landscape areas to the south and promoting its rich military heritage.

Future development will be located to the northern side of the village, in line with the vision set out in the 2014 masterplan.

Aviation related uses, complemented by a mix of employment and leisure uses will be sought to boost the commercial offer and sustainability of the Airfield.

The needs of North Weald Bassett Bassettt residents will be met through improved health, education, leisure and community facilities, alongside a strengthened range of shops and services that are

complemented by enhanced sustainable and public transport provision.”

Harlow Local Development Plan

7.37 The new Harlow Local Development Plan will replace the Adopted Replacement Harlow Local Plan (July 2006) and will set out the framework to guide and shape development in Harlow to 2031. The Harlow Local Development Plan is still in its consultation phase, but the Emerging Strategy document was produced in April 2014.

7.38 The introduction below is taken from the consultation document:-

“Harlow Council is currently working closely with its neighbouring local authorities, Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils and others towards a new Local Plan (co-ordinated with emerging Plans of neighbour councils) for the town. This will provide the blueprint for ambitious proposed growth and expansion plans likely to involve Substantial regeneration and growth within Harlow and new planned development within neighbouring areas of East Hertfordshire and Epping Forest districts.”

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Accessibility by Foot

7.39 The Department for Transport’s (DfT) document titled ‘Manual for Streets’ dated 2007 at Section 4.4 sets out the requirements for pedestrians stating:-

“Walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800 m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot”.

7.40 Paragraph 6.3.1 of the Department for Transport (DfT) document ‘Manual for Streets’ (2007) identifies that a 20 minute walk time (equivalent to a 1.6km walk distance) is acceptable subject to an attractive walking environment.

7.41 Table 3.2 of the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) document ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ sets out acceptable maximum walk distances of, 2km for Commuting and school journeys, 800m for town centres, and 1.2km for elsewhere. Figure 7.1 below, highlights the 1.6km walk isochrone from the centre of the proposal site.

Figure 7.1: 1.6km Walk Isochrone

7.42 Figure 7.1 above indicates that the majority of North Weald Bassett is within the 1.6km, 20 minute walk time isochrone referred to in Manual for Streets.

7.43 North Weald Bassett has a range of facilities which are within walking distance of the proposal site. Table 7.6, below, contains a selection of local destinations along with their approximate walk distance from the Site boundary.

Table 7.6 – Local Destinations

Walk distance from the Destination Type proposal site boundary

Thomas Davie Hair Salon Adjacent to the proposal site Leisure

Ali – The Beauty Room Adjacent to the proposal site Leisure

North Weald Bassett Pre-School & Day Nursery Adjacent to the proposal site Education St Andrews Church Adjacent to the proposal site Religion Tyler Green Stores 975m Retail High Road Industrial Units 1.0km Employment North Weald Bassett Airport 1.0km Transport North Weald Bassett Market (Saturdays) 1.0km Retail Harvester Restaurant 1.0km Leisure Bantham & Ongar Bowls Club 1.2km Leisure St Andrews Primary School 1.2km Education North Weald Bassett Library 1.4km Education Ashlyns Indoor Soft play & Farm Park 1.4km Leisure Farm Shop 1.4km Retail Kings Head Garage 1.5km Transport The Kings Head Public House 1.5km Leisure Bread and Bites 1.5km Retail Goverdale Racing Shop 1.5km Leisure Blakes Golf Course 1.5km Leisure The Guardian News Shop 1.5km Retail Salon 35 hair and beauty 1.6km Leisure North Weald Bassett Chemist 1.6km Health Industrial Estate 1.6km Employment Travel Lodge 1.6km Leisure Little Chef 1.6km Leisure Davis Estate Agents 1.7km Employment Islington Green Flowers 1.7km Retail North Weald Bassett Veterinary Surgery 1.7km Health Cinnamon Indian Restaurant 1.7km Leisure Weald Fish and Chip shop 1.7km Leisure Clippers and curls hairdressers 1.7km Leisure Young Dave’s Fruit and Veg Shop 1.7km Retail Cooperative Food store 1.7km Retail North Weald Bassett Aircraft Museum 1.7km Leisure North Weald Bassett Methodist Church 1.7km Religion Booker Wholesale 1.8km Retail Petrol Filling Station with Shop 1.8km Transport / Retail Footgolf Centre 2.3km Leisure

7.44 Table 7.6 above identifies that religious services, education, health, leisure, employment and retail are all within walking distance of the site.

7.45 Vicarage Lane West is flanked by an existing footway on the southern side of the carriageway from the A414 junction to c45m east of the junction with Church Road. It is also flanked by an intermittent footway on the north side of the carriageway.

7.46 Merlin Way is also flanked by an existing footway on the eastern side of the carriageway, linking the proposal site with central North Weald Basset.

7.47 While Rayley Lane and the A414 do not have continuous footways, there are a number of public rights of way in the vicinity of the proposal site, as detailed below:-

 EX: 7390 – a bridleway that runs through the proposal site. It will be maintained as part of the development proposals.

 EX: 32 – a footpath that runs through the proposal site connecting Rayley Lane to Vicarage Lane West. It will be maintained as part of the development proposals.

 EX: 6845 – a footpath that runs alongside Church Road from the proposed site boundary to North Weald Bassett Bassettt village.

 EX:6844 – a footpath that runs from Vicarage Lane West to Wheelers Farm Gardens in North Weald Bassett Bassettt village.

 EX: 9724 (1) – a footpath from the Rayley Lane / Merlin Way / Vicarage Lane West roundabout which meets footpath EX: 6844.

 EX: 6843 – a footpath that runs from Vicarage Lane West to Queens Road in North Weald Bassett village.

 EX: 6842 – a footpath that runs from Chace Farm Units (off Vicarage Lane West) to The Pavilions in North Weald Bassett village.

 EX: 7161 – a byway open to all traffic from Vicarage Lane West to The Pavilions and then to High Road.

7.48 The footways and public rights of way detailed above connect the proposal site to the village of North Weald Bassett. There are styles and signs in place along the routes.

7.49 Within North Weald Bassett village itself there are a number of pedestrian facilities including footways on both sides of the B181 High Road as well as un-controlled, zebra and signalised crossings. The majority of crossings benefit from dropped kerbs and tactile paving.

7.50 Both the A414 Epping Road and Weald Bridge Road have a footway on one side of the carriageway.

7.51 In light of the local pedestrian facilities, the village of North Weald Bassett and its amenities are accessible by cycle and on foot via the existing public rights of way.

Accessibility by Cycle

7.52 Sustrans indicate in their ‘Travel Behaviour Research Baseline Survey – 2004’ under the subheading ‘measuring the potential for change’ that cycling offers an alternative to car travel, and particularly for trips of less than 6 kilometres. This research is supported by the 2016 National Travel Survey, which specified average journey lengths, by cycle, of 5.7km.

7.53 Assuming a 5km maximum acceptable cycle distance, the catchment area of the site by cycle is shown at Figure 7.2 below.

Figure 7.2: Cycle Catchment

7.54 Figure 7.2 above shows that the entirety of North Weald Bassett, Tyler’s Green, Thornwood and Bobbingworth as well as parts of Harlow, Epping and Chipping Ongar are within the 5km cycle catchment of the proposal site.

7.55 While there are no dedicated cycle routes within North Weald Bassett, both Harlow and Epping Forest have designated off-road cycle routes and cycleways. In addition National Cycle Route 1 runs from Chelmsford to Harlow, north of the proposal site.

7.56 Church Road is a lightly trafficked road providing a cycle route from the proposal site to North Weald Bassett itself.

7.57 Considering that the roads within North Weald Bassett itself are urban in character, and that the local topography is generally moderate, cycling provides an opportunity to access North Weald Bassett and its facilities (including bus stops) by a sustainable mode of transport. Destinations further afield including Epping may also be accessed by cycle.

Accessibility by Bus

7.58 The publication ‘Planning for Public Transport in Developments’ produced by the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) specifies that new developments should be located within 400m of the nearest bus stop.

7.59 Until January 2018, the 419 Trusty Bus service travelled along the A414, between the northern and southern parcels of land, on its route from Harlow to Epping and vice versa. This route has since been replaced by the 420A which travels from Harlow to Epping to North Weald Bassett on the B181 opposed to from Harlow to North Weald Bassett to Epping on the A414.

7.60 The closest bus stops to the Site are located on the B181 High Road (to the south of the A414 High Road / Weald Bridge Road / B181 High Road roundabout) c1.3km walk distance from the centre of the proposal site. The A414 is however not conducive with walking. The southbound bus stop benefits from a lay-by, shelter with seating and timetable information whilst the northbound stop is served by a pole with timetable information.

7.61 Further bus stops are located on the B181 High Road (near the centre of North Weald Bassett), c2km walk distance from the centre of the proposal site for the southbound and northbound stops respectively. The northbound stop is served by a pole with timetable information whilst the southbound stop benefits from a shelter with seating and timetable information. The above B181 High Road stops can be accessed on foot via the exiting public rights of way.

7.62 Table 7.7 below indicates the route destinations and frequencies of the buses that serve the bus stops identified above.

Table 7.7 – Bus Service Details

Monday – Bus Service Stops it serves Route Saturday Sunday Friday

Shenfield - Kelvedon Hatch B181 High Road 339 - Ongar - North Weald 6 per day 6 per day 6 per day Stops Bassett - Epping Ongar - Bobbingworth - B181 High Road 420 North Weald Bassett - 2 per hour 1 per hour No service Stops Epping - Harlow North Weald Bassett - B181 High Road 420A Epping - Potter Street - 2 per hour 2 per hour 2 per hour Stops Brays Grove - Harlow Ongar - Bobbingworth - 501 B181 High Road North Weald Bassett - No service No service 6 per day Epping - Harlow Matching Green - SB11 B181 High Road Magdalen Laver - North 1 per day No service No service Weald Bassett - Epping

7.63 The above bus routes connect North Weald Bassett with several key nearby areas, including Epping and Harlow.

7.64 On the above basis, the proposal site is accessible by bus, although the stops are outside of the IHT recommended walk distance.

Accessibility by Rail

7.65 The advice in the Institution of Highways and Transportation’s (IHT) publication titled ‘Planning for Public Transport in Developments’ suggests that railway stations have a walk catchment of 800m.

7.66 The closest railway station is Epping Station, which is located c6.2km southwest of the proposal site. The station forms part of the London Underground (Zone 6), and is served by the Central Line. Epping to Bank (London) takes 38 minutes.

7.67 Harlow Mill Train Station is located c8km north of the proposal site and provides services to Bishops Stortford, Cambridge and London Liverpool Street every hour. Harlow Mill to Liverpool Street (London) takes 40 minutes.

7.68 Harlow Town Station is located c8.4km northwest of the proposal site and provides services to Bishops Stortford, Cambridge, London Liverpool Street and Stanstead airport every hour. Harlow Mill to Liverpool Street (London) takes 30 to 35 minutes.

7.69 The above stations are therefore not within the IHT walk distance, but are accessible by bus and cycle.

7.70 On the above basis, the proposal site is accessible by rail.

Access to Facilities

7.71 The Department for Transport (DfT) publish annual estimates of travel times from where people live to key local services including primary schools, secondary schools, GPs, hospitals, food stores, town centres and employment centres. These are known as the Journey Time Statistics (JTS) series, the latest set were recorded in 2015 (published in July 2017).

7.72 Table 7.8 below summarises the assessment of the Site’s nearest facilities relative to national average values.

Table 7.8 – Accessibility Distance Summary

2015 JTS Distance from Destination / Purpose (National Destination Name Proposal Site Average)

Employment High Road Industrial Units and North 2.4km c1.0km (100 – 499 Jobs) Weald Bassett Industrial Estate.

Primary School 2.3km c2.7km St Andrews Primary School

Secondary School 3.7km c5.5km Epping St John Secondary School

Hospital 9.2km c3.4km St Margret’s Hospital

GP Surgery 2.6km 3.2km The Limes Medical Centre

Town Centre 4.6km c4.3km Epping Town Centre

Foodstore 2.4km c1.2km Co-Op North Weald Bassett

Leisure Facilities 9.8km* c1.1km Bantham & Ongar Bowls Club

*taken from the 2016 NTS Table 0405

Non-Car Accessibility Summary

7.73 Based on the above, the Proposed Development has a low level of accessibility by non- car modes, however the village of North Weald Bassett, which contains a number of facilities including bus stops, is accessible from the Site on foot by public rights of way and by cycle.

7.74 However, good accessibility by non-car modes is an important consideration of the Proposed Development, particularly in the context of the NPPF and local planning policy. Therefore, the non-car accessibility sensitivity is determined as being high.

Road Safety

7.75 The road safety assessment focuses on the study area indicated at Figure 7.3 below.

Figure 7.3: Accident Study Area

7.76 Accident data has been obtained for the road safety study area from Essex County Council (ECC) for the 5 year period of 1st August 2012 – 31st July 2017.

7.77 The accident plan, provided within the TA at Appendix 7.1, shows that there total of 115 accidents within the study area, during the study period. Of the 115 accidents, one has been classified as ‘fatal,’ 19 as ‘serious’ and the remaining 95 as ‘slight’.

7.78 A summary of the accident information is provided at Table 7.9 to Table 7.25 inclusive below, presented based on geographical accident groupings. The road safety sensitivity has also been determined on the above basis of geographical accident groupings.

Table 7.9 – M11 Junction 7 Accident Data

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

M11 Junction 7 (Hastingwoods Interchange)

Jnct A414 And J7 M11 I34011013 30/10/2013 Slight Dry No No Yes

Traffic Lights On Rab A414 I05230214 09/02/2014 Slight Dry No No Yes Hastingwood J/W B1393 M11 Roundabout Junction, I31060914 21/09/2014 Slight Dry No No Yes M11 Northbound. Junction 7 M11 I00320115 07/01/2015 Slight Dry No No No Roundabout Junction A414 Junction 7 M11 / A414 I01830115 19/01/2015 Slight Dry No No Yes (Towards Harlow) A414 Hastingwood Roundabout 20 Metres I12540415 16/04/2015 Slight Dry No No Yes East Of M11 Northbound Exit Slip Road M11 Northbound Track I18360615 19/06/2015 Serious Dry No No No Offslip J/W A414 Hastingwood Roundabout I32871015 16/10/2015 Slight Dry No No Yes Jct M11 Sb Harlow

A414 M11 1531684 08/11/2015 Slight Dry No No Yes

A414 Harlow M11 1651801 16/03/2016 Slight Dry No No Yes

Hastingwood Roundabout M11 Hastingwood 1670612 27/05/2016 Slight Dry No No Yes Roundabout A414 Junction 7 Northbound 1680301 22/06/2016 Slight Dry No No Yes M11 A414 Junction 7 A Track Off Slip M11 Hastingwood 1696876 18/08/2016 Slight Dry No No No Roundabout A414 On Slip Southbound Junction 7 M11 15 Metres Wet / 16117931 16/10/2016 Slight No No No South Of Junction With Damp Canes Lane M11 A414 16120667 28/10/2016 Slight Dry No No Yes Junction 7 Northbound Off Wet / Slip M11 London Road 16135232 07/12/2016 Slight No No Yes Damp A414 Hastingwood Roundabout 17182913 15/05/2017 Slight Dry No No No A414 Near Jn With M11 M11 1682985 05/07/2016 Slight Dry No No No M11 Northbound J/W A414 Wet / I05240214 14/02/2014 Slight No No Yes Slip Road at Roundabout Damp

7.79 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.80 The only location at the M11 junction where more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period was on the M11 northbound exit slip road entry, where 8 accidents occurred, 7 of them ‘shunts’. Despite the number of ‘shunts’, as discussed within the TA they had a range of different causation factors.

7.81 When comparing the frequency of accidents at the M11 Junction 7 with the average accident frequencies for 5 arm grade separated roundabouts throughout, the M11 Junction 7 has a lower frequency of collisions. 19 accidents (3.8 per year) were recorded at the M11 Junction 7 during the 5 year study period which is less than the national average of 38 accidents (7.67 per year X 5 years = 38.35).

7.82 Overall no pattern of collisions has been identified which is attributable to a road layout deficiency, nor one which is likely to be materially worsened by the development proposals. The roundabout also has a lower frequency of collisions than the national average presented within DMRB TD 16/07.

7.83 The road safety sensitivity for the M11 Junction 7 is determined as being low.

Table 7.10 – M11 (Northbound and Southbound)

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

M11 (Northbound and Southbound) M11 A Track, Approx 200 Metres Prior To The I37941113 30/11/2013 Slight Dry No No Yes Off Slip To Junction 7. M11 Motorway A Track Wet / 50 Yards Prior Off Slip I41851213 15/12/2013 Slight No No No Damp Junction 7 Just Before J7 M11 I10430314 26/03/2014 Slight Dry No No No Southbound. M11 A Track Approx 700 I09630314 30/03/2014 Slight Dry No No No Yards North Of J7 Hard Shoulder Of M11 Wet / Jct 7 B Track I22760714 13/07/2014 Slight No No No Damp Southbound

M11 1538402 27/12/2015 Serious Dry No No Yes

M11 150 Metres South Wet / 17185844 27/05/2017 Serious No No Yes Of Junction With A414 Damp Mp - 319b M11 Motorway M11 Near Jn 17199121 10/07/2017 Slight Dry No No No With A414

M11 Near Jn With A414 17199872 12/07/2017 Slight Dry No No Yes

M11 Jct 7 I15320515 20/05/2015 Slight Dry No No Yes

J7 M11 'B' 200 Yards I13670515 09/05/2015 Slight Dry No No No South J/W A414 M11 Jct7, A414 Hastingwood I26900913 08/09/2013 Slight Dry No No Yes Roundabout Harlow Slip Road South 17203675 23/05/2017 Slight Dry No No Yes Bound M11

M11 At P32/4a I03060115 24/01/2015 Slight Dry No No No

7.84 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.85 Based on the above, despite the number of accidents, they were of different types, had a range of causation factors and occurred at different locations on the M11. No locations on the M11 were identified where more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period.

7.86 The road safety sensitivity for the M11 is determined as being low.

Table 7.11 – A414 London Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 London Road

A414 100m North Of I27200912 05/09/2012 Slight Dry No No Yes Rab With M11 Jct 7 A414 Approx 500 Mtrs I31861012 03/10/2012 Slight Dry No No Yes From J/W Southern Way A414 Harlow, Towards M11 Roundabout. 100 I00890113 08/01/2013 Serious Dry No No No Metres Before Jct With London Road London Road Northbound Carriageway Wet / I01680113 18/01/2013 Serious Yes No No Approx 500 Mtrs North Damp Of J/W M11 J7 Rab A414 London Road @ J/W Potter Street I28890814 31/08/2014 Slight Dry No No No (London Rd) A414 Towards Harlow Wet / Just Off Hastingwood I27970815 30/08/2015 Slight No No No Damp Roundabout Harlow A414 200 Metres North Of Junction With 17176838 27/04/2017 Slight Dry No No No London Road B1393 London Road A414 At Jn With Hastingwood 17192215 19/06/2017 Slight Dry No No No Roundabout A414 A414 250 Metres South Of Junction With London 17174921 18/04/2017 Slight Dry No No No Road

A414 1692670 05/08/2016 Slight Dry No No No

7.87 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.88 No locations on the A414 were identified where more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period.

7.89 The road safety sensitivity for the A414 London Road is determined as being low.

Table 7.12 – B1393 London Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

B1393 London Road

B1393 30 Mtrs South Wet / I02860213 07/02/2013 Slight No No No Of Jct 7 Rab Damp Wet / London Road B1393 1667754 10/05/2016 Slight No No No Damp London Road 300m I22700813 05/08/2013 Slight Dry No No Yes South Of Canes Lane. High Road Approx 200 Metres South Of Wet / I17270613 22/06/2013 Slight No No No Junction With M11 Damp Motorway.

7.90 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.91 Less than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period on the B1393 London Road.

7.92 The road safety sensitivity for the B1393 London Road is determined as being low.

Table 7.13 – A414 Canes Lane / Hastingwoods Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 Canes Lane / Hastingwoods Road

Canes Lane A414 17154849 13/02/2017 Slight Dry No No No Hastingwood Road Canes Lane A414 Near 17190684 28/02/2017 Slight Dry No No Yes Jn With M11

A414 Canes Lane 17146184 17/01/2017 Slight Dry No No No

Canes Lane A414 1642163 02/02/2016 Slight Dry No No No Hastingwood Road

7.93 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.94 Less than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period at the A414 / Hastingwood Road Junction.

7.95 The road safety sensitivity for the A414 / Hastingwood Road Junction is determined as being low.

Table 7.14 – A414 Canes Lane

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 Canes Lane Canes Lane, Approx 600 Metres South J/W I09830413 14/04/2013 Slight Dry No No No Hastingwood Road A414 Cranes Lane 500m Wet / West Of J/W Rayley I17640613 28/06/2013 Serious No Yes No Damp Lane.

A414 0.5 Miles West Of I28430913 20/09/2013 Slight Dry No No No J/W Rayley Lane

A414 Canes Lane 500m After J7 Of M11 I13980515 10/05/2015 Slight Dry No No No Motorway Canes Lane A414 800 Metres South Of 1637618 06/01/2016 Slight Dry No No No Junction With Hastingwood Road

Canes Lane A414 1669027 22/05/2016 Serious Dry No No No

North Weald Bassett 17162610 12/03/2017 Serious Dry No No No A414

A414 30 Metres East Of Junction With B181 High 1641920 01/02/2016 Slight Dry No No Yes Road B181

7.96 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.97 All of the accidents were recorded as occurring at different positions on the A414 Canes Lane and had different causation factors according to the accident report. Therefore, no more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred at the same location on the A414 Canes Lane during the 5 year study period.

7.98 The road safety sensitivity for the A414 Canes Lane is determined as being low.

Table 7.15 – A414 Canes Lane / Weald Hall Farm

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 Canes Lane / Weald Hall Farm North Weald Bassett Wet / 17154444 10/02/2017 Slight No No Yes A414 Unnamed Road Damp Canes Lane A414 At Jn Wet / With North Weald 17199711 12/07/2017 Slight No No Yes Damp Bassett Farm A414 Hastingwood Wet / Junction With Weald Hall I14220514 06/05/2014 Slight No No Yes Damp Farm. A414 Canes Lane 200 Yards North J/W Rayley I16600514 14/05/2014 Slight Dry No No No Lane. Canes Lane, Approx 400 Wet / Mtrs West Of J/W Rayley I17020514 28/05/2014 Slight No No Yes Damp Lane

7.99 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.100 4 out of the 5 accidents were recorded as ‘shunt’ type incidents whilst the remaining 2 accidents had the following causation factors; “Failed to judge other persons path or speed” and “Travelling too fast for conditions.

7.101 The road safety sensitivity for the A414 Canes Lane / Weald Hall Farm is determined as being medium.

Table 7.16 – Rayley Lane

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

Rayley Lane Rayley Lane 500 Mts I31080912 29/09/2012 Slight Dry No No Yes North Of Merlin Way

7.102 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.103 As only one accident occurred on Rayley Lane the road safety sensitivity is determined as being negligible.

Table 7.17 – Rayley Lane / Merlin Way / Vicarage Lane West Roundabout

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

Rayley Lane / Merlin Way / Vicarage Lane West Roundabout Merlin Way Unspecified Wet / Road Or Location Rayley 1532447 18/11/2015 Slight No No No Damp Lane

7.104 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.105 As only one accident occurred at the Rayley Lane / Merlin Way / Vicarage Lane West roundabout the road safety sensitivity is determined as being negligible.

Table 7.18 –Vicarage Lane West

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

Vicarage Lane West Vicarage Lane Travelling From A414 Towards I24060815 08/08/2015 Serious Dry No No No Rayleigh Lane Outside Scribbles Pre- Wet / I34871015 05/10/2015 Serious No No No School, Vicarage Lane Damp Church Lane J/W I30240912 27/09/2012 Slight Dry No No No Vicarage Lane West

7.106 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.107 No pattern of collisions has been identified which is attributable to a road layout deficiency on Vicarage Lane West.

7.108 The road safety sensitivity for Vicarage Lane West is determined as being low.

Table 7.19 – Weald Hall Lane

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

Weald Hall Lane Weald Hall Lane, J/W Weald Hall Farm, I26070812 23/08/2012 Slight Dry No No No Thornwood Weald Hall Lane Junction With Weald Hall I17490514 29/05/2014 Slight Dry No No No Farm.

7.109 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.110 As only two accidents occurred on Weald Hall Lane the road safety sensitivity is determined as being negligible.

Table 7.20 – A414 / Weald Bridge Road / B181High / Epping Road Roundabout

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 / Weald Bridge Road / B181High / Epping Road Roundabout Junction With A414 And Wet / I03470214 01/02/2014 Slight No Yes No B181 Damp High Road North Weald Bassett At Junction With I13920414 18/04/2014 Slight Dry No No No A414. Weald Bridge Road Roundabout Talbot I25200815 11/08/2015 Slight Dry No Yes No A414. A414 High Road J/W I32661015 16/10/2015 Slight Dry No No No Weald Bridge Road. A414 4 Yrds West Of J/W High Road North I19720614 14/06/2014 Slight Dry No No No Weald Bassett A414 B181 16120641 11/09/2016 Slight Dry No No No High Rd A414 North 16131800 29/11/2016 Slight Dry No No No Weald Bassett Road

7.111 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.112 Overall no pattern of collisions has been identified which is attributable to a road layout deficiency at the A414 / Weald Bridge Road / B181 High Road / A414 Epping Road Roundabout. The roundabout has a higher frequency of collisions than the national average presented within DMRB TD 16/07.

7.113 The road safety sensitivity for the A414 / Weald Bridge Road / B181 High / Epping Road Roundabout is determined as being medium.

Table 7.21 – A414 High Road / Epping Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 High Road / Epping Road A414 350m North East I27300912 04/09/2012 Slight Dry No No No Of J/W Pensons Lane A414 300 Mtrs West Wet / J/W Bobbingworth Mill I40481212 14/12/2012 Slight No No No Damp Tyler's Green Epping Road A414 1000 Metres East Of 1670666 29/05/2016 Serious Dry No No No Junction With Stoney Lane A414 Epping Road Approx 400m East J/W Wet / I26590913 07/09/2013 Serious No No No B181 Outside Ashlyns Damp Farm Epping Road A414 560 Metres East Of Wet / 1661317 25/04/2016 Slight No No No Junction With High Damp Road B181 Epping Road A414 145 Metres West Of 17173298 15/04/2017 Fatal Dry No No No Junction With Bobbingworth Mill A414 Epping Road Approx 0.3 Miles J/W I31900914 26/09/2014 Serious Dry No No No Stony Lane, High Ongar

7.114 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.115 No more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period on the A414 High Road / Epping Road. Overall no pattern of collisions has been identified

which is attributable to a road layout deficiency. A fatal accident occured on the A414 Epping Road during the study period.

7.116 The road safety sensitivity for the A414 High Road / Epping Road is determined as being high.

Table 7.22 – A414 High Road / Epping Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

A414 Epping Road / Blake Hall Road A414 North Weald Bassett J/W Blake Hall I34691013 29/10/2013 Slight Dry No No No Road A414 J/W Blake Hall I32270914 11/09/2014 Serious Dry No No No Road. A414 J/W Blake Hall I35121014 02/10/2014 Slight Dry No No No Road. A414, Epping Road J/W I10870315 12/03/2015 Serious Dry No No No Blake Hall Road Epping Road A414 Blake 1532856 21/11/2015 Slight Dry No No Yes Hall Road Jct Of A414 And Blake Wet / I22310714 10/07/2014 Slight No No No Hall Road Damp A414 At Junction With I40481114 24/11/2014 Slight Dry No No No Blake Hall Road

7.117 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.118 No more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred at the A414 Epping Road / Blake Hall Road junction during the study period and the accidents had different causation factors.

7.119 The road safety sensitivity for A414 Epping Road / Blake Hall Road junction is determined as being low.

Table 7.23 – B181 High Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

B181 High Road High Road North Weald Bassett Jct With Harrison I10960413 16/04/2013 Slight Dry No No No Drive High Road North Weald Bassett 100 Yards From I26280913 05/09/2013 Slight Dry No Yes No Skips Corner Towards Epping

High Road J/W Thornhill I28900913 25/09/2013 Serious Dry No No Yes

High Road 16m From J/W Wet / I34711013 31/10/2013 Slight No No No Elm Gardens. Damp High Road North Weald Bassett Near To J/W I10140314 28/03/2014 Slight Dry No No Yes Emberson Way. Weald Rd B181 East Of 1683227 06/07/2016 Slight Dry No Yes No Junction With Queens Rd Kiln Road Unspecified Road Or Location High 1684494 11/07/2016 Slight Dry No Yes No Road B181 High Road B181 Approx 100 Mtrs Epping Side J/W I27290812 27/08/2012 Slight Dry No No No Kiln Road High Road B181 Bassett Wet / 16107096 18/09/2016 Slight No No No Gardens Damp High Rd B181 Near Jn Wet / 17183927 17/05/2017 Slight No No Yes With Bassett Gardens Damp

High Road * B181 16112422 29/08/2016 Slight Dry No No Yes

High Road B181 25m west of junction with Dukes 17144366 11/01/2017 Slight Dry Yes No No Close B181 High Road with I16530515 25/05/2015 Slight Dry No No No Junction Embersin Way

7.120 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.121 Of the 12 accidents classified as ‘slight,’ one involved a pedestrian, 3 involved cyclists and 3 involved ‘shunt’ type incidents. The 3 accidents involving cyclists all occurred at different locations on the B181 High Road.

7.122 The remaining 5 accidents also all occurred at different locations on the B181 High Road and had different causation factors according to the accident report.

7.123 Overall no pattern of collisions has been identified which is attributable to a road layout deficiency on the B181 High Road.

7.124 The road safety sensitivity for the B181 High Road is determined as being medium.

Table 7.24 – B181 Epping Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

B181 Epping Road B181 Epping Road J/W 05/04/201 Hurricane Way, North I10700414 Slight Dry No Yes No 4 Weald. 11/11/201 Wet / High Road J/W Pike Way I37961114 Slight No No No 4 Damp North Weald High Road 22/04/201 I12890415 Slight Dry No No Yes (Epping Road) 5 Hurricane House Epping Road Unspecified Road Or 31/05/201 1674691 Serious Dry No No No Location 20 Metres East Of 6 Junction Hurricane House Epping Road B181 50 Metres East 22/09/201 16108586 Slight Dry No No No Of Junction With Hurricane 6 Way Epping Road B181 436 08/08/201 Metres West Of Junction 1693744 Slight Dry No No No 6 With Wellington Road

7.125 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.126 Overall the above accidents occurred at a range of locations on the B181 Epping Road and were caused by different factors. No more than five accidents (more than one per annum) occurred during the study period at the same location on the B181 Epping Road.

7.127 The road safety sensitivity for B181 Epping Road is determined as being low.

Table 7.25 – York Road

Road Location Reference Date Severity Pedestrians Cyclists Shunt Surface

York Road Blenheim Way 200 Ft East 05/04/201 I09010413 Serious Dry Yes No No Of J/W York Road 3 Outside 38 York Road, North 21/12/201 Wet / I41091213 Serious Yes No No Weald Bassett. 3 Damp

7.128 Full analysis of the above accidents is presented within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.129 As only two accidents occurred on York Road the road safety sensitivity is determined as being negligible.

Overall Conclusion on Road Safety

7.130 The overall road safety sensitivity is determined as being between negligible and high based on location.

Existing Junction Capacity

7.131 The traffic assessment is based on the following study area network, with traffic flows obtained for junctions 1, 2, 5, 7 and 14.

1. Junction 7 of the M11.

2. The A414 Canes Lane / Rayley Lane / Roundabout Junction.

3. The A414 / Proposed Roundabout Junction.

4. The A414 / Vicarage Lane West Junction.

5. The A414 / Weald Bridge Road / A414 Epping Road / B181 High Road Roundabout Junction (The Talbot Roundabout).

6. The B181 High Road / Wellington Road Roundabout Junction.

7. B181 The Plain / B1393 Thornwood Road / B1393 Palmers Hill Signal Junction.

8. Vicarage Lane West / Church Road Junction.

9. Vicarage Lane West / Chase Farm Units Junction.

10. Vicarage Lane West / Merlin Way / Rayley Lane Roundabout Junction.

11. Merlin Way / Airport and Market Access Junction.

12. Rayley Lane / Proposed Roundabout Junction.

13. Rayley Lane / Proposal Site Secondary Access Junction.

14. The A414 Epping Road / B184 Fyfield Road / A414 Chelmsford Road / High Street Roundabout Junction (Chipping Ongar Roundabout).

7.132 The baseline capacity tests results, for the junction identified above, are summarised at Table 7.26 below.

Table 7.26 – 2016/2017 Baseline Capacity Results Highest Importance Maximum Approach Road (National, Receptor Junction Ratio of Flow to Capacity Regional, Sub-Regional, Sensitivity / Degree of Saturation District, Local)

1) Junction 7 of the M11. National 105.7% High

2) The A414 Canes Lane / Rayley Lane / Roundabout Junction. Regional 0.57 Low 5) The A414 / Weald Bridge Road / A414 Epping Road / B181 High Road Roundabout Junction (The Talbot Regional 0.79 Medium Roundabout). 7) B181 The Plain / B1393 Thornwood Road / B1393 Palmers Hill Signal Regional 80.1% Medium Junction. 14) The A414 Epping Road / B184 Fyfield Road / A414 Chelmsford Road / High Street Roundabout Junction (Chipping District 0.75 Low Ongar Roundabout).

7.133 Overall based on the results presented at Table 7.26 above, the sensitivity of roads affected by the development is between low and high as shown above.

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

Construction Phase Effects

7.134 It is anticipated that that the number of vehicular movements to and from the Site as a result of the construction phase will not be more than the number of trips generated by the completed development.

7.135 The HGV trips will be spread throughout the day, as they will be made up of materials deliveries, off-site disposal and other trips related to the management of the construction process.

7.136 The daily traffic flow associated with the construction traffic is considered to be relatively low. On this basis, the change in magnitude for accessibility and severance is considered to be negligible adverse for all links assessed, with neutral significance.

7.137 It is anticipated that there would be minimal flows associated with construction during the peak hours and the change in magnitude at the site access junctions for driver delay, pedestrian delay and pedestrian amenity are considered to have a magnitude of negligible adverse, with neutral significance.

7.138 The daily traffic flow associated with the construction traffic is likely to be minimal when compared to the operational phase and as with all major construction sites it is anticipated that a Construction Management Plan will be secured through a suitable planning condition. It is considered that the change in magnitude for accidents and safety is negligible adverse for all links assessed, with neutral significance.

Operational Effects

Non-Car Accessibility

7.139 The site has been assessed as having a low level of accessibility by non-car modes, however the village of North Weald Bassett, which contains a number of facilities including bus stops, is accessible from the Site on foot by public rights of way and by cycle.

7.140 The Proposed Development represents a sustainable scheme that provides new residences in a location that will be accessible by non-car modes to a range of facilities, along with nearby settlements and the public transport network. The onsite facilities will also be accessible by non-car modes.

7.141 The proposed development does not result in any significant worsening of any existing non-car routes, and therefore is unlikely to result in any atypical modal shift away from non-car modes to car travel.

7.142 The overall effect of the operation of the Site in terms of accessibility by foot, cycle and public transport is judged to be minor adverse in terms of its effect magnitude.

Traffic

7.143 The traffic assessment is based on the following study area network.

1. Junction 7 of the M11.

2. The A414 Canes Lane / Rayley Lane / Roundabout Junction.

3. The A414 / Proposed Roundabout Junction.

4. The A414 / Vicarage Lane West Junction.

5. The A414 / Weald Bridge Road / A414 Epping Road / B181 High Road Roundabout Junction (The Talbot Roundabout).

6. The B181 High Road / Wellington Road Roundabout Junction.

7. B181 The Plain / B1393 Thornwood Road / B1393 Palmers Hill Signal Junction.

8. Vicarage Lane West / Church Road Junction.

9. Vicarage Lane West / Chase Farm Units Junction.

10. Vicarage Lane West / Merlin Way / Rayley Lane Roundabout Junction.

11. Merlin Way / Airport and Market Access Junction.

12. Rayley Lane / Proposed Roundabout Junction.

13. Rayley Lane / Proposal Site Secondary Access Junction.

14. The A414 Epping Road / B184 Fyfield Road / A414 Chelmsford Road / High Street Roundabout Junction (Chipping Ongar Roundabout).

7.144 Details of the existing traffic flows for the following junctions have been obtained from surveys undertaken on behalf of Essex County Council in 2016.

5. The A414 / Weald Bridge Road / A414 Epping Road / B181 High Road Roundabout Junction (The Talbot Roundabout).

14. The A414 Epping Road / B184 Fyfield Road / A414 Chelmsford Road / High Street Roundabout Junction (Chipping Ongar Roundabout).

7.145 Details of the existing traffic flows of the above junctions (5 and 14) have been obtained from surveys undertaken on behalf of Essex County Council on Wednesday 28th September 2016. The data was supplied to Connect via the Essex County Council Traffic Data department.

7.146 It was established at the 5th June 2017 meeting between Connect, Highways England and Essex County Council that new traffic surveys were required for the following junctions:-

1. Junction 7 of the M11.

2. The A414 Canes Lane / Rayley Lane Roundabout Junction.

7. B181 The Plain / B1393 Thornwood Road / B1393 Palmers Hill Signal Junction.

7.147 Details of the existing traffic flows for the above junctions (1, 2 and 7) have been obtained from surveys undertaken on Friday 7th and Saturday 8th July 2017.

7.148 The Saturday survey was undertaken on a day in which North Weald Bassett Market, located on North Weald Bassett Airfield was operational.

7.149 The assessment considers the traffic flows at future years of 2021 and 2033. The year 2021 will be used to assess the development prior to the opening of M11 Junction 7a which is due to happen at the end of 2021, whilst the year 2033 will be used to coincided with the end of the Epping Local Plan period.

7.150 The resultant assessed growth factors between 2016 and 2021 are 5.5% for the morning peak period, 4.9% for the evening peak period and 4.6% for the Saturday peak period considered in the assessment.

7.151 The resultant assessed growth factors between 2017 and 2021 are 4.5% for the morning peak period, 3.9% for the evening peak period and 3.8% for the Saturday peak period considered in the assessment.

7.152 The resultant assessed growth factors between 2016 and 2033 are 7.5% for the morning peak period, 7.1% for the evening peak period and 8.1% for the Saturday peak period considered in the assessment.

7.153 The resultant assessed growth factors between 2017 and 2033 are 7.0% for the morning peak period, 6.7% for the evening peak period and 7.8% for the Saturday peak period considered in the assessment.

7.154 As part of this assessment, and following discussions with Essex County Council, specific allowances have been considered for the trip attraction of other Local Plan Strategic development proposals within North Weald Bassett, Policy P6 of the Epping Local Plan. The assessment considers the traffic arising from the following development sites; full details are provided at within the TA:-

 NWB.R1 Land at Bluemans – Approximately 223 homes.

 NWB.R2 Land at Tyler’s Farm – Approximately 21 homes.

 NWB.R3 Land south of Vicarage Lane – Approximately 728 homes.

 NWB.R4 Land at Chase Farm – Approximately 27 homes.

 NWB.R5 Land at The Acorns, Chase Farm – Approximately 51 homes.

 NWB.T1 Land west of Tyler’s Green – up to 5 pitches for Travellers.

 NWB.E1 – New House Farm at Vicarage Lane (0.63ha) – Employment.

 NWB.E2 – Tyler’s Green Industrial Area (1.1ha) – Employment.

 NWB.E3 – Weald Hall Farm and Commercial Centre (3.07ha) – Employment.

 NWB.E4 – North Weald Bassett Airfield (40.8ha) – Employment.

7.155 The trip attraction of the Proposed Development is based on the latest version of the TRICS database (7.5.1) using average trip rates. The resultant trip attractions for ‘vehicles’ are provided at Table 7.27 below.

Table 7.27 – Site Attraction / Generation

Residential Houses - 363 dwellings

Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 32 109 140

PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 108 58 166

Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 27 73 100

Residential Houses (Affordable) - 87 Dwellings Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 9 13 22

PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 13 13 26

Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 23 27 50

Residential Apartments - 51 Dwellings Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 3 9 12

PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 9 5 13

Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 4 6 10 Residential Apartments (Affordable) – 189

Dwellings Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 12 14 26

PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 27 17 44

Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 20 15 35

Retirement Flats – 70 Dwellings Period Arrivals Departures Total AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 5 2 7 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 7 8 15 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 6 5 11 Care Home – 220 Residents Period Arrivals Departures Total AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 16 18 34 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 15 17 32 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 12 11 22 B1 Office – 3,744 sq.m. Period Arrivals Departures Total AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 29 3 32 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 4 40 44 Primary School – 2,500 sq.m. Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 40 21 61

PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 18 29 48 Special Education Centre – 200 sq.m. Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 2 1 3 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 2 2 4 Medical Centre – 2,000 sq.m. Period Arrivals Departures Total AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 20 5 24 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 5 23 28 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 9 7 16 Sports Hub – 400 sq.m. Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 3 2 5 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 8 6 14 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 5 4 9 Sports Pitches – 4.55 Hectares Period Arrivals Departures Total AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 10 2 12 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 69 36 105 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 39 31 70

Scouts Hut – 100 sq.m Period Arrivals Departures Total

AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 1 0 1 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 0 0 0 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) Community Centre – 300 sq.m Period Arrivals Departures Total AM Peak (07:15-08:15) 2 0 2 PM Peak (16:30-17:30) 1 1 1 Sat Peak (11:30-12:30) 1 0 1

7.156 For the proposed dwellings, the vehicular trip generation has been disaggregated in to trips by purpose using the National Travel Survey (NTS) 20164 Table 0502, which reports trip start time by trip purpose.

7.157 The distribution of the proposed residential trips has been based on trip purpose, with employment trips based on the census destination data for work trip origins local to the site, education trips based on the location of local primary and secondary schools, and retail trips split between local retail centres. ‘Other’ trips have been determined by taking an average of the commuting / education and shopping trip percentages.

7.158 Table 7.28 below summarises the resultant distribution of residential trips.

Table 7.28 – Residential Traffic Distribution AM PM SAT Origin / Destination Distribution Distribution Distribution (%) (%) (%)

M11 North 9.8% 7.5% 5.2%

M11 South 21.0% 16.2% 11.1%

A414 London Road 29.5% 31.9% 33.2%

B1393 London Road 3.8% 3.3% 3.4%

B1393 Palmers Hill 13.0% 18.4% 22.7%

A414 High / Epping Road 8.2% 9.0% 10.9%

Weald Bridge Road 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Church Lane 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

B181 High Road 3.3% 4.7% 6.0%

B181 Epping Road 7.9% 6.3% 5.5%

Merlin Way 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

B1393 Thornwood Road 1.3% 1.0% 0.7%

Hastingwoods Road 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Fyfield Road 0.6% 0.4% 0.3%

High Street 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

Proposed Development 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

Total 100% 100% 100%

7.159 For the proposed employment uses (office and care home), the distribution of the trips has been based on the census destination data for work trip destinations local to the site.

7.160 Table 7.29 below summarises the resultant distribution of employment trips.

Table 7.29 – Employment Traffic Distribution

Origin / Destination Percentage (%)

M11 North 21.0% M11 South 13.91% A414 London Road 41.3% B1393 London Road 0.9% B1393 Palmers Hill 3.8% A414 Canes Lane 0.1% A414 High / Epping Road 6.6%

Weald Bridge Road 0.6% Vicarage Road West 0.1% Church Lane 1.1% B181 High Road 3.16% B181 Epping Road 2.3% Merlin Way 0.2% B1393 Thornwood Road 0.8% Hastingwoods Road 0.2% Fyfield Road 1.3% High Street 1.1% Proposed Development 1.5% Total 100%

7.161 Trips to the proposed primary school have been split been staff and escort trips. Full details and the distribution are found within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.162 For the purpose of this assessment simple trip distributions based on logical route choices have been made for the proposed sports facilities, community centre, medical centre and scouts hut. . Full details and the distributions are found within the TA at Appendix 7.1.

7.163 The proposals include a three A1 retail units and a convenience foodstore on the southern part of the site. There are a number of facilities in the local area, and so trips to the A1 retail units and convenience store are likely to be contained within the proposal site or be derived from existing trips. For the purpose of this assessment the above elements will be assessed as auxiliary to the proposed residential, educational and commercial aspects.

7.164 Based on the assessment methodologies above, the total increase in vehicles, during the network peak hours, is summarised at Table 7.30 below.

Table 7.30 – Net Vehicular Increases

2033 Base (Committed Total Development Developments + M11 % of Base (Magnitude) Effect Junction / Link J7a) AM PM SAT AM PM SAT AM PM SAT Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak

1) Junction 7 of the M11. 209 242 116 5879 6125 4844 4% 4% 2%

2) The A414 Canes Lane / Rayley Lane / 239 305 147 2395 2617 2282 10% 12% 6% Roundabout Junction. 3) The A414 / Proposed Roundabout 207 331 204 1286 1531 1152 16% 22% 18% Junction. 4) The A414 / Vicarage Lane West 81 153 103 1293 1562 1162 6% 10% 9% Junction. 5) The A414 / Weald Bridge Road / A414 Epping Road / B181 High Road 81 153 103 2324 2332 2191 3% 7% 5% Roundabout Junction (The Talbot Roundabout). 7) B181 The Plain / B1393 Thornwood Road / B1393 Palmers Hill Signal 30 44 34 4154 4850 2079 1% 1% 2% Junction. 12) Rayley Lane / Proposed Roundabout 174 228 111 792 463 623 22% 49% 18% Junction. 13) Rayley Lane / Proposal Site 148 203 87 1258 1248 1472 12% 16% 6% Secondary Access Junction. 14) The A414 Epping Road / B184 Fyfield Road / A414 Chelmsford Road / High 33 58 45 2927 3066 2948 1% 2% 2% Street Roundabout Junction (Chipping Ongar Roundabout).

7.165 Based on the development vehicle increases, summarised at Table 7.30, the effect of the proposed development on the operational efficiency of study area junction is summarised at Table 7.31 below.

Table 7.31 – Capacity Assessment Summary Junctio Maximum Approach RFC / DoS Maximum Approach Delay (s/Veh) n Significance Base With % Change Base With % Change

Scenario Development (Magnitude) Scenario Development (Magnitude)

1 111.7% 96.3% -14% 397.55 145.47 -63% Moderate

Minor to 2 0.78 0.86 + 10% 17.26 27.30 +58% Moderate

5 0.88 0.93 +6% 25.72 37.09 +44% Moderate

Minor to 7 91.3% 92.6% +1% 30.95 33.50 +8% Moderate

14 0.84 0.85 +2% 18.72 20.17 +8% Neutral

7.166 Therefore the effect of development traffic on junction capacity is low to medium, long term, which will have a neutral to moderate significance based on a low to high sensitivity receptor.

Road Safety

7.167 The assessment identifies an increase in traffic of less than 30% at all junctions apart from the Rayley Lane roundabout and secondary access junctions, when compared to the 2033 Base.

7.168 Considering the negligible increase in traffic associated with the proposed development as identified at Table 7.30 above, it is unlikely that the proposals will have any noticeable impact on the roads and junctions local to the Site that will exacerbate any existing road safety problems.

7.169 Therefore the effect of development traffic on road safety is negligible, long term, which will have a neutral significance based on a high sensitivity receptor.

7.170 A summary of the impacts identified in the paragraphs above is set out at Table 7.32 below. These impacts are prior to any mitigation measures.

Table 7.32 – Summary of Effects Effect Receptor Junction / Link Sensitivity Significance Nature of Impact Magnitude

Non-Car - High - Minor Adverse Long Term Accessibility

M11 Junction 7 Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

M11 Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

A414 London Road Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

B1393 London Road Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

A414 Canes Lane / Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term Hastingwoods Road

A414 Canes Lane Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

A414 Canes Lane / Medium Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term Weald Hall Farm

Rayley Lane Negligible Medium (60%) Minor Adverse Long Term

Rayley Lane / Merlin Way / Vicarage Lane Negligible Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term West Roundabout Road Safety Vicarage Lane West Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

Weald Hall Lane Negligible Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

A414 / Weald Bridge Road / B181High / Medium Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term Epping Road Roundabout A414 High / Epping High Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term Road A414 Epping Road / Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term Blake Hall Road

B181 High Road Medium Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

B181 Epping Road Low Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

York Road Negligible Negligible (<30%) Neutral Long Term

1) Junction 7 of the Long Term M11. High Low Moderate 2) The A414 Canes Lane / Rayley Minor to Lane / Low Medium Long Term Roundabout Moderate Junction. 5) The A414 / Weald Bridge Road / A414 Epping Road / B181 High Road Medium Medium Moderate Long Term Roundabout Junction (The Talbot Roundabout). Traffic 7) B181 The Plain / B1393 Thornwood Road Minor to Low Long Term / B1393 Palmers Medium Hill Signal Moderate Junction. 14) The A414 Epping Road / B184 Fyfield Road / A414 Chelmsford Road / High Low Low Neutral Long Term Street Roundabout Junction (Chipping Ongar Roundabout).

MITIGATION

Non-Car Accessibility

7.171 Table 7.32 above indicates that the Proposed Development has minor adverse effect in terms of non-car accessibility. However, the non-car access mitigation arrangements and improvements that accompany the scheme proposals are summarised below.

7.172 Pedestrian and cycle access will be will provided at the site access junctions as well as internally throughout the site. Each residential unit will be provided with storage for cycles, the proposed employment units will have shared cycle hoops near to building entrances, and there will be secure cycle parking provided within the local centre area.

7.173 The existing A414 underpass will also be utilised to connect the northern and southern land parcels by non-vehicular modes.

7.174 A footway / cycleway will be provided through the site to Vicarage Lane West. Form here Church Road (a lightly trafficked route), a number of pedestrian rights of way and Merlin Way which is flanked by an existing footway, link the proposal site to the centre of North Weald Bassett.

7.175 The 419 Trusty Bus service that ran along the A414 between the northern and southern sites up until January 2018, will be re-instated and re-routed through the proposal site via the proposed access junctions. The bus service will also be upgraded to provide a high level of public transport accessibility including the following:-

a Increase the frequency of the service from a 2 hourly frequency to a 15 minute frequency (demand to be calculated from ticket sale system). b Increase the operation to run 7 days a week including Saturday and Sunday, on which it currently does not operate. c Extend the times the 419 service runs on weekdays (currently 05:20 to 17:30 in North Weald Bassett) from 5am to midnight to support early morning and late evening commuters. d Extending the route of the 419 bus service to Harlow Central Train Station instead of terminating at the bus station, as existing. e Improving the vehicles to provide an executive service for customers e.g. provision of on-board Wi-Fi and USB sockets.

f The Trusty Bus ticket app will be continued and the development of a real time arrival app is currently being investigated. g The use of low emission buses to encourage and promote sustainability.

7.176 As part of the development proposals bus stops will be provided within the proposal Site, to be served by the 419 Trusty Bus Service.

7.177 A bus gate provided off Vicarage Lane West will in the future enable the proposed bus service to link in with the local plan allocation developments, in particular the 728 dwelling residential development south of Vicarage Lane West.

7.178 Approximately 3 hectares of land will be kept available for a possible future park and ride scheme. This scheme has the potential to tie in with wider public transport initiatives. Funding is available for further potential public transport initiatives.

7.179 After the proposed mitigation measures are implemented the non-car accessibility of the site will have a neutral effect.

Traffic

7.180 Table 7.32 above indicates that the Proposed Development has a neutral to moderate effect. The highway improvements that accompany the scheme proposals are summarised below.

7.181 M11 Junction 7 will be upgraded by providing widening to several of the junction entry arms and parts of the circulatory carriageway, to improve junction capacity.

Road Safety

7.182 Table 7.32 above indicates that the Proposed Development overall has a neutral effect without the need for mitigation, the only exception is Rayley Lane which has a minor adverse effect. No specific road safety mitigation is proposed.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

7.183 The committed developments included within the assessment have been presented within the 2033 Base scenario, which the capacity assessments have been based on. Cumulative effects have therefore been fully assessed.

SUMMARY

7.184 This chapter provides an assessment of the transportation effects of the Proposed Development during the construction phase and the operation of the Proposed Development.

Construction Phase

7.185 The residual significance of the construction phase in relation to non-car accessibility has been assessed as neutral and short term.

7.186 The residual significance of the construction phase in relation to road safety has been assessed as neutral and short term.

7.187 The residual significance of the construction phase in relation to junction capacity has been assessed as neutral and short term.

Operational

7.188 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the Proposed Development in relation to non-car accessibility has been assessed as neutral and long term.

7.189 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the development in relation to road safety has been assessed and the significance and nature of effect of the development on road safety is neutral and long term.

7.190 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the development in relation to junction capacity has been assessed as neutral and long term.

7.191 Overall it is concluded that the Proposed Development is entirely acceptable from a transport perspective.

Table 7.19: Transportation Summary Table

Nature of Effect Significance Mitigation/ Potential Effect (Permanent or (Prior to Enhancement Residual Effects Temporary) Mitigation) Measures

Construction

Non-Car Access Temporary Neutral - Neutral

Road Safety Temporary Neutral - Neutral

Traffic Temporary Neutral - Neutral

Operation

Non-Car Access Permanent Minor Adverse Bus Infrastructure Neutral Improvements

Road Safety Permanent Neutral - Neutral

Traffic Permanent Natural to M11 Junction 7 Neutral Moderate

100

8 AIR QUALITY

INTRODUCTION

8.1 This Chapter presents the findings of an assessment of local air quality effects associated with the Proposed Development.

8.2 The Proposed Development may introduce the following air quality effects;

 During the construction phase, suspended and re-suspended fugitive dust emissions from demolition / construction activities and vehicular emissions from construction traffic, including re-suspended dust from HGV movements.

 During the operational phase, vehicular emissions (primarily nitrogen dioxide (NO2)

and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from increased traffic movements associated with the development.

8.3 The potential effects of the Proposed Development on local air quality during both construction and operational phases have been assessed. For both phases, the type, source and significance of potential effects are identified and the measures that should be employed to minimise and mitigate these effects are described.

8.4 A glossary of common air quality terminology is provided in Appendix 8.1.

101

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Scope of Assessment

8.5 The scope of the assessment has been determined in the following way:

 Review of air quality data for the area surrounding the Site and background pollutant maps; and  Review of the traffic flow data, which has been used as an input to the air quality modelling assessment.

8.6 There is the potential for impacts on local air quality during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. During the construction phase, there is the potential for impacts to occur as a result of dust and PM10 emissions. Guidance provided by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) (Ref. 8.1) includes the following criteria for assessing the effects of construction dust:

 A sensitive ‘human receptor’ within 350m of the Site boundary or within 50m of the route used by construction vehicles on public highways up to 500m from the site entrance; and /or  A sensitive ‘ecological receptor’ within 50m of the Site boundary or within 50m of the route used by construction vehicles on the public highway, up to 500m from the site entrance.

8.7 A small number of residential properties are situated to the south and southeast of the Site within 350m of the boundary. An assessment of construction phase impacts of dust and particulate matter in relation to human health and nuisance has therefore been included in this assessment. A Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site, therefore an assessment of construction phase impacts on sensitive ecological habitats has been included in this assessment.

102

8.8 During the operation of the Proposed Development there is the potential for impacts on local air quality to occur as a result of emissions from road vehicle trips generated by the operation of the Development. Guidance provided by Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and the IAQM (Ref. 8.2) provides threshold criteria for establishing when significant impacts on local air quality may occur and when a detailed assessment of potential impacts is required. At locations outside an AQMA, a change in light duty vehicles (LDV) of more than 500 per day and / or a change in heavy duty vehicles (HDV) of more than 100 per day is considered to result in potentially significant impacts on air quality. At locations within or adjacent to an AQMA, a change in LDVs of more than 100 per day and / or a change in HDVs of more than 25 per day is considered potentially significant.

8.9 The Site does not fall within or near to an AQMA. Data provided by the transport consultants indicates that the Proposed Development will result in an increase in LDVs in excess of the threshold values for locations outside an AQMA on a number of local roads. An assessment of impacts arising from vehicle emissions using the local roads has therefore been included in the assessment.

8.10 Consideration has also been given to the suitability of the Site for residential development in terms of exposure.

8.11 Details of the assessment methodology and the specific issues considered are provided below.

Construction Phase Methodology

8.12 To assess the potential impacts associated with dust and PM10 releases during the construction phase and to determine any necessary mitigation measures, an assessment based on the latest guidance from the IAQM (Ref 8.1) has been undertaken.

8.13 This approach divides construction activities into the following dust emission sources:

 demolition;  earthworks;  construction; and  trackout.

103

8.14 The risk of dust effects (low, medium or high) is determined by the scale (magnitude) and nature of the works and the proximity of sensitive human and ecological receptors.

8.15 The significance of the dust effects is based on professional judgement, taking into account the sensitivity of receptors and existing air quality.

Dust Emission Magnitude

8.16 The magnitude of the dust impacts for each source is classified as Small, Medium or Large depending on the scale of the proposed works. Table 8.1 summarises the IAQM criteria

104

that may be used to determine the magnitude of the dust emission. These criteria are used in combination with site specific information and professional judgement.

Table 8.1: Dust Emission Magnitude Criteria Source Large Medium Small Demolition  Total building  Total building  Total building volume >50,000m3 volume 20,000 - volume <20,000m3 3  Potentially dusty 50,000m  Construction material (e.g.  Potentially dusty material with low concrete) material potential for dust  Onsite crushing and  Demolition activities release screening 10 - 20m above  Demolition activities  Demolition activities ground level. <10m above ground >20m above ground level level.  Demolition during wetter months Earthworks  Total site area  Total site area >10,000m2 <2,500m2  Total site area 2,500   Potentially dusty soil -10,000m2 Soil type with large type (e.g. clay) grain size (e.g.  Moderately dusty  sand) >10 heavy earth soil type (e.g. silt) moving vehicles  <5 heavy earth  active at any one 5 - 10 heavy earth moving vehicles time moving vehicles active at any one active at any one  time Formation of bunds time >8m in height  Formation of bunds  Formation of bunds  <4m in height Total material 4 - 8m in height moved >100,000  Total material  tonnes Total material moved <20,000 moved 20,000 - tonnes 100,000 tonnes  Earthworks during wetter months Construction  Total building  Total building  Total building volume >100,000m3 volume 25,000 - volume <25,000m3 3  On site concrete 100,000m  Material with low batching  Potentially dusty potential for dust  Sandblasting construction material release (e.g. metal (e.g. concrete) cladding or timber)  On site concrete batching Trackout  >50 HGV  <10 HGV  10 - 50 HGV movements in any movements in any movements in any one day (a) one day (a) one day (a)  Potentially dusty  Surface material  Moderately dusty surface material with low potential for surface material (e.g. high clay dust release (e.g. silt) content)  Unpaved road  Unpaved road  Unpaved road length <50m length 50 - 100m length >100m (a) HGV movements refer to outward trips (leaving the site) by vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes.

105

Receptor Sensitivity

8.17 Factors defining the sensitivity of a receptor are presented in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2: Factors Defining the Sensitivity of a Receptor Sensitivity Human (health) Human (dust soiling) Ecological High  Locations where  Regular exposure  Nationally or members of the  High level of amenity Internationally public are exposed expected. designated site with over a time period dust sensitive  Appearance, relevant to the air features (b) aesthetics or value of quality objectives for the property would  Locations with PM10 (a) be affected by dust vascular species (c)  Examples include soiling. residential dwellings,  Examples include hospitals, schools residential dwellings, and residential care museums, medium homes. and long-term car parks and car showrooms. Medium  Locations where  Short-term exposure  Nationally designated workers are exposed  Moderate level of site with dust over a time period amenity expected sensitive features (b) relevant to the air  Possible diminished  Nationally designated quality objectives for appearance or site with a particularly PM10 (a) aesthetics of property important plant  Examples include due to dust soiling species where dust office and shop sensitivity is  Examples include workers (d) unknown parks and places of work Low  Transient human  Transient exposure  Locally designated exposure  Enjoyment of site with dust  Examples include amenity not sensitive features (b) public footpaths, expected. playing fields, parks  Appearance and and shopping streets aesthetics of property unaffected  Examples include playing fields, farmland (e), footpaths, short-term car parks and roads (a) In the case of the 24-hour objectives, a relevant location would be one where individuals may be exposed for eight hours or more in a day. (b) Ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to dust deposition include lichens and acid heathland (for alkaline dust, such as concrete). (c) Cheffing C. M. & Farrell L. (Editors) (2005), The Vascular Plant. Red Data List for Great Britain, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (d) Does not include workers exposure to PM10 as protection is covered by Health and Safety at Work legislation. (e) Except commercially sensitive horticulture.

106

8.18 The sensitivity of a receptor will also depend on a number of additional factors including any history of dust generating activities in the area, likely cumulative dust impacts from nearby construction sites, any pre-existing screening such as trees or buildings and the likely duration of the impacts. In addition, the influence of the prevailing wind direction and local topography may be of relevance when determining the sensitivity of a receptor.

Area Sensitivity

8.19 The sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and health impacts is dependent on the number of receptors within each sensitivity class and their distance from the source. In addition, human health impacts are dependent on the existing PM10 concentrations in the area. Tables 8.3 and 8.4 summarise the criteria for determining the overall sensitivity of the area to dust soiling and health impacts respectively. Table 8.5 summarises the criteria for determining the overall sensitivity of the area to ecological impacts.

Table 8.3: Sensitivity of the Area to Dust Soiling Effects on People and Property

Receptor Number of Distance from the source (a) 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

(a) For trackout, the distance is measured from the side of roads used by construction traffic. Beyond 50m, the impact is negligible.

107

Table 8.4: Sensitivity of the Area to Human Health Impacts

Annual Distance from the source (a) Receptor Mean Number of Sensitivity PM10 Receptors <20m <50m <100m <200m <350m (µg/m3)

> 100 High High High Medium Low

> 32 10 - 100 High High Medium Low Low

1 - 10 High Medium Low Low Low

> 100 High High Medium Low Low

28 - 32 10 - 100 High Medium Low Low Low

1 - 10 High Medium Low Low Low High > 100 High Medium Low Low Low

24 - 28 10 - 100 High Medium Low Low Low

1 - 10 Medium Low Low Low Low

> 100 Medium Low Low Low Low

< 24 10 - 100 Low Low Low Low Low

1 - 10 Low Low Low Low Low

> 10 High Medium Low Low Low >32 1 - 10 Medium Low Low Low Low

Medium > 10 Medium Low Low Low Low 28-32 1 - 10 Low Low Low Low Low

<28 - Low Low Low Low Low

Low - >1 Low Low Low Low Low

(a) For trackout, the distance is measured from the side of roads used by construction traffic. Beyond 50m, the impact is negligible.

108

Table 8.5: Sensitivity of Area to Ecological Impacts

Distance from the Source Sensitivity of Area <20m <50m

High High Risk Medium Risk

Medium Medium Risk Low Risk

Low Low Risk Low Risk

8.20 For each dust emission source (demolition, construction, earthworks and trackout), the worst-case area sensitivity is used in combination with the dust emission magnitude to determine the risk of dust impacts.

Risk of Dust Impacts

8.21 The risk of dust impacts prior to mitigation for each emission source is presented in Tables 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8.

Table 8.6: 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

Table 8.7: Risk of Dust Impacts – Earthworks and Construction

Dust Emission Magnitude Sensitivity of Area Large Medium Small

High High Risk Medium Risk Medium Risk

Medium Medium Risk Medium Risk Low Risk

Low Medium Risk Low Risk Negligible

109

Table 8.8: 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

Construction Traffic

8.22 Construction traffic will contribute to existing traffic levels on the surrounding road network. The greatest potential for adverse impacts on air quality from traffic associated with this phase of the Proposed Development will be in the areas immediately adjacent to the principal means of access for construction traffic which would be via the A414. It is anticipated that the additional traffic is unlikely to be significant in comparison to the existing traffic flows along the construction routes and HGV movements less than 25 per day. A detailed assessment of the impact of emissions from construction traffic has therefore been scoped out of this assessment.

Operational Phase Methodology

8.23 Air quality at and in the vicinity of the Site has been predicted using the ADMS Roads dispersion model (Version 4.1, February 2017). ADMS Roads is a commercially available dispersion model and has been widely validated for this type of assessment and used extensively in the Air Quality Review and Assessment process.

8.24 The ADMS Roads model uses detailed information regarding traffic flows on the local road network and local meteorological conditions to predict pollution concentrations at specific locations selected by the user. Meteorological data from Stanstead Airport Meteorological Station has been used for the assessment.

8.25 The model has been used to predict road specific concentrations of oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) at selected receptors in the vicinity of the surrounding road network and within the Development itself. The predicted concentrations of

110

NOx have been converted to NO2 using the NOx to NO2 calculator available on the Defra air quality website (Ref. 8.3).

8.26 Traffic data for road links adjacent to the Development Site has been provided by the Transport Consultants. Additional traffic flows for the M11 and 25 have been obtained from the Department for Transport (DfT) website (Ref. 8.3).

8.27 A summary of the traffic data used in the assessment can be found in Appendix 8.2. The data includes details of annual average daily traffic flows (AADT), vehicle speeds and percentage Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) for the assessment years considered. Low traffic speeds have been assigned to appropriate road links to account for congestion and queuing vehicles.

8.28 The following scenarios have been included in the assessment:

 2016 – base scenario (for verification purposes);  2021 – future base scenario plus committed developments;  2021 – future base scenario plus committed developments plus phase one of the Proposed Development (hereafter referred to as ‘with development (phase one)’ scenario);  2033 – future base scenario plus committed developments and the impact of the new junction 7a of the M11;  2033 – future base scenario plus committed developments, the impact of the new junction 7a of the M11 and the completed Proposed Development (hereafter referred as ‘with development (completed)’.

8.29 The emission factors released by Defra in November 2017, provided in the emissions factor toolkit EFT2017 v8.0 have been used to predict traffic related emissions in 2016, 2021 and 2033 (the proposed opening years of phase one and the completed Development).

8.30 To predict local air quality, traffic emissions predicted by the model must be added to local background concentrations. Background concentrations of NOx, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 have been taken from the 2015 Defra background maps (issued November 2017). The maps

111

provide an estimate of background concentrations between 2015 and 2030. The data used for the modelling assessment are set out in Table 8.13.

8.31 Background concentrations for 2016 have been used to predict concentrations in 2021 and 2033 assuming no change in future years. This is considered to represent a conservative approach to the prediction of future concentrations to take account of uncertainty in future background concentrations.

8.32 To determine the performance of the model at a local level, a comparison of modelled results with the results of monitoring carried out within the study area was undertaken. This process aims to minimise modelling uncertainty and systematic error by correcting the modelled results by an adjustment factor to gain greater confidence in the final results. This process was undertaken using the methodology outlined in Chapter 7, Section 4 of LAQM.TG(16). Full details of the model verification process are presented in Appendix 8.3.

8.33 An overall verification factor of 1.41 was determined which indicates that the model is slightly underpredicting compared to the monitored concentrations in this area. The modelled

NOx concentrations were adjusted using this factor prior to conversion to NO2 using the NOx to

NO2 calculation tool available on Defra’s website (Ref. 8.4).

8.34 Local roadside monitoring data were not available for concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5.

Modelled PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations have therefore been adjusted by the verification factor obtained for NOx, which is consistent with the guidance provided in LAQM.TG(16).

8.35 LAQM.TG(16) does not provide a method for the conversion of annual mean NO2 concentrations to 1-hour mean NO2 concentrations. However, research (Ref. 8.5) has concluded that exceedances of the 1-hour mean objective are generally unlikely to occur where annual mean concentrations do not exceed 60 µg/m3. Care has been taken to ensure that locations where the 1-hour mean objective is relevant are included in the assessment.

8.36 A quantitative assessment of air quality at and around the Proposed Development Site has been completed against the relevant Air Quality Strategy objectives set out in Appendix 8.4.

112

Significance Criteria

Construction Phase

8.37 The IAQM assessment methodology recommends that significance criteria are only assigned to the identified risk of dust impacts occurring from a construction activity following the application of appropriate mitigation measures. For almost all construction activities, the application of effective mitigation should prevent any significant effects occurring to sensitive receptors and therefore the residual effects will normally be negligible.

Operational Phase

8.38 The significance of the predicted impacts has been determined following the advice provided in the EPUK & IAQM planning guidance, in combination with professional judgement. The guidance recommends that the impact at individual receptors is described by expressing the magnitude of incremental change in pollution concentrations as a proportion of the relevant assessment level and examining this change in the context of the new total concentration and its relationship with the assessment criterion as summarised in Table 8.9.

Table 8.9: Impact Descriptors for Individual Receptors

Long Term % Change in concentration relative to AQAL (a) Average Concentration at Receptor in 1 2-5 5-10 >10 Assessment Year 75% or less of Moderate Negligible Negligible Slight adverse AQAL adverse Moderate Moderate 76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight adverse adverse adverse 95-102% of Moderate Moderate Substantial Slight adverse AQAL adverse adverse adverse 103-109% of Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial AQAL adverse adverse adverse adverse 110% or more of Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial AQAL adverse adverse adverse adverse (a) a change in concentration of less than 0.5% of the AQAL is considered insignificant, however changes between 0.5% and 1% are rounded up to 1%.

113

8.39 The EPUK & IAQM guidance notes that the criteria in Table 8.9 should be used to describe impacts at individual receptors and should be considered as a starting point to make a judgement on significance of effects, as other influences may need to be accounted for. The EPUK & IAQM guidance states that the assessment of overall significance should be based on professional judgement, taking into account several factors, including:

 The existing and future air quality in the absence of the development;  The extent of current and future population exposure to the impacts; and  The influence and validity of any assumptions adopted when undertaking the prediction of impacts.

8.40 In order to determine whether the impacts of the change in NOx concentrations at the sensitive ecological habitats are significant, the EA guidance criteria have been used. These are outlined in Table 8.10 below.

Table 8.10 Significance Criteria for Ecological Sites

Ecological Habitats Stage One Stage Two The impact is considered The impact is considered to be insignificant if insignificant if

SPAs, SACs, Ramsar sites  Short term Process  Long term PC >1% and Contribution (PC) < 10% PEC <70% of the long term or SSSIs short term critical level; critical level. and  Long term PC < 1% long term critical level The impact is considered to be Local Nature Sites (ancient insignificant if: woodlands, local wildlife  Short term PC <100% sites, national and local short term critical level; and nature reserves)  Long term PC < 100% long term critical level

Sensitive Receptors

8.41 LAQM.TG(16) describes in detail typical locations where consideration should be given to pollutants defined in the Regulations. Generally, the guidance suggests that all locations

114

‘where members of the public are regularly present’ should be considered. At such locations, members of the public will be exposed to pollution over the time that they are present, and the most suitable averaging period of the pollutant needs to be used for assessment purposes.

8.42 For instance, on a footpath, where exposure will be transient (for the duration of passage along that path) comparison with short-term standard (i.e. 15-minute mean or 1-hour mean) may be relevant. In a school, or adjacent to a private dwelling, however; where exposure may be for longer periods, comparison with long-term (such as 24-hour mean or annual mean) standards may be most appropriate. In general terms, concentrations associated with long-term standards are lower than short-term standards owing to the chronic health effects associated with exposure to low level pollution for longer periods of time.

8.43 To assess the impact of emissions arising from the traffic generated by the Proposed Development concentrations have been predicted at 25 existing sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the Site including nearby residential properties, schools and locations selected for short term exposure such as a recreation ground, bus stops and public houses. The modelling also includes 10 receptors at nearby sensitive ecological sites. Details of these sensitive receptors are presented in Table 8.11 and the locations are illustrated in Figure 8.1.

8.44 The modelling assessment also predicted concentrations at a number of locations representing locations within the Proposed Development itself to assess the suitability of the Site for the proposed end use.

Table 8.11: Location of Sensitive Receptors

ID Receptor Type Easting Northing 208427.7 R1 2 Latton St Residential 547061.6 R2 1 Canes Cottages Residential 547845.8 206816 R3 4 Canes Cottages Residential 548203.3 206374 R4 6 Marconi Bungalows Residential 550921.9 205028.8 R5 7 Bilsdens Cottages Residential 553740.6 204534.3 R6 10 Walter Mead Close Residential 555056.3 203950.1 R7 27 Weald Bridge Road Residential 550802.9 205268 R8 Greenacre Residential 551187.7 206766.2 R9 268 High Road Residential 550614.5 204772.9 R10 110 High Road Residential 549912.1 204311 R11 Bader House Residential 549017.8 203761.2 R12 The Conifers Residential 547966.8 203577.5

115

ID Receptor Type Easting Northing

R13 St Margaret's Hospital Hospital 546831.9 202849.8 R14 Fir Trees Appartment Residential 546494.6 202757.8 R15 22 High Street Residential 545661.1 201754.2 R16 2 Highfield Place Residential 545366.9 201567.1 R17 St Andrews C of E Primary School School 550441.1 204910.5 Short ST1 Harlow Garden Centre Term 547787.4 206876.2 Short ST2 Recreation Ground Term 550370.5 205017.9 Short ST3 The Talbot Pub Term 550774.8 205090.4 Short ST4 Bus Shelter on High Road Term 550723.6 204984.3 Short ST5 North Weald Library Term 550009.6 204343.7 Short ST6 Kings Head Pub Term 549610.3 203855.1 Short ST7 Bus Shelter on Palmer Hill Term 546456.9 202718.6 Short ST8 Pub on Palmer Hill Term 546069.9 202209.5 200964 E1 Epping Forest SAC and SSSI Ecological 544755 E2 Epping Forest SAC and SSSI Ecological 544341 200831 E3 Epping Forest SAC and SSSI Ecological 543669 200363 E4 Weald Common Flood Meadows LNR Ecological 549820 203928 E5 Rough talleys Wood LNR Ecological 549114 203703 E6 Epping Forest SSSI Ecological 547927 203555 E7 Epping Forest SSSI Ecological 546683 202925 E8 Harlow Park ancient woodland Ecological 547629 207733 205980.7 D1 Southern Site northwest property Proposed 549411.4 D2 Southern Site property along A414 Proposed 549534.6 205863.7 D3 Southern Site property along A414 Proposed 549774.9 205613.9 D4 Northern Site location of school Proposed 549773.3 205792 D5 Northern Site location of sports pitches Proposed 549949.4 205609.7 Southern Site location of retirement Proposed D6 home 549309.3 205605.7

116

Figure 8.1: Location of Receptors Considered within ADMS Model

117

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

The European Directive on Ambient Air and Cleaner Air for Europe

8.45 European Directive 2008/50/EC (Ref. 8.6) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21st May 2008, sets legally-binding Europe-wide limit values for the protection of public health and sensitive habitats. The Directive streamlines the European Union’s air quality legislation by replacing four of the five existing Air Quality Directives within a single, integrated instrument.

8.46 The pollutants included are sulphur dioxide (SO2), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, lead (Pb), carbon monoxide (CO), benzene (C6H6), ozone (O3), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), nickel (Ni) and mercury (Hg).

Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland

8.47 The Government's policy on air quality within the UK is set out in the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (AQS) published in July 2007 (Ref. 8.7), pursuant to the requirements of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995. The AQS sets out a framework for reducing hazards to health from air pollution and ensuring that international commitments are met in the UK. The AQS is designed to be an evolving process that is monitored and regularly reviewed.

8.48 The AQS sets standards and objectives for ten main air pollutants to protect health, vegetation and ecosystems. These are C6H6, 1,3-butadiene (C4H6), CO, Pb, NO2, PM10, PM2.5,

SO2, O3 and PAHs.

8.49 The air quality standards are long-term benchmarks for ambient pollutant concentrations which represent negligible or zero risk to health, based on medical and scientific evidence reviewed by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). These are general concentration limits, above which sensitive members of the public (e.g. children, the elderly and the unwell) might experience adverse health effects.

8.50 The air quality objectives are medium-term policy-based targets set by the Government which take into account economic efficiency, practicability, technical feasibility and timescale. Some objectives are equal to the EPAQS recommended standards or WHO guideline limits, whereas others involve a margin of tolerance, i.e. a limited number of permitted exceedances of the standard over a given period.

118

8.51 For some pollutants, there is both a long-term (annual mean) standard and a short-term standard. In the case of NO2, the short-term standard is for a 1-hour averaging period, whereas for PM10 it is for a 24-hour averaging period. These periods reflect the varying impacts on health of differing exposures to pollutants (e.g. temporary exposure on the pavement adjacent to a busy road, compared with the exposure of residential properties adjacent to a road).

8.52 The AQS also contains a framework for considering the effects of a finer group of particles known as ‘PM2.5’. Local Authorities are required to work towards reducing emissions / concentrations of PM2.5, but there is currently no statutory objective incorporated into UK law at this time.

8.53 The AQS objective levels relevant to this assessment are set presented in Appendix 8.4.

Air Quality (England) Regulations

8.54 Many of the objectives in the AQS were made statutory in England through the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 (Ref 8.8) and the Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (the Regulations) (Ref 8.9) for the purpose of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM).

8.55 The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (Ref 8.10) came into force on the 10th June 2010 and have adopted into UK law the limit values required by EU Directive 2008/50/EC. These regulations prescribe the ‘relevant period’ (referred to in Part I2V of the Environment Act 1995) that local authorities must consider in their review of the future quality of air within their area. The regulations also set out the air quality objectives to be achieved by the end of the ‘relevant period’.

8.56 Ozone is not included in the Regulations as, due to its transboundary nature, mitigation measures must be implemented at a national level rather than at a local authority level.

Local Air Quality Management (LAQM)

8.57 Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 also requires local authorities to periodically Review and Assess the quality of air within their administrative area. The Reviews have to consider the present and future air quality and whether any air quality objectives prescribed in Regulations are being achieved or are likely to be achieved in the future.

119

8.58 Where any of the prescribed air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved, the authority concerned must designate that part an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

8.59 For each AQMA, the local authority has a duty to draw up an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) setting out the measures the authority intends to introduce to deliver improvements in local air quality in pursuit of the air quality objectives. Local authorities are not statutorily obliged to meet the objectives, but they must show that they are working towards them.

8.60 The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published technical guidance for use by local authorities in their Review and Assessment work (Ref. 8.11). This guidance, referred to in this chapter as LAQM.TG(16), has been used where appropriate in the assessment.

National Planning Policy Framework

8.61 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 8.12) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It requires Local Plans to be consistent with the principles and policies set out in the Framework with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.

8.62 Current planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the relevant development plan. The NPPF should be taken into account in the preparation of development plans and therefore the policies set out within the Framework are a material consideration in planning decisions.

8.63 The NPPF identifies 12 core planning principles that should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking, including a requirement for planning to ‘contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution’.

8.64 Under Policy 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment, the Framework requires the planning system to ‘prevent both new and existing developments from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of air pollution’.

8.65 In dealing specifically with air quality the Framework states that ‘planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for

120

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’.

Epping Forest District Council Combined Policies Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) (Ref. 8.13)

8.66 The EFDC Combined Policies of Epping Forest District Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) was published in February 2008. The local plan contains the following policy regarding air quality.

8.67 Policy RP5A – Adverse Environmental Impacts:

‘The Council will not grant planning permission for:

(i) Development where it could cause excessive noise, vibration, or air, ground water or light pollution for neighbouring land uses, protected wildlife species and habitats; or (ii) Sensitive development such as housing (or other forms of residential occupation, including mobile homes and caravans), hospitals or schools which could be subject to either excessive noise from adjoining land uses or traffic (road, rail and air), or other forms of adverse environmental conditions such as air pollution’

Except where it is possible to mitigate the adverse effects by the imposition of appropriate conditions.’

Epping Forest District Council Emerging Local Plan (Ref. 8.14)

8.68 EFDC are currently working on a revised Local Plan which will guide decisions on planning up to the year 2033. The emerging plan contains the following policy relevant to air quality:

8.69 Policy DM22 Air Quality states:

A. The Council will seek to ensure that the District is protected from the impacts of air pollution. Potential air pollution risks will need to be properly considered and

121

adequate mitigation included in the design of new development to ensure neither future, nor existing residents, workers, visitors, or environmental receptors including the Epping Forest SAC are adversely impacted as a result of the development;

B. Mitigation measures required will be determined by the scale of development, its location, the potential to cause air pollution, and the presence of sensitive receptors in the locality;

C. Larger proposals or those that have potential to produce air pollution, will be required to undertake an air quality assessment that identifies the potential impact of the development, together with, where appropriate, contributions towards air quality monitoring. Assessments shall identify mitigation that will address any deterioration in air quality as a result of the development, having taken into account other permitted developments, and these measures shall be incorporated into the development proposals. This will include an assessment of emissions (including from traffic generation) and calculation of the cost of the development to the environment. All assessments for air quality shall be undertaken by competent persons.

Control of Dust and Particulates associated with Construction

8.70 Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) provides the following definitions of statutory nuisance relevant to dust and particles:

 ‘Any dust or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance’, and  ‘any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance’.

8.71 Following this, Section 80 states that where a statutory nuisance is shown to exist, the local authority must serve an abatement notice. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence and if necessary, the local authority may abate the nuisance and recover expenses.

8.72 In the context of the Proposed Development, the main potential for nuisance of this nature will arise during the construction phase – potential sources being the clearance, earthworks, construction and landscaping processes.

8.73 There are no statutory limit values for dust deposition above which ‘nuisance’ is deemed to exist – ‘nuisance’ is a subjective concept and its perception is highly dependent upon the

122

existing conditions and the change which has occurred. However, research has been undertaken by a number of parties to determine community responses to such impacts and correlate these to dust deposition rates.

EPUK & IAQM Land Use Planning and Development Control

8.74 Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) & Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) published the Land Use Planning and Development Control Air Quality guidance in January 2017 (Ref. 8.2) to provide guidance on the assessment of air quality in relation to planning proposals and ensure that air quality is adequately considered within the planning control process.

8.75 The main focus of the guidance is to ensure all developments apply good practice principles to ensure emissions and exposure are kept to a minimum. It also sets out criteria for identifying when a more detailed assessment of operational impacts is required, guidance on undertaking detailed assessments and criteria for assigning the significance of any identified impacts.

8.76 This guidance has been used within this assessment.

Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction

8.77 The IAQM published guidance in 2014 on the assessment of emissions from demolition and construction activities (Ref. 8.1). The guidance sets out an approach to identifying the risk of impacts occurring at nearby sensitive receptors from dust generated during the construction process and sets out recommended mitigation measures based on the identified risk. This guidance has been used within this assessment.

123

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Epping Forest District Council Review and Assessment of Air Quality

8.78 Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) has carried out reviews of the air quality in the area, and as a result EFDC has currently declared one AQMA. The AQMA, Epping Forest

District Council No2 was declared in August 2010 for annual mean NO2 concentrations as a result of road traffic and encompasses two properties located at the junction of Theydon Road and High Road in Epping. The Site is therefore not located within or near to an AQMA.

8.79 EFDC currently monitor air quality within the borough using a network of diffusion tubes. No monitoring using automatic monitors is currently undertaken within the borough.

Non-Automatic Monitoring

8.80 NO2 diffusion tube monitoring is carried out at 25 locations throughout the borough. Data from the closest monitoring locations to the Site are presented in Table 8.12.

3 Table 8.12: Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations Measured by Diffusion Tube (μg/m ) OS Grid Annual mean concentrations (μg/m3) Site Name Site Type Reference 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 6 Hastingwood Urban 547838, Canes 28 28 26 16 26 Background 206819 Cottages 12 North Weald Urban 549648, - - 20 19 19 Tempest Background 203671 Mead 13 Roydon 540919, Roadside 25 29 25 22 24 High Street 209956

8.81 The monitoring data shows NO2 concentrations are well below the relevant AQS objective level at roadside and urban background locations near to the Site.

8.82 Diffusion tubes are unable to record short-term concentrations of NO2. However, as detailed previously, where annual mean concentrations are less than 60 µg/m3 it is unlikely there will be an exceedences of the 1-hour objective. Based on the annual mean concentrations

124

recorded during the past five years it is expected that the 1-hour mean objective is being met in the vicinity of the Site.

Defra Background Maps

8.83 Additional information on background concentrations in the vicinity of the Site has been obtained from the Defra background pollutant maps. The 2015 Defra background maps provide estimated concentrations for the years 2015 to 2030. For the purposes of this assessment 2016 background concentrations have been obtained.

8.84 The pollutant concentrations from the grid squares representing the assessment area have been extracted from the maps which include the Site and road links included in the modelling assessment. The background concentration for each pollutant used in the assessment is presented in Table 8.13 below.

Table 8.13: Estimated Annual Mean Background Concentrations from Defra Maps (μg/m3)

Grid Square Receptor NOx NO2 PM10 PM2.5

547500, 208500 R1, - 14.9 10.2 551500, 206500 R8 - 10.1 14.8 9.9 547500, 207500 E8. E9 29.0 - - - 548500, 206500 R3 - 15.1 16.9 10.9 547500, 206500 R2, ST1 - 19.7 17.3 11.2 551500, 205500 E10 14.5 - - - 550500, 205500 R4, R7, ST2, ST3 - 11.7 14.6 9.8 D1, D2, D3, D4, 549500, 205500 - 12.3 14.2 9.6 D5, D6 553500, 204500 R5, - 10.3 15.2 10.0 R9, R17, ST4, 550500, 204500 - 11.5 14.5 9.8 ST5, 549500, 204500 R10 - 13.0 14.3 9.7 555000, 203500 R6, - 11.3 15.6 10.4 549500, 203500 R11, ST6, E4, E5 13.5 15.4 10.4 547500, 203500 R12, E6 17.7 13.0 14.4 9.7 R13, R14, ST7, 546500, 202500 18.9 13.8 14.9 10.2 ST8, E7 545500, 201500 R15, R16 - 15.3 15.5 10.5 544500, 200500 E1, E2 24.0 - - - 543500, 200500 E3 30.4 - - -

125

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

Construction Phase Effects

Area Sensitivity

8.85 The Proposed Development Site is currently the site of the former North Weald Golf Course. There are no existing buildings on the Site that will require demolition, therefore the dust effects associated with demolition have been excluded from the assessment.

8.86 The assessment of dust impacts is dependent on the proximity of the most sensitive receptors to the site boundary. A summary of the receptor and area sensitivity to health and dust soiling impacts is presented in Table 8.14.

Table 8.14: Sensitivity of Receptors and the Local Area to Dust Impacts

Distance Sensitivity to Health Sensitivity to Dust Approx. from Site Impacts (a) Soiling Impacts Receptor Number of Boundary Receptors (m) Receptor Area Receptor Area

Residential <20 m 2 High Low High Medium Properties <50 m 5 High Low High Low Overall Sensitivity of the Area Low Medium

3 (a) Estimated background PM10 concentration is 14.2 µg/m .

8.87 It is understood that construction traffic will travel along the A414 and / or Rayley Lane to gain access to the Site. Within the IAQM guidance it is indicated that impacts from trackout as a result of construction vehicles moving on the road network can result in impacts up to 500m from the Site access points and within 50m of the roadside. There are no sensitive receptors located within 50m of Rayley Lane or the A414 within 500m of the Site access. The sensitivity of the surrounding area to dust soiling and health effects due to PM10 concentrations as a result of trackout is therefore considered to be low.

8.88 A LWS is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. A LWS is classified to be an ecological receptor of low sensitivity. The sensitivity of the surrounding area to ecological effects due to dust and PM10 arising from on-site activities associated with the earthworks and construction phases is therefore considered to be low. There are no ecological sensitive receptors within 50m of the roadside of the A414 within 500m of the Site access, therefore the

126

sensitivity of the surrounding area to ecological effects due to track out is therefore considered to be negligible.

8.89 The precise behaviour of the dust, its residence time in the atmosphere, and the distance it may travel before being deposited will depend upon a number of factors. These include wind direction and strength, local topography and the presence of intervening structures (buildings, etc.) that may intercept dust before it reaches sensitive locations. Furthermore, dust would be naturally suppressed by rainfall.

8.90 A wind rose from Stanstead Airport is provided in Figure 8.2, which shows that the prevailing wind is from the southwest, therefore receptors to the northeast of the Development Site are the most likely to experience dust impacts from the development. The area to the northeast of the Site is predominantly open fields. The highest risk of impacts is expected to occur in this location.

Figure 8.2: Wind Rose for Stanstead Airport Meteorological Station (2016)

Dust Emission Magnitude

8.91 Earthworks will primarily involve excavating material, haulage, tipping and stockpiling. This may also involve levelling of the Site and landscaping. The development area of the Site

127

is approximately 27.2ha. The Site is therefore classed as ‘large’ in terms of emissions magnitude based on the IAQM guidance.

8.92 Dust emissions during construction will depend on the scale of the works, method of construction, construction materials and duration of build. The main construction material would involve the use of concrete, known to be a dusty material. The volume of the proposed buildings is not known but due to the size of the Site and to ensure a worst-case assessment, the dust emission magnitude is considered to be ‘large’.

8.93 Factors influencing the degree of trackout and associated magnitude of effect include vehicle size, vehicle speed, vehicle numbers, geology and duration. Based on the size of the Site, dust emission magnitude due to trackout is considered to be ‘large’.

Dust Risk Effects

8.94 A summary of the potential risk of dust impacts, based on the low overall sensitivity of the area to human health effects and medium overall sensitivity to dust soiling impacts, is presented in Table 8.15.

Table 8.15: Risk of Dust Impacts Prior to Mitigation

Impact Human Health Dust Soiling Ecological Source Magnitude Risk Risk Effects Risk Demolition NA NA NA NA Earthworks Large Low Medium Low Construction Large Low Medium Low Trackout Large Low Low NA

Operational Phase Effects

Predicted NO2 Concentrations

8.95 Annual mean NO2 concentrations, predicted at the identified receptor locations are presented in Table 8.16 below.

128

3 Table 8.16: Predicted Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations (µg/m )

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact (% Impact (% Base + With Base + With of of Committed Development Committed Development Objective) Objective)

R1 21.6 21.7 0.1 17.7 17.8 0.3 R2 32.6 32.8 27.5 27.9 0.4 1.0 R3 28.0 28.3 23.9 24.6 0.7 1.9 R4 17.3 17.3 14.5 14.6 0.0 0.2 R5 16.8 16.8 13.6 13.7 0.1 0.2 R6 18.9 19.0 15.1 15.2 0.1 0.3 R7 15.1 15.1 13.4 13.5 0.0 0.2 R8 11.8 11.8 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.1 R9 18.8 18.8 15.3 15.4 -0.1 0.4 R10 20.8 20.7 17.0 17.1 -0.1 0.4 R11 20.9 20.9 17.3 17.4 0.0 0.2 R12 24.4 24.4 18.9 19.0 0.1 0.2 R13 17.3 17.3 15.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 R14 28.7 28.7 21.1 21.2 0.1 0.2 R15 29.2 29.2 22.1 22.1 0.1 0.1 R16 28.1 28.1 21.5 21.5 0.0 0.1 R17 13.8 13.8 12.7 12.7 0.0 0.1 ST1 32.1 32.2 26.4 26.5 0.1 0.3 ST2 14.1 14.1 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.1 ST3 20.5 20.5 16.1 16.3 0.0 0.5 ST4 20.0 20.0 15.9 16.0 0.0 0.4 ST5 16.7 16.7 14.2 14.3 0.0 0.2 ST6 19.0 19.0 16.3 16.4 0.0 0.2 ST7 43.9 44.0 29.1 29.2 0.2 0.3 ST8 36.5 36.5 25.1 25.2 0.1 0.2 D1 - 17.8 - 15.6 - - D2 - 17.2 - 15.0 - - D3 - 16.1 - 14.3 - -

129

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact (% Impact (% Base + With Base + With of of Committed Development Committed Development Objective) Objective)

D4 - 15.8 - 14.2 - - - 16.0 - 14.2 D5 - - D6 - 15.4 - 15.2 - - 8.96 The results of the assessment indicate that there are no exceedences of the annual mean AQS objective level for NO2 at any of the existing sensitive receptors either with or without the Development in either 2021 (the proposed year of opening for Phase One of the Development) or in 2033 (the anticipated year of completion of the Development.

8.97 In the year 2021, the greatest increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations as a result of the Proposed Development is a concentration of 0.3µg/m3 which equates to 0.7% of the AQS objective level for annual mean NO2 concentrations. This is predicted at receptor R3, 4 Canes Cottages which is a residential property located on the A414. At this and all the other sensitive receptors included in the assessment, the impact of the scheme is classified as negligible in accordance with the EPUK & IAQM significance criteria outlined in Table 8.9.

8.98 In the year 2033, the greatest increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations as a result of the Proposed Development is a concentration of 0.7µg/m3 (1.9% of the AQS objective level). Again, this is predicted at receptor R3, 4 Canes Cottages. At this and all the other sensitive receptors included in the assessment, the impact of the scheme is classified as negligible in accordance with the EPUK & IAQM significance criteria.

8.99 As discussed previously LAQM.TG(16) does not provide a method for the conversion of annual mean NO2 concentrations to 1-hour mean NO2 concentrations. However, research (Ref. 8.4) has concluded that exceedances of the 1-hour mean objective are generally unlikely to occur where annual mean concentrations do not exceed 60 µg/m3. The predicted annual mean 3 NO2 concentrations are all well below 60µg/m at all of the existing sensitive receptors included in the assessment both with and without the Proposed Development in both 2021 and 2033.

Therefore, it is considered unlikely that the AQS objective for hourly mean NO2 concentrations will be exceeded and the impact on hourly mean NO2 concentrations is also considered to be negligible.

130

8.100 Within the Development itself, the predicted concentrations are well below (less than

75%) the AQS objective level for annual mean NO2 concentrations. The highest predicted concentrations are predicted at the location of a residential property close to the A414, where concentrations are predicted to be 17.8µg/m3 in 2021 and 15.6µg/m3 in 2033. The impact of the Proposed Development in terms of exposure of the future residents for both annual and hourly

NO2 is therefore considered to be negligible.

Predicted PM10 Concentrations

8.101 Predicted annual mean PM10 concentrations at the selected receptor locations are presented below in Table 8.17.

3 Table 8.17: Predicted Annual Mean PM10 Concentrations (µg/m )

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact (% Impact (% Base + With Base + With of of Committed Development Committed Development Objective) Objective)

R1 16.2 16.2 0.0 16.0 16.1 0.1 R2 19.1 19.1 0.0 19.3 19.4 0.3 R3 18.8 18.8 0.1 19.3 19.5 0.5 R4 15.4 15.4 0.0 15.4 15.4 0.1 R5 16.1 16.1 0.0 16.1 16.1 0.1 R6 16.8 16.8 0.0 16.7 16.8 0.1 R7 15.1 15.1 0.0 15.1 15.1 0.0 R8 15.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 R9 15.5 15.5 0.0 15.6 15.6 0.1 R10 15.5 15.5 0.0 15.5 15.5 0.1 R11 16.5 16.5 0.0 16.4 16.5 0.1 R12 15.9 15.9 0.0 15.9 15.9 0.1 R13 15.4 15.4 0.0 15.4 15.4 0.0 R14 18.0 18.0 0.0 17.9 17.9 0.1 R15 18.3 18.3 0.0 18.2 18.2 0.1 R16 17.9 17.9 0.0 17.8 17.8 0.0

131

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact (% Impact (% Base + With Base + With of of Committed Development Committed Development Objective) Objective)

R17 14.7 14.7 0.0 14.7 14.7 0.0 ST1 18.9 18.9 0.0 18.9 18.9 0.1 ST2 14.9 14.9 0.0 14.9 14.9 0.0 ST3 15.8 15.8 0.0 15.7 15.8 0.1 ST4 15.7 15.7 0.0 15.7 15.8 0.1 ST5 15.2 15.2 0.0 15.2 15.2 0.1 ST6 16.2 16.2 0.0 16.2 16.2 0.1 ST7 21.9 22.0 0.0 21.7 21.7 0.1 ST8 20.0 20.0 0.0 19.8 19.8 0.1 D1 - 15.0 - - 15.1 - D2 - 14.9 - - 14.9 - D3 - 14.7 - - 14.7 - D4 - 14.6 - - 14.7 - - 14.7 - - 14.7 - D5 D6 - 14.6 - - 15.0 -

8.102 The results of the assessment indicate that there are no exceedences of the annual mean AQS objective level for PM10 at any of the existing sensitive receptors either with or without the Development in either 2021 (the proposed year of opening for Phase One of the Development) or in 2033 (the anticipated year of completion of the Development.

8.103 In the year 2021, the greatest increase in annual mean PM10 concentrations as a result of the Proposed Development is a concentration of 0.04µg/m3 which equates to 0.1% of the

AQS objective level for annual mean PM10 concentrations. This is predicted at receptor R3, 4 Canes Cottages which is a residential property located on the A414. At this and all the other sensitive receptors included in the assessment, the impact of the scheme is classified as negligible in accordance with the EPUK & IAQM significance criteria outlined in Table 8.9.

132

8.104 In the year 2033, the greatest increase in annual mean PM10 concentrations as a result of the Proposed Development is a concentration of 0.2µg/m3 (0.5% of the AQS objective level). Again, this is predicted at receptor R3, 4 Canes Cottages. At this and all the other sensitive receptors included in the assessment, the impact of the scheme is classified as negligible in accordance with the EPUK & IAQM significance criteria.

8.105 LAQM.TG(16) provides a relationship between predicted annual mean concentrations and the likely number of exceedances of the short-term (24-hour mean) PM10 objective of 50 µg/m3 (N), where:

N = -18.5 + 0.00145 x annual mean3 + (206/annual mean).

8.106 The objective allows 35 exceedances per year, which is equivalent to an annual mean of 32 µg/m3.

8.107 Based on the above approach, the maximum number of days where PM10 concentrations are predicted to exceed 50µg/m3 is between 0 and 2 days at the selected receptors in the year 2021 and between 0 and 3 days in the year 2033. The results predict a change of less than one day as a result of the operation of the Development. The impact on

24-hour PM10 concentrations is therefore also considered to be negligible.

8.108 Within the Development itself, the predicted concentrations are well below (less than

75%) the AQS objective level for annual mean PM10 concentrations. The highest predicted concentrations are predicted at the location of a residential property close to the A414, where concentrations are predicted to be 15.0µg/m3 in 2021 and 15.1µg/m3 in 2033. The maximum 3 number of days where the PM10 concentrations are predicted to exceed 50µg/m within the Proposed Development is less than 1 day in both 2021 and 2033. The impact of the Proposed

Development in terms of exposure of the future residents for both annual and 24 hour PM10 is therefore considered to be negligible.

Predicted PM2.5 Concentrations

8.109 Predicted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at the identified receptor locations are presented in Tables 8.18 below.

133

3 Table 8.18: Predicted Annual Mean PM2.5 Concentrations (µg/m )

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact (% Impact (% Base + With Base + With of of Committed Development Committed Development Objective) Objective)

R1 10.9 10.9 0.0 10.8 10.9 0.1 R2 12.3 12.3 0.0 12.4 12.5 0.2 R3 12.1 12.1 0.1 12.3 12.4 0.4 R4 10.3 10.3 0.0 10.3 10.3 0.1 R5 10.6 10.6 0.0 10.5 10.5 0.1 R6 11.1 11.1 0.0 11.0 11.0 0.1 R7 10.1 10.1 0.0 10.1 10.1 0.0 R8 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 R9 10.5 10.5 0.0 10.5 10.5 0.1 R10 10.4 10.4 0.0 10.4 10.4 0.1 R11 11.0 11.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 0.1 R12 10.7 10.7 0.0 10.6 10.6 0.0 R13 10.5 10.5 0.0 10.5 10.5 0.0 R14 12.0 12.0 0.0 11.9 11.9 0.1 R15 12.1 12.1 0.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 R16 11.9 11.9 0.0 11.8 11.8 0.0 R17 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 ST1 12.2 12.2 0.0 12.2 12.2 0.1 ST2 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 ST3 10.5 10.5 0.0 10.5 10.5 0.1 ST4 10.6 10.6 0.0 10.6 10.6 0.1 ST5 10.3 10.3 0.0 10.3 10.3 0.1 ST6 10.9 10.9 0.0 10.8 10.8 0.0 ST7 14.2 14.2 0.0 13.9 14.0 0.1 ST8 13.1 13.1 0.0 12.9 12.9 0.1 D1 10.1 10.1 0.0 10.1 10.1 0.2 D2 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.1 D3 9.9 9.9 0.0 9.9 9.9 0.1

134

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact (% Impact (% Base + With Base + With of of Committed Development Committed Development Objective) Objective)

D4 9.9 9.9 0.0 9.9 9.9 0.1 9.9 9.9 0.0 9.9 9.9 0.1 D5 D6 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.1 0.2 0.0

8.110 The results of the assessment indicate that there are no exceedences of the annual mean AQS objective level for PM2.5 at any of the existing sensitive receptors either with or without the Development in either 2021 (the proposed year of opening for Phase One of the Development) or in 2033 (the anticipated year of completion of the Development.

8.111 In the year 2021, the greatest increase in annual mean PM2.5 concentrations as a result of the Proposed Development is a concentration of 0.02µg/m3 which equates to 0.1% of the

AQS objective level for annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. This is predicted at receptor R3, 4 Canes Cottages which is a residential property located on the A414. At this and all the other sensitive receptors included in the assessment, the impact of the scheme is classified as negligible in accordance with the EPUK & IAQM significance criteria outlined in Table 8.9.

8.112 In the year 2033, the greatest increase in annual mean PM2.5 concentrations as a result of the Proposed Development is a concentration of 0.1µg/m3 (0.4% of the AQS objective level). Again, this is predicted at receptor R3, 4 Canes Cottages. At this and all the other sensitive receptors included in the assessment, the impact of the scheme is classified as negligible in accordance with the EPUK & IAQM significance criteria.

8.113 Within the Development itself, the predicted concentrations are well below (less than

Proposed Development in terms of exposure of the future residents for annual PM2.5 concentrations is therefore considered to be negligible.

135

Airborne NOx Concentrations

8.114 An assessment of concentrations of NOx at the nearby sensitive ecological sites has been included, the results are presented in Table 8.19 below.

136

able 8.19: Predicted Annual Mean NOx Concentrations (µg/m3)

Phase One (Year 2021) Completed Development (Year 2033)

Receptor Impact as Impact as % of % of Impact Significance Impact Significance Critical Critical Load Load

E1 0.00 0.0 Insignificant 0.01 0.0 Insignificant E2 0.03 0.1 Insignificant 0.06 0.2 Insignificant E3 0.04 0.1 Insignificant 0.07 0.2 Insignificant E4 0.00 0.0 Insignificant 0.05 0.2 Insignificant E5 0.00 0.0 Insignificant 0.07 0.2 Insignificant E6 0.11 0.4 Insignificant 0.22 0.7 Insignificant E7 0.07 0.2 Insignificant 0.12 0.4 Insignificant E8 0.03 0.1 Insignificant 0.08 0.3 Insignificant E9 0.02 0.1 Insignificant 0.05 0.2 Insignificant E10 0.02 0.1 Insignificant 0.09 0.3 Insignificant

8.115 The results of the assessment indicate that the additional emissions arising from the road traffic associated with the Proposed Development results in a relatively small change in predicted NOx concentrations at all of the sensitive ecological receptors included in the assessment.

8.116 In accordance with the guidance provided by the EA and reproduced in Table 8.10, the impact of the Proposed Development on airborne NOx concentrations at each of the sensitive ecological receptors is considered to be insignificant.

Uncertainty

8.117 There are many components that contribute to the uncertainty in predicted concentrations. The model used in this assessment is dependent upon the traffic data that have been input which will have inherent uncertainties associated with them. There is then additional uncertainty as the model is required to simplify real-world conditions into a series of algorithms.

137

8.118 Defra issued revised emission factors in November 2017 which better reflect the anticipated change in future year emissions. This assessment has used these emissions factors in conjunction with background concentrations obtained from background maps based on 2015 monitored concentrations to reduce the uncertainty in the prediction of future concentrations.

ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

8.119 Cumulative effects can potentially be experienced during both the construction and operational phases. During the construction phase, cumulative effects of dust and particulate matter generated from on-site activities may be experienced in locations in close proximity to two or more development sites and when the timing of the construction phases overlap. There may also be an effect due to the increased construction traffic on local roads if construction vehicles are to use the same routes to access the sites. During the operational phase, cumulative effects may be experienced due to the additional road vehicles generated by one or more schemes if the traffic is likely to affect the same local roads.

8.120 No significant committed or proposed developments have been identified in the vicinity of the Site, therefore an assessment of cumulative effects as a result of individual developments has been excluded from the assessment.

8.121 Nevertheless, the traffic flows used for the assessment were calculated to account for the additional traffic from general growth in the area and a number of committed developments. The assessment of the significance of the Proposed Development effects has therefore taken into account the cumulative effect of the Site and a likely amount of development in the area on predicted future pollutant concentrations.

138

ENHANCEMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Mitigation

Construction Phase

8.122 The control of dust emissions from construction site activities relies upon management provision and mitigation techniques to reduce emissions of dust and limit dispersion. Where dust emission controls have been used effectively, large-scale operations have been successfully undertaken without adverse impacts to nearby properties.

8.123 A medium risk of dust soiling impacts and a low risk of human health (PM10) effects and ecological effects is predicted at adjacent receptors during construction of the Proposed Development. Appropriate mitigation measures for the Site have been identified following the IAQM guidance and based on the risk effects presented in Table 8.14. These are set out below and can be secured by way of planning condition/obligation.

8.124 ‘Highly Recommended’ Measures

 develop and implement a stakeholder communications plan that includes community engagement before work commences on site;  display the name and contact details of the person accountable for air quality and dust issues on the site boundary (i.e. the environment manager/engineer or site manager);  display the head or regional office contact information on the site boundary;  record all dust and air quality complaints, identify cause, take appropriate measures to reduce emissions in a timely manner and record the measures taken;  make the complaints log available to the local authority when asked;  record any exceptional incidents that cause dust and/or air emissions, either on- or off- site and the action taken to resolve the situation in the log book;  carry out regular site inspections to monitor compliance with the DMP, record inspection results and make inspection log available to EFDC when asked;  undertake daily on-site and off site inspection, where receptors (including roads) are nearby, to monitor dust, record inspection results and make the log available to the local authority when asked. This should include regular dust soiling

139

checks of surfaces such as street furniture, cars and window sills within 100m of the site boundary, with cleaning to be provided if necessary.  carry out regular site inspections to monitor compliance with the DMP, record inspection results, and make an inspection log available to the local authority when asked;  increase frequency of site inspection by the person accountable for air quality and dust issues on site when activities with a high potential to produce dust are being carried out and during prolonged periods of dry or windy conditions;

 agree dust deposition, dust flux or real-time PM10 continuous monitoring locations with the Local Authority. Where possible commence baseline monitoring at least three months before work commences on site.  plan site layout so that machinery and dust causing activities are located away from receptors, as far as is possible;  erect solid screens or barriers around dusty activities or the site boundary that are at least as high as any stockpiles;  fully enclose site or specific operations where there is a high potential for dust production and the activities are being undertaken for an extensive period;  avoid site runoff of water or mud;  keep site fencing, barriers and scaffolding clean using wet methods;  remove materials that have a potential to produce dust from site as soon as possible, unless being re-used on site. If being re-used on site, cover as detailed below;  cover, seed or fence stockpiles to prevent wind whipping;  ensure all vehicles switch off engines when stationary - no idling vehicles;  avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators and use mains electricity or battery powered equipment where practicable;  produce a construction logistic plan to manage the sustainable delivery of goods and materials;  only use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted or in conjunction with suitable dust suppression techniques such as water sprays or local extraction e.g. suitable local exhaust ventilation systems;  ensure an adequate water supply on site for effective dust/particulate matter suppression/mitigation, using non-potable water where possible and appropriate;  use enclosed chutes and conveyors and covered skips;

140

 minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading or handling equipment and use fine water sprays on such equipment wherever appropriate;  ensure equipment is readily available on site to clean any dry spillages, and clean up spillages as soon as reasonably practicable after the event using wet cleaning methods;  avoid bonfires and burning of waste materials;  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;  use water-assisted dust sweeper(s) on the access and local roads, to remove, as necessary, any material tracked out of the site;  avoid dry sweeping of large areas;  ensure vehicles entering and leaving the site are covered to prevent the escape of materials during transport;  inspect on-site haul routes for integrity and instigate necessary repairs to the surfaces as soon as reasonably practicable;  record all inspections of haul routes and any subsequent action in a site log book;  install hard surfaced haul routes, which are regularly damped down with fixed or mobile sprinkler systems, or mobile water bowsers and regularly cleaned;  implement a wheel washing system (with rumble grids to dislodge accumulated dust and mud prior to leaving the site where reasonably practicable);  ensure there is an adequate area of hard surfaced road between the wheel wash facility and the site exit; and  access gates to be located at least 10 m from receptors where possible.

8.125 In addition to the 'recommended' measures, the IAQM guidance also sets out 'desirable' measures which should also be considered for inclusion within the DMP:

 Undertake daily on-site and off-site inspections, where receptors (including roads) are nearby, to monitor dust, record inspections results, and make the log available to the local authority when asked. This should include regular dust soiling checks of surfaces such as street furniture, cars and window sills within 100m of site boundary, with cleaning to be provided in necessary.  Impose and signpost a maximum-speed limit of 15mph on surfaced and 10 mph on unsurfaced haul roads and work areas (if long haul routes are required these

141

speeds may be increased with suitable additional control measures provided, subject to the approval of the nominated undertaker and with the agreement of the local authority, where appropriate).  Implement a Travel Plan that supports and encourages sustainable travel (public transport, cycling, walking and car-sharing).  Re-vegetate earthworks and exposed areas/soil stockpiles to stabilise surfaces as soon as practicable.  Use Hessian, mulches or trackifiers where it is not possible to re-vegetate or cover with topsoil, as soon as practicable.  Only remove the cover in small areas during work and not all at once.  Avoid scabbling (roughening of concrete surfaces) if possible.  Ensure bulk cement and other fine powder materials are delivered in enclosed tankers and stored in silos with suitable emission control systems to prevent escape of material and overfilling during delivery.  For smaller supplied of fine powder materials ensure bags are sealed after use and stored appropriately to prevent dust;

Operational Phase

8.126 Concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 predicted at all of the existing sensitive human receptors included in the assessment are all below the relevant AQS objective levels and the impact on local air quality is considered to be negligible. The concentrations predicted within the Development Site are also well below (less than 75%) of the relevant AQS objective levels. The effect on the sensitive ecological sites in terms of airborne NOx concentrations is considered to be insignificant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are considered necessary.

Residual Effects

Construction Phase

8.127 Following implementation of the measures recommended for inclusion within the DMP the impact of emissions during construction of the Proposed Development would be negligible.

Operational Phase

8.128 The effect of traffic associated with the Proposed Development on concentrations NO2,

PM10 and PM2.5 is predicted to be negligible and the effect on concentrations of airborne NOx within the sensitive ecological sites is predicted to be insignificant. Residual effects are therefore also considered to be negligible / insignificant.

142

SUMMARY

8.129 An air quality impact assessment has been undertaken to assess both construction and operational effects associated with the Proposed Development.

8.130 An assessment of the potential effects during the construction phase identified that releases of dust and particulate matter are likely to occur during site activities. Through good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, the effect of dust and particulate matter releases may be effectively mitigated and the resultant effects are considered to be negligible.

8.131 Dispersion modelling has been carried out to assess the impact of the operational development on local air quality. The results of the modelling indicate that concentrations of relevant pollutants (NO2, PM10 and PM2.5) will meet the relevant AQS objective levels at nearby sensitive receptors and within the Site itself. The significance of the effects of the emissions arising from the traffic associated with the operation of the Proposed Development is considered to be negligible.

8.132 The results of the modelling also indicate that the significance of the effects of the additional emissions arising from road traffic associated with the operation of the Proposed

Development on airborne NOx at the relevant sensitive ecological habitats is considered to be insignificant.

8.133 It is therefore considered that air quality does not pose any constraints to the development of the Site as proposed.

143

Table 8.19: Air Quality Summary Table

Nature of Mitigation/ Effect Residual Potential Effect Significance (Permanent or Enhancement Effects Temporary) Measures

Dust and particulate Temporary - The adoption Negligible matter generated of best practice during the and measures construction phase outlined in the IAQM guidance

Effects on Local Air Temporary Negligible None Negligible Quality from emissions from construction traffic

Effects on Local Air Permanent Negligible None Negligible Quality from emissions from road traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Development

144

REFERENCES

Ref 8.1: Institute of Air Quality Management (2014); 'Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction version 1.1’. Ref 8.2: Environmental Planning UK & Institute of Air Quality Management. Land-use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, January 2017 Ref 8.3: http://dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php Ref 8.4: http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk Ref 8.5: D. Laxen and B Marner (2003) Analysis of the relationship between 1-hour and annual mean nitrogen dioxide at UK roadside and kerbside monitoring sites. Ref 8.6: Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC Ref 8.7: The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (2007) Ref 8.8: The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 - Statutory Instrument 2000 No.928 Ref 8.9: The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 - Statutory Instrument 2002 No.3043 Ref 8.10: The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 – Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 1001 Ref 8.11: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), (2016): Part IV The Environment Act 1995 Local Air Quality Management Review and Assessment Technical Guidance LAQM.TG(16). Ref 8.12: Communities and Local Government: National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Ref 8.13: Epping Forest District Council Combined Policies Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) Ref 8.14: Epping Forest District Council Emerging Local Plan

145

9 NOISE AND VIBRATION

INTRODUCTION

9.1 This Chapter of the ES considers the noise and vibration issues that may be associated with the Proposed Development both on existing noise sensitive receptors (local residential) and new residential, retail and education elements of the Proposed Development for both the construction and operational phases.

9.2 The Chapter starts off by providing an overview of the policy context of relevance to the Site. This is followed by details of the methodology for the assessment and the criteria used for assessing effect magnitude and receptor sensitivity. Details are then provided to demonstrate how these criteria were used to assess the significance of the effects of the Proposed Development.

9.3 The Chapter then considers the baseline situation, before the likely environmental effects of the Proposed Development on noise and vibration are identified, during both the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. Mitigation measures to reduce any negative environmental effects are identified as appropriate, before the residual environmental effects are assessed.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Assessment Methodology

Study Area

9.4 The study area is determined by the potential impact of road traffic noise during both the construction and operational phase of the Proposed Development. The guidance contained in the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB, Ref 9.1) advocates a spatial envelope of 600 m of road centreline. This value is applied to all roads adjacent to the Site. Noise egress from the Site during the operational phase is also limited to 600m of the Site boundary.

146

Surveys

9.5 The environmental noise measurements were carried out in May/July 2017 to determine the prevailing noise levels during daytime and night-time periods. The survey results have been utilised to ascertain the suitability of the Site for residential purposes (see Baseline Conditions below).

Significance Criteria

9.6 The measurement, prediction and assessment of noise and vibration levels associated with the Proposed Development and the significance of their potential impacts have been assessed in accordance with national guidance and recognised codes of practice. A three- stage process has been adopted. First, the sensitivity of the noise and vibration receptors is assessed. This is followed by an assessment of the magnitude of the noise and vibration impacts and finally the significance of impacts. These are discussed below and have been specifically applied to a conceptual significance impact matrix as appropriate.

Construction Phase

9.7 Noise levels generated by construction activities have the potential to impact upon nearby noise-sensitive receptors. However, the magnitude of the potential impact will depend upon a number of variables, such as:

• The noise generated by plant or equipment used on-site; • The period of time construction plant is operational; • The distance between the noise source and the receptor; and • The level of likely attenuation due to ground absorption and barrier effects.

9.8 BS5288:2009+A1,2014 'Construction Code of Practice for noise & vibration control on construction & open sites' (Ref 9.2) gives an appropriate methodology to predict and assess noise emission levels from a construction site.

9.9 In order to predict and assess the impact of noise during construction of the Proposed Development, noise predictions have been undertaken using the calculation methods outlined in BS 5228.

9.10 The prediction procedure essentially involves taking the source noise level of each item of plant and correcting it for (i) distance effects between source and receiver (ii) percentage

147

operating time of the plant; (iii) barrier attenuation effects; (iv) ground absorption; and (v) facade corrections. The latter correction involves a 3 dB noise increase due to the reflection effects for a receiving point location 1 m in front of a building facade. All predictions presented in this section include the façade correction and in addition, assume that the ground between the source and receiver is acoustically hard, to represent worst case.

9.11 Noise levels generated by the Site operations and experienced at local receptors will depend upon a number of variables, for example:

• The amount of noise generated by plant and equipment being used at the application site generally expressed as a sound power level; • The periods of operation of the plant at the application site, known as the 'on- time'; • The distance between the noise source and the receptor, known as the 'stand- off'; • The attenuation due to ground absorption or barrier effects; and • The reflection of noise due to the presence of hard vertical faces such as walls.

9.12 BS5228 gives several examples of acceptable limits for construction or demolition noise. The most simplistic being based upon the exceedance of fixed noise limits and states in paragraph E.2:

“Noise from construction and demolition sites should not exceed the level at which conversation in the nearest building would be difficult with the windows shut. Noise levels, between say 07.00 and 19.00 hours, outside the nearest window of the occupied room closest to the site boundary should not exceed: 70 decibels (dBA) in rural, suburban areas away from main road traffic and industrial noise or 75 decibels (dBA) in urban areas near main roads in heavy industrial areas. These limits are for daytime working outside living rooms and offices.”

9.13 Accordingly (due to the ambient noise climate adjacent to a busy road), 75 dB LAeq,T has been selected as the target criteria to control the impact of construction noise, with the criteria for assessing the magnitude of noise impacts according to the margin by which this target criteria is achieved or exceeded presented in Table 9.1 (a glossary of noise and vibration terms is provided in Appendix 9.1). However, it is noted that the local authority may wish to impose a planning condition on construction activity noise.

148

Table 9.1 Construction Noise Magnitude Description

Noise Level LAeq,T dB Description

>75 High 70 – 74.9 Moderate 55 – 69.9 Low <55 Negligible

9.14 It is worth noting that the purpose of the target construction noise criteria is to control the impact of construction noise insofar as is reasonably practicable, whilst recognising that it is unrealistic for developments of this nature to be constructed without causing some degree of disturbance in the locality. Hence, even if the criteria adopted for this assessment is achieved, noise from construction activities is likely to be readily noticeable and as such, in broad assessment terms may be approaching an adverse impact level of moderate significance. It is further noted that the local authority may restrict the hours of construction and construction related traffic on the Site.

Construction Vibration

9.15 Vibration may be impulsive, such as that due to hammer-driven piling; transient, such as that due to vehicle movements along a railway; or continuous, such as that due to vibratory driven piling. The primary cause of community concern generally relates to building damage from both construction and operational sources of vibration, although, the human body can perceive vibration at levels which are substantially lower than those required to cause building damage.

9.16 Damage to buildings associated solely with ground-borne vibration is not common and although vibration may be noticeable, there is little evidence to suggest that they produce cosmetic damage such as a crack in plaster unless the magnitude of the vibration is excessively high. The most likely impact, where elevated levels of vibration do occur during the demolition and construction phases, is associated with perceptibility.

9.17 BS5228 indicates that the threshold of human perception to vibration is around 0.15 mm/s, although it is generally accepted that for the majority of people vibration levels in excess of between 0.15 and 0.3 mm/s peak particle velocity (PPV) are just perceptible.

149

9.18 There are currently no British Standards that provide a methodology to predict levels of vibration from construction activities, other than that contained within BS5228 which relates to percussive or vibratory piling only. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately predict levels of vibration during the Site preparation and construction phases of the Proposed Development. As such, to control the impact of vibration during the Site preparation and construction of the Proposed Development, limits relating to the perceptibility of vibration have been set.

9.19 Accordingly 1 mm/s ppv has been selected as the target criteria to control the impact of construction vibration, with the criteria for assessing the magnitude of vibration impacts according to the margin by which this target criterion is achieved or exceeded presented in Table 9.2 below. This target criterion is based on the guidance contained within BS5228, experience from previous sites and accepted vibration policy criteria across a range of enforcing authorities elsewhere in the UK. The limits are presented in terms of PPV as it is the simplest indicator for both perceptibility and building damage.

Table 9.2 Construction Vibration Magnitude Description

Vibration Level, PPV mm/s Description

>1.0 High 0.3 – 1.0 Moderate 0.15 – 0.29 Low <0.15 Negligible

9.20 Again, it is worth noting that the purpose of the target construction vibration criteria is to control the impact of construction vibration insofar as is reasonably practicable and is entirely based on the likelihood of the vibration being perceptible, rather than causing damage to property. Hence, although vibration levels in excess of 1 mm/s ppv would be considered a ‘Major Adverse’ impact in respect of the likelihood of perceptibility, they would not be considered significant in terms of the potential for building damage, which would require levels of at least 15 mm/s ppv to result in minor cosmetic damage in light / unreinforced buildings.

Development Noise

9.21 The aim of noise policy within the UK is to protect individuals from excessive noise levels both in the workplace and within their homes. It has been recognised that severe annoyance to individuals due to noise can lead to sleep disturbance and adverse health effects.

150

9.22 The NPSE (Ref 9.3) does not give a set of criteria for external noise assessment (for Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level, LOAEL nor SOAEL, Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level) and, therefore, guidance (most particularly for the residential accommodation aspect of the Proposed Development) given in contemporary British Standards and other internationally published documents has been considered.

9.23 For the purposes of this assessment, external noise levels for residential use have been applied to the residential and hotel accommodation and derived on the basis of internal noise criteria outlined in British Standard 8233 (BS8233, 2014) (Ref 9.4) and World Health Organisation (WHO) (Ref 9.5) guidance. These derived noise levels have been sub-divided into four noise exposure groups (NEGs) for assessment purposes and are presented in Table 9.3. Table 9.4 details the derivation of each sub-group.

Table 9.3 External Noise Levels for Assessment Purposes

Noise Exposure Groups Noise Source A (LOAEL) B C D (SOAEL) Mixed 07.00-23.00 <55 55-63 63-72 >72 Sources 23.00-07.00 <45 45-57 57-66 >66

Table 9.4 Sub-class Derivation

NEG Derivation Source A WHO guidance states ‘general daytime outdoor noise levels of less than 55 dB(A) are desirable to prevent any significant community annoyance’. Night-time levels are based upon WHOs 30 dB criterion. (see below). Noise levels in this band are unlikely to be a determining factor for planning considerations B Based upon a partially open window attenuation of 10-15 dB(A), a maximum figure of 45 dB(A) at the façade will meet with both WHO and the ‘good’ standard of BS8233 during both the day and night-time. (see below) Subject to appropriate mitigation, noise levels in this band are unlikely to be a determining factor for planning considerations C These levels are based upon the trigger levels of Noise Insulation Regulations (NIR) during the day and WHOs 30 dB criterion at night. Subject to appropriate mitigation in the form of both external and façade treatments, noise levels in this band should be a material consideration for planning purposes D This band is based upon the outcome of noise survey undertaken by the Building Research Establishment on noise levels higher than that prescribed in the NIR. Residential development in this band should normally be avoided unless special mitigation measures allow suitable internal levels to be achieved

151

9.24 BS 8233 makes recommendations for the control of noise in and around buildings. It suggests appropriate criteria for different situations and is primarily intended to guide the design of new or refurbished buildings undergoing a change of use rather than to assess the effect of changes in the external noise climate. It suggests day and night noise levels, which are summarised in Table 9.5 below.

Table 9.5 Noise Criteria for Residential Use Buildings

Room Internal Criteria dB LAeq,T (LOAEL)

Bedroom 30

Living Area 35

9.25 The noise levels recommended in BS 8233 are almost identical to those presented in WHO guidelines for community noise (internal to buildings). Internally, the WHO guidance is that in order to avoid sleep disturbance the period noise level (LAeq,T) should not exceed 30 dB and individual noise events should not exceed 45 dB LAmax. Section 3.4 of the WHO Guidelines states that for good sleep, indoor noise levels should not exceed approximately 45 dB LAmax more than 10-15 times a night. On the basis of the WHO’s 15 dB façade insulation for windows partly open; this equates to external LAmax of 60 dB that should not be exceeded more than 10- 15 times per night.

9.26 Externally, the WHO guidance is now based upon thresholds of night noise exposure indicated by Lnight,outside as defined in the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC, 2002) (Ref 9.6). The Lnight,outside is the A-weighted long-term average sound level determined over all nights of the year, where the night is the 8-hour period between 2300-0700 hours.), the latest WHO guidance recommends an Lnight,outside of 40 dB as a target for the night noise guideline (NNG) to protect the public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly.

9.27 An Lnight,outside value of 55 dB is recommended as an interim target for countries where the NNG cannot be achieved in the short term for various reasons and where policy- makers choose to adopt a stepwise approach.

152

9.28 The target noise level excludes sound reflected from a building façade, therefore, a 3 dB façade correction must also be allowed in the case of measurements or predictions at building facades. The receptor height is typically 3.8 to 4.2 m above ground level, i.e. as applicable first floor bedrooms, but in the case of rural areas with single storey dwellings a height of not less than 1.5 m is applicable.

9.29 The recommendations and guidance presented in the above guidelines have been used to derive criteria for assessing the impact of development generated noise on nearby residential dwellings. These criteria are presented in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6 Proposed Development Noise Impact

Night-time Noise Daytime Noise Description Level LAeq,T dB Levels LAeq,T dB Noise >66 >72 Major Negative Exposure Levels at 55 - 66 63 - 72 Moderate Negative Application Site 45 - 54.9 55 - 62.9 Minor Negative

<45 <55 Negligible

Internal Noise >35 >40 Major Negative Levels 33 - 35 35 - 40 Moderate Negative

30 - 32.9 30 - 34.9 Minor Negative

<30 <30 Negligible

Development Vibration

9.30 The assessment of potential vibration impacts has been carried out in accordance with BS6472:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings, Part 1: ‘Vibration sources other than blasting’ (Ref 9.7), which provides guidance over the frequency range 0.5 Hz to 80 Hz.

9.31 BS6472 describes how to determine the vibration dose value (VDV) from frequency- weighted vibration measurements. The VDV is used to estimate the probability of adverse comment, which might be expected from human beings experiencing vibration in buildings. Consideration is given to the time of day and use made of occupied space in buildings, whether residential, office or workshop. BS6472 states that in homes, adverse comment about building

153

vibrations is likely when the vibration levels to which occupants are exposed are only slightly above thresholds of perception.

9.32 BS6472 contains a methodology for assessing the human response to vibration in terms of either the VDV, or in terms of the acceleration or the peak velocity of the vibration, which is also referred to as peak particle velocity. The advice contained in BS6472 states that when the vibration is intermittent, the VDV may be used to assess the potential for impacts.

9.33 Appropriately-weighted vibration measurements can be aggregated to derive the VDVs. The VDV is a single figure descriptor that represents the cumulative dose of transient vibrations, taking into account the frequency spectrum and duration of each event. The VDV is determined over a 16 hour daytime period or 8 hour night-time period.

9.34 The recommendations and guidance presented in BS6472 have been used to derive criteria for assessing the impact of development generated vibration on nearby residential dwellings, as set out in Table 9.7.

Table 9.7 Development Vibration Impact

Night-time Vibration Daytime Vibration Level Description Level VDV VDV >0.51 >1.6 Major Negative 0.26 - 0.51 0.80 - 1.6 Moderate Negative 0.13 - 0.25 0.20 - 0.79 Minor Negative <0.13 <0.20 Negligible

Road Traffic Noise

9.35 The impact of any changes in road traffic noise levels has been assessed in accordance with the principles and guidance presented within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

9.36 The DMRB states that “The impact of a project at any location can be reported in terms of changes in absolute noise level. In the UK the standard index used for traffic noise is the

LA10,18hr level, which is quoted in decibels”.

9.37 In order to determine whether changes in traffic noise levels are likely to occur as a result of the Proposed Development, noise levels have been predicted in accordance with the

154

methodology contained within the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN, Ref 9.8), based on traffic flow data for the local road network with and without the Proposed Development.

9.38 The DMRB also presents an impact significance matrix for assessing the magnitude of changes in noise level, which has been used as criteria for assessing the impact of any changes in road traffic noise levels and is summarised in Table 9.8.

Table 9.8 Change in Road Traffic Noise Magnitude (Long Term)

Change in Noise Level, dB(A) Description >10.0 Major Negative 5.0 - 9.9 Moderate Negative 3.0 - 4.9 Minor Negative 0.1 - 2.9 Negligible

Building Services Noise

9.39 At this stage the precise nature, extent and location of building services / fixed plant items to be installed are not yet known. Accordingly, limits have been set for building services plant, which if adopted, will ensure that noise from such sources does not give rise to complaints from sensitive receptors. These limits can be secured by way of planning condition.

9.40 The limits have been set in accordance with the principles of BS4142 (Ref 9.9), which sets out a method to assess whether noise from factories, industrial premises or fixed installations is likely to give rise to an ‘adverse impact’ from noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity. The procedure contained in BS4142 for assessing the likelihood of complaint is to compare the measured or predicted noise level from the source in question, outside the dwelling, the LAeq,T ‘specific’ noise level, with the measured LA90,T ‘background’ noise level.

9.41 Where the noise contains a “distinguishable discrete continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum etc.) or if there are distinct impulses in the noise (bangs, clicks, clatters or thumps), or if the noise is irregular enough to attract attention” then a correction ranging from +6 to +9 dB dB is added to the specific noise level to obtain the ‘rating’ LAr,Tr noise level.

9.42 The likelihood of the noise giving rise to adverse impact is assessed by subtracting the background noise level from the rating noise level. BS4142 states “A difference of around 10

155

dB or higher indicates that adverse impact is likely. A difference of around 0 dB or less indicates a ‘low adverse impact”.

9.43 The guidance presented in BS4142 has been used to derive criteria for assessing the impact of building services plant noise, as presented in Table 9.9.

Table 9.9 Building Services Noise Level Assessment Magnitude

Excess of LAr,Tr Rating Noise Levels above existing LA90,T Background Description Noise Level 10 dB or more Major Negative 5.1 – 10 dB Moderate Negative 0 – 5 dB Minor Negative 0 dB or less Negligible

Significance Criteria

9.44 The criteria set out in Table 9.10 below have been applied to identify noise/vibration sensitive receptors either on or adjacent to the Site. The majority of the receptors are termed ‘local’ (within 600 m of the Site).

Table 9.10 Noise and Vibration Sensitive Receptors

Sensitivity Description Receptor

High Receptors that are Residential dwellings, especially susceptible to Schools, Hospitals, Care noise/vibration Homes

Moderate Receptors where a Offices reasonable degree of noise disturbance is acceptable

Low Receptors where noise is Sports Grounds, not likely to be a factor commercial and industrial environments

156

9.45 The scale shown in Table 9.11 has been adopted to assess the significance of both Noise and Vibration impacts. The basis of this scale is derived from professional experience.

Table 9.11 Significance Matrix

Magnitude of Change Receptor sensitivity High Moderate Low

High Major Major Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Minor Low Moderate Minor Minor

157

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

9.46 The NPPF (Ref 9.10) sets out the Government’s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. It provides a framework within which local people and their accountable councils, can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities.

9.47 Under Section 11; Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, the following is stated:

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

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.”

9.48 The document goes on to state:

“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; and

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”.

158

Local Policy

9.49 Epping Forest District Council (EDC) Local Plan (Ref 9.11) sets out the strategy for meeting the District’s needs from 2011 up to 2033. It is based on up to date evidence and the results of the previous consultations undertaken in 2010/11, 2012, and 2016. This Submission Plan is now published for representations on soundness prior to the submission of both the plan and those representations to the Secretary of State for examination by the Planning Inspectorate.

9.50 Policy DM21 (Local Environmental Impacts, Pollution and Land Contamination) states:

A. The Council will require that the residual local environmental impacts of all development proposals after mitigation do not lead to unacceptable impacts on the health, safety, well being and amenity of existing and new users or occupiers of the development site, or the surrounding land. These potential impacts can include, but are not limited to, air and water (surface and groundwater) pollution, dust, noise, vibration, light pollution, odours, and fumes as well as land contamination.

B. The Council will:

(i) resist development that leads to unacceptable local environmental impacts, including, but not limited to, air pollution, noise and vibration, light pollution, odours, dust and land and water contamination;

(ii) require that activities likely to generate pollution are located away from sensitive uses and receptors where possible, practical and economically feasible;

(iii) require development proposals to mitigate and reduce to a minimum any adverse local environmental impacts and activities that may have wider cumulative effects;

(iv) where there are unacceptable risks of contamination or land instability, require these to be properly and fully addressed through remediation. If remediation measures are not suitable then planning permission will be refused; and

(v) where necessary, apply planning conditions to reduce local environmental impacts on adjacent land uses to acceptable levels

159

BASELINE CONDITIONS

9.51 The baseline conditions across the Site have been determined by a combination of environmental noise and vibration measurements and computerised noise modelling techniques. This combined approach has been employed due to the extent of the Site and the topography across the Site.

9.52 The existing noise conditions at the boundary of the Site have been determined by attended environmental noise and vibration measurements, which commenced on 27th July 2017 and completed by 4th May 2017.

9.53 The primary purpose of the noise survey was to gather sufficient acoustic information on noise levels in the vicinity of the Site during daytime and night-time periods. This data is used to validate the predictive noise modelling carried out in the following assessment and to allow appropriate noise limits to be set for any proposed building services plant.

9.54 The most significant sources of noise at the Site and in the surrounding area were noted to be from road traffic and other ambient sources associated with existing residential settlements.

Measurement Survey

9.55 The environmental noise measurements were carried out in July/May 2017 to determine the prevailing noise levels during daytime and night-time periods. The survey locations are shown in Figure 9.1 in Appendix 9.2.

9.56 The weather conditions during the attended surveys were conducive to noise, with mostly overcast conditions, with wind speeds ranging from 2 to 4 m/s.

9.57 All noise measurements were undertaken between 1.2 and 1.5 m above local ground level and under free-field conditions. The microphones were fitted with protective windshields for the measurements. The vibration measurements were carried out with the transducers placed on open earth and weighed down with sand bags to ensure a good connection with the surrounding area.

9.58 All acoustic measurement equipment used during the noise surveys conformed to relevant Type 1 specifications. A full inventory of this equipment is presented in Table 9.12.

160

Table 9.12 Inventory of Acoustic Measurement Equipment

Item Make & Model Serial Numbers Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LD824 1419 Preamp/microphone PRM902/GRAS 40AE 2732/31817 Calibrator LD CAL200 3724 Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LD824 1420 Preamp/microphone PRM902/GRAS 40AE 2448/98045 Calibrator LD CAL200 3723 Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LD820 1144 Preamp/microphone PRM828/GRAS 40AE 2054/31825 Calibrator LD CAL200 3054 Vibration Meter Vibrock V901 0747

9.59 All noise measurements were undertaken by consultants competent in environmental noise monitoring and in accordance with the principles of BS 7445: 2003 (Ref 9.12) and following the guidance given in BS4142. The noise parameters of LAeq,T, LA90,T, LA10,T , and LAmax were recorded at the measurement positions.

9.60 All vibration measurements were undertaken by consultants competent in vibration monitoring in accordance with the principles of BS6472. The vibration meter was a self- calibrating meter and had been laboratory calibrated within the 24 months preceding the survey.

9.61 Recorded summary noise measurement results are presented in Table 9.13 (further details are presented in Appendix 9.3).

Table 9.13 Summary of Measured Noise Levels

Location LAeq LAmax LA10 LA90

1 (over 3 days) Day 58.4 70.7 59.9 50.9

Night 54.5 65.0 54.6 42.1

2 (over 2 days) Day 57.9 70.1 59.1 50.5

Night 48.9 61.0 50.6 37.1

3 (24 hours) Day 54.3 66.8 53.3 47.4

Night 49.1 55.2 50.1 45.9

161

9.62 Daytime and night-time vibration survey results at location 1 are presented in Table 9.14.

Table 9.14 Measured Vibration Levels

Date Duration X Axis Y Axis Z Axis 23 July 2017 16 hr daytime 0.011 0.011 0.014 23/24 July 2017 8 hr night-time 0.011 0.010 0.013

Noise Modelling

9.63 The baseline noise measurement results have been used to predict noise levels across the entire Site.

9.64 The predictions have been carried out using the noise-modelling suite IMMI 2017, in accordance with the CTRN prediction methodology for road traffic noise (CRTN has been used here as road traffic noise dominates the noise climate).

9.65 The overall results for all survey locations have been processed to determine appropriate noise emission rates for the surrounding roads. The LAeq,16hour daytime (0700-2300) and LAeq,8hour night-time (2300-0700) noise level at a distance of 10m from both roads have been determined by calculation as required to populate the noise model. The model was then run to validate the assumptions and ensure that the model predicted noise levels were comparable with the measured level at all positions.

9.66 In addition to the derived road traffic/ambient source noise levels used in the predictions, the model also considers the effects of the topographical conditions throughout the area, ground absorption, atmospheric absorption, acoustic reflections and acoustic screening.

9.67 The model has been used to determine the daytime LAeq,16hour (0700 to 2300) and night- time LAeq,8hour (2300 to 0700) noise levels across the Site and surrounding area. The outputs from the daytime and night-time baseline noise models are presented in the form of noise maps overlaid on a base map and are presented in Figures 9.2 and 9.3

162

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

9.68 This section of the Chapter assesses the effects of the proposed development on the baseline environment described above. The design of the Proposed Development has been informed by the noise and vibration assessment, and a number of mitigation measures are discussed below.

Construction Phase

9.69 The operation of equipment associated with Site preparation and construction of the Proposed Development has the potential to result in noise impacts at existing noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity.

9.70 Details of the plant and assumptions made in the construction noise predictions are provided in Appendix 9.4. The predictions are based on source noise data for the various items of plant, as presented in BS 5228.

9.71 At this stage of the planning process, construction details on type of construction plant, construction methodology, phasing, construction related traffic is not yet available. Therefore, in order to provide as detailed an assessment as possible, reasonable assumptions about the type and quantity of construction plant likely to be required have been made. The assumed construction works associated with the Proposed Development have been divided into four discrete sub-phases:

• enabling works (including demolition and application site preparation); • sub-structure (including digging out of basement and forming the foundations); • super-structure (building erection); and • piling (if required).

9.72 In respect of the sub-structure phase of construction, the assumptions presented in Appendix 9.4 identify that, consideration has been given to the use of conventional bore piling rigs for the formation of foundations, which represents a robust worst case when compared to the augured techniques that are more likely to occur in practice. Therefore, for the purposes of assessment, augured piling is considered should such a technique be employed.

9.73 With regard to barrier attenuation effects, consideration has been given to the acoustic screening that will be provided by permanent structures on the intervening land between the proposed construction areas and receptor, in addition to the topography of the area. To provide

163

a robust assessment however, the construction noise predictions assume no attenuation from Site hoardings at receptor locations.

9.74 Construction noise levels have been predicted at the closest existing noise sensitive receptor locations to the Proposed Development.

9.75 The predicted noise levels are ‘worst case’, assuming the shortest distance between the source of construction noise and the receptor. The noise levels predicted at the closest façade of each construction assessment position during each phase and sub-phase of the works are shown in Table 9.15.

Table 9.15 Worst-case Façade Construction Noise Levels, LAeq,T dB

Construction Phase Receptor Enabling Works Piling Sub- Super- structure structure Kilnash 67.6 74.3 69.4 66.2 The Hawthorns 65.9 72.6 67.7 64.5 St Clements 67.5 74.2 69.3 66.1 The Vicarage 72.4 79.0 74.2 71.0 Children’s Nursery 64.2 70.9 66.1 62.8

9.76 Comparison of the results presented in Table 9.15 above with the target noise criterion of 75 dB LAeq,10hr identifies that some façade noise levels for some of activities are predicted to be above the target criteria for worst-case operations. However, it should be noted that not all construction plant will be operating simultaneously nor will it be operated at the closest distance to the residential receptor for all of the time as assumed for the purposes of a worst-case scenario assessment.

9.77 Comparison of these results with the criteria presented in Table 9.1 identifies that for the majority of phases, construction noise impacts for some of the noise sensitive receptors would be classified as ‘minor’ to ‘major adverse’.

9.78 . Construction traffic will contribute to existing traffic levels on the surrounding road network. The greatest potential for adverse impacts on noise levels from traffic associated with this phase of the Proposed Development will be in the areas immediately adjacent to the principal means of access for construction traffic which would be via the A414. It is anticipated that the additional traffic is unlikely to be significant in comparison to the existing traffic flows

164

along the construction routes and HGV movements less than 25 per day. Using the methodology advocated in CRTN, roadside noise levels are not expected to significantly increase the overall daytime noise levels on A414 (less than 3 dB). With reference to the criteria adopted for this assessment, such changes in noise level would be classified at most, as ‘negligible’

Construction Vibration

9.79 Damage to buildings associated solely with ground-borne vibration is not common and, although vibration may be noticeable, there is little evidence to suggest that they produce cosmetic damage such as cracks in plaster unless the magnitude of the vibration is excessively high. The most likely impact, where elevated levels of vibration do occur during the construction works, will be associated with perceptibility.

9.80 Table 9.16 below details the distances at which certain construction activities could give rise to a just perceptible level of vibration. These figures are based on historical field measurements.

Table 9.16 Distances at which Vibration maybe perceptible

Construction Activity Distance (m) Excavation 10-15 Heavy Vehicles (e.g. dump trucks) 5-10 Hydraulic Breakers 15-20 Large Rotary Piling Rig 20-30 Driven Piling Rig (if required) 10-20

9.81 On the basis of the figures presented in Table 9.16 regarding the distances at which vibration from various construction activities is likely to be perceptible, those existing residential dwellings may from time to time perceive vibration (most particularly from any driven piling should such a technique be employed) that occurs within 20m of the dwellings. Comparison of these results with the criteria presented in Table 9.2 identifies that for the majority of phases, construction impacts for some of the vibration sensitive receptors would be classified as ‘negligible’ to ‘moderate adverse’. Accordingly, mitigation measures to control the impact of construction vibration are presented in the following section.

165

Development Phase

Road Traffic Noise

9.82 The on-site operations associated with the Proposed Development (residential aspects) are, to a large degree, predictable in terms of their likely traffic noise emissions associated with the Proposed Development.

9.83 The traffic flow data provided in the Transport Assessment has been used as the basis for the road traffic noise assessment. As described above, 18-hour Annual Average Weekday Total (AAWT) flows were provided for the local road network surrounding the Proposed Development for the year 2031 with and without development generated traffic. The traffic data provided included details of HGV percentages.

9.84 Traffic noise predictions have been made using the CRTN prediction methodology. The methodology has been used to predict the magnitude of any change in noise level resulting from the Proposed Development at the roadside of the local network.

9.85 The predicted in changes in noise level, identified with respect to the road traffic noise impact assessment criteria, are presented in Table 9.17.

Table 9.17 Road Traffic Noise Impact, Year 2031

2031 Baseline + Road Link Baseline + committed Noise Change committed development Development + Development A414 London Road (North 75.5 75.6 0.1 of M11 Junction 7) B1393 London Road 70.0 70.0 0.0 (Southwest of M11 Junction 7) A414 Canes Lane 76.1 76.5 0.4 (Southeast of M11 Junction 7) Hastingwoods Road (North 63.7 63.7 0.0 of Canes Lane Junction) A414 Canes Lane (North 75.4 75.9 0.5 West of Rayley Lane Roundabout) Rayley Lane (South of A414 69.2 69.7 0.6 Roundabout)

166

A414 (East of Rayley Lane 73.3 73.8 0.5 Roundabout) A414 (West of the Talbot 74.0 74.3 0.3 Roundabout) Weald Bridge Road (North 67.8 68.0 0.2 of the Talbot Roundabout) A414 Epping Road (East of 74.9 75.0 0.1 the Talbot Roundabout) B181 High Road (South of 67.7 67.8 0.1 the Talbot Roundabout) A414 Epping Road (West of 74.5 74.6 0.1 Chipping Ongar Roundabout) Fyfiled Road (North of 69.7 69.7 0.0 Chipping Ongar Roundabout) High Street ( South of 69.6 69.6 0.0 Chipping Ongar Roundabout) B181 Epping Road (East of 71.4 71.5 0.1 The Plain Junction) B1393 Thornwood Road 70.8 70.8 0.0 (North of the Plain Junction) B1393 Palmers Hill (South 71.9 72.0 0.0 of the Plain Junction)

9.86 Table 9.17 identifies that the majority of the existing noise-sensitive receptors are likely to experience increases in noise level of less than 1 dB. With reference to the criteria adopted for this assessment, such changes in noise level are classified as ‘Negligible’ for all of the network.

Building Services Noise

9.87 Where there are to be fixed plant items, for example air handling units, chillers etc associated with the Proposed Development, consideration should be given to the application of suitable noise limits.

9.88 At this stage the type, number and location of such plant is not known, so compliance with the recommended noise limits should be taken into account at the detailed design stage. The limits should apply to the cumulative noise from all fixed plant items and should include any corrections for acoustic characteristics. Such limits can be secured by the imposition of a planning condition.

9.89 Although an excess of LAr,Tr Rating Noise Level above Existing LA90,T of +6 dB is normally acceptable, good practice dictates items of building services plant associated with all

167

new developments should be designed to give a cumulative noise rating level (LAr,Tr) at or below the currently prevailing background level (LA90) at a distance of 1m from the nearest residential facades.

9.90 Based upon the noise surveys, the recommended daytime LAr,Tr is 33 dB, whilst at night it is likely to be approximately 30 dB (subject to the scope of BS4142 for low background and therefore the rating level) as measured at the nearest noise sensitive receptor.

9.91 As the design and plant procurement process evolves, the noise emission levels from the plant should be reviewed against these limits and any requirements for mitigation measures incorporated accordingly.

9.92 Providing the above limits are met, this would ensure that the level of noise emitted from any plant is adequately controlled. This would remove the necessity for any further specific mitigation measures and ensure that, at most, the impact of noise building services plant will be of Negligible significance.

Proposed School

9.93 Existing noise levels dominates the surrounds to the proposed school site. Façade noise levels will range from 60 dB to 72 dB. In order to comply with the internal noise intrusion criteria set out in Building Bulletin 93, façade mitigation will be necessary. However, such measures will depend on the classroom use and limits can be secured by the imposition of a planning condition.

Vibration

9.94 Taking into account the type of activities across the Site and distance from the activities to the nearest residential property, Site generated vibration levels are not expected to be significantly above the current ambient levels. Therefore, the impact of any vibration levels associated with the Proposed Development across the Site will be of Negligible significance.

168

ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

9.95 Cumulative effects can potentially be experienced during both the construction and operational phases. During the construction phase, cumulative effects of noise and vibration from on-site activities may be experienced in locations in close proximity to two or more development sites and when the timing of the construction phases overlap. There may also be an effect due to the increased construction traffic on local roads if construction vehicles are to use the same routes to access the sites. During the operational phase, cumulative effects may be experienced due to the additional road vehicles generated by one or more schemes if the traffic is likely to affect the same local roads.

9.96 No significant committed or proposed developments have been identified in the vicinity of the Site, therefore an assessment of cumulative effects as a result of individual developments has been excluded from the assessment.

9.97 Nevertheless, the traffic flows used for the assessment were calculated to account for the additional traffic from general growth in the area and a number of committed developments. The assessment of the significance of the Proposed Development effects has therefore taken into account the cumulative effect of the Site and a likely amount of development in the area on predicted future road traffic noise levels.

ENHANCEMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Construction Phase

9.98 To control the impact of noise during construction of the Proposed Development, contractors will be contractually bound to ensure that works are carried out in accordance with best practicable means (BPM) as described in BS 5228 comprising the following:

• where possible, ‘silenced’ plant and equipment will be used; • where vehicles are standing for a significant period of time, engines will be switched off; • acoustic enclosures will be fitted where possible to suppress noisy equipment; • plant will operate at low speeds, where possible, and incorporate automatic low speed idling; • where possible, electrically driven equipment will be selected in preference to internal combustion powered, hydraulic power in preference to pneumatic and wheeled in lieu of tracked plant;

169

• all plant will be properly maintained (greased, blown silencers replaced, saws kept sharpened. Teeth set and blades flat, worn bearings replaced etc); • consideration will be given to temporary screening or enclosures for static noisy plant to reduce noise emissions and plant should be certified to meet any relevant EC Directives; • all contractors will be made familiar with the guidance in BS 5228 (Parts 1 & 2) which will form a pre-requisite of their appointment; and • early and good public relations with the adjacent tenants and occupants of buildings will also reduce the likelihood of complaints

9.99 These general measures to control construction noise will be incorporated within the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and/or detailed in construction method statements. By adopting the recommended best practicable means, construction noise levels can typically be reduced by 10 dB(A).

9.100 In respect of driven piling, should such a technique be required, the mass of the hammer, the height of the drop and the type of dolly utilised can influence source noise levels by over 10 dB. The guidance presented in BS 5228, indicates that use of a 4 tonne rig, with 0.9 metre drop height and timber dolly would result in noise levels some 11 dB quieter than the logarithmic average level assumed in the initial impact predictions. The use of such a system in close proximity to the nearest receptors would be sufficient to prevent exceedance of the stringent criteria adopted for this assessment.

9.101 The CEMP will present procedures to control the potential impact of noise at any proposed residential units that are occupied prior to the completion of the construction activities at the Site. Essentially, where construction activities associated with any phase are identified to be within the critical distances identified above, consideration will be given to the use of quieter techniques or targeted and specific noise mitigation measures (such as reduced duration of operation, enclosure of equipment etc.) to ensure compliance with the criterion limit.

9.102 For construction related vibration, should any activities take place within the critical distances identified in Table 9.16, then the following mitigation measures could be adopted, although the precise needs and intentions in respect of vibration control cannot be specified until detailed construction planning and phasing programmes are completed. The proposals in respect of vibration mitigation therefore comprise the following:

• for each phase of construction, estimates of likely vibration levels would be made on the basis of detailed Construction Method Statements developed with Contractors. Full construction details would be available by this time. These

170

estimates would be provided to the relevant Authorities, for comparison with the agreed data; • the contractor would control vibration levels using Best Practicable Means to reduce vibration at source; • where necessary, consideration would be given to the implementation of specific mitigation measures to control vibration; and • where it is not practicable to work to the target criteria (for example, if ground conditions determine particular construction techniques), provisions would be set out in advance and with the agreement of the local authority to reduce, monitor and control any adverse affects.

9.103 If necessary, a programme of vibration monitoring would be implemented during the early stages of each potentially significant construction activity to ascertain the likely severity of any off-site vibration impacts and to manage/rebut any third-party claims made as a result of damage caused by the construction of the Proposed Development. However, it is considered unlikely that this will be necessary in practice. The overall noise effects are summaries in Table 9.20.

Operational Phase

Proposed Development Suitability for Residential & Ancillary Use

9.104 The future suitability of the Proposed Development for residential use has been determined by comparing the results of the environmental noise survey with the guidance adopted for this Chapter. The assessment has proceeded on the basis that if the Proposed Development is suitable for residential accommodation, then it follows that any commercial development (if required) of the Proposed Development is unlikely to be an issue.

9.105 The glazing and ventilation elements are typically the weakest acoustic link in the construction of a building façade. Therefore, in order to assess the acoustic performance of the residential accommodation units of the Proposed Development, it is appropriate in the first instance to explore the level of protection that will be afforded by the performance of the glazing and ventilation elements in combination.

9.106 The typical sound reduction performance figures quoted for standard double glazing varies, according to source type, between 32 dB(A) at the facade and 29 dB(A) free-field and 36 dB(A) at the façade and 33 dB(A) free-field. Internal noise levels within units with such glazing would therefore be approximately 29 dB(A) to 33 dB(A) lower than the equivalent free-

171

field noise level at the location of the building facade where standard double glazing is used, providing the relative contribution though any ventilation elements is negligible.

9.107 The Building Regulations recommendations on ventilation are that habitable rooms have background ventilation. Internal noise levels should be considered in the context of room ventilation requirements. In this instance, where target internal noise levels can only be achieved when windows are closed, an alternative means of ventilation will be required to comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations Approved Document F.

9.108 In order to achieve the target daytime and night-time internal noise levels, it is necessary to determine the minimum acoustic performance requirements of both the glazing and ventilation system. It is assumed that the default choice of glazing for the habitable rooms of the Proposed Development will be double glazing and the default choice for ventilation will be a window slot or through-wall ventilator.

9.109 To ensure that the residential accommodation experiences suitable internal noise levels, the design target of BS 8233 has been adopted for the Proposed Development. BS 8233 sets a day and night standard for internal noise levels.

9.110 To determine the glazing and ventilation performance required in order to provide an adequate level of protection against external noise intrusion, LAeq,16hour daytime and LAeq,8hour night-time noise levels have been predicted at the façade most exposed to noise of representative dwellings, falling within NEG B and NEG C. The predictions have been carried out at all floor levels of the proposed residential accommodation.

9.111 The required composite Rw sound reduction performance for the glazing and ventilation system of the proposed dwellings to provide the required internal noise levels during both daytime and night-time periods are set out in Table 9.18 behind the most noise affected façades (it is assumed that a further assessment will be undertaken once the masterplan is finalised).

172

Table 9.18 Sound Reduction Performance Required (Rounded)

Location Period Façade Target Required Sound Corrected Internal Reduction Performance Noise Level Noise Level Rw dB

LAeq,T dB

1; Residential Day 69 35 34 Units in NEG C See Figures 9.2 Night 59 30 29 and 9.3

2; Residential Day 61 35 26 Units in NEG B See Figures 9.2 Night 55 30 25 and 9.3

9.112 Table 9.18 identifies that the sound reduction performance requirements for the proposed development are driven by meeting the target LAeq,T daytime internal noise level of 35 dB. It is noted that LAmax values would also be within the night-time target value of 45 dB with the above-mentioned window arrangement of 34 dB Rw (NEG B/C).

9.113 It should be noted that the sound reduction performances detailed in Table 9.18 apply to habitable rooms, such as living rooms and bedrooms only. For non-habitable rooms, such as kitchens, bathrooms, stairways, halls, landings etc, lower acoustic performance glazing configurations are permissible.

9.114 Based on the assumption that 25% of each habitable room facade will be glazed, calculations have been carried out to determine the required acoustic performances for the glazing and ventilation elements of habitable rooms, to provide good internal noise levels during both the day and the night. These performance requirements are as follows:

• NEG B/C; 4/6/6 mm Thermal Double Glazed

9.115 For those façades where windows are to remain closed, an additional means of ventilation will be necessary to ensure compliance with Approved Document F of the current Building Regulations.

9.116 The above glazing and ventilation strategy will also ensure that LAmax noise levels are within the WHO night-time criterion. The overall noise effects are summaries in Table 9.20.

173

Private Gardens

9.117 For those aspects of the Proposed Development that is NEG C, private gardens should be avoided. However, for those private gardens in NEG B/C that have a view of the A414, BS8233 suggests the following:

“For traditional external areas that are used for amenity space, such as gardens and patios, it is desirable that the external noise level does not exceed 50 dB LAeq,T, with an upper guideline value of 55 dB LAeq,T which would be acceptable in noisier environments. However, it is also recognized that these guideline values are not achievable in all circumstances where development might be desirable. In higher noise areas, such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network, a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted. In such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the lowest practicable levels in these external amenity spaces, but should not be prohibited. Other locations, such as balconies, roof gardens and terraces, are also important in residential buildings where normal external amenity space might be limited or not available, i.e. in flats, apartment blocks, etc. In these locations, specification of noise limits is not necessarily appropriate. Small balconies may be included for uses such as drying washing or growing pot plants, and noise limits should not be necessary for these uses. However, the general guidance on noise in amenity space is still appropriate for larger balconies, roof gardens and terraces, which might be intended to be used for relaxation. In high-noise areas, consideration should be given to protecting these areas by screening or building design to achieve the lowest practicable levels. Achieving levels of 55 dB LAeq,T or less might not be possible at the outer edge of these areas, but should be achievable in some areas of the space”.

Proposed School

9.118 Façade noise levels will range from 60 dB to 72 dB. BB93 states that external noise intrusion within classrooms should be limited to 35 dB or 40 dB with natural ventilation. Where façade noise levels are 50 dB or less, natural ventilation is likely to be permissible (refer to Figure 9.2). However, where façade noise levels are over 50 dB, façade treatment in the form closed thermal double glazing is recommended. However, natural ventilation for these façades is unlikely and other means of ventilation will be necessary.

174

Residual Effects

9.119 With the implementation of the mitigation outlined above, a reduction in general construction noise levels at receptors of approximately 10 dB(A) would be expected and is presented in Table 9.19.

Table 9.19 Predicted Residual Façade Construction Noise Levels, LAeq,T dB (rounded)

Construction Phase Receptor Enabling Works Piling Sub- Super- structure structure Kilnash 58 64 59 56 The Hawthorns 56 63 58 55 St Clements 58 64 58 56 The Vicarage 62 69 64 61 Children’s Nursery 54 61 56 53

9.120 Comparison of these results with the criteria presented in Table 9.1 identifies that for the majority of phases, construction noise impacts would be classified as ‘minor’ to ‘moderate adverse’.

9.121 In terms of construction related vibration, the critical distance table for vibration perceptibility and the CEMP will ensure that residual vibration impacts remain negligible.

Operational Phase

9.122 The majority of the Site lies within areas predicted to experience noise levels within NEG A with parcels of land in NEG B/C. To ensure compliance with the adopted criterion, mitigation measures have been formulated. For those proposed dwellings predicted to experience noise levels within NEG B/C, it has been demonstrated that an engineering option is available, which can achieve the required internal criteria and, therefore, the residual effect is negligible.

Building Services

9.123 The effects of any building services plant are considered to be Negligible, given the BS4142 design criteria. Therefore, no mitigation, beyond that incorporated into the design is required and the residual effect is Negligible.

175

Road Traffic Noise

9.124 The assessment has shown that the Proposed Development will have no significant impact on the levels of road traffic generated noise in the area and the residual effect is Negligible.

176

SUMMARY

9.125 This chapter has considered the likely effects of the Proposed Development with respect to noise and vibration. These include the effects of existing conditions on the Proposed Development and the effects of noise and vibration generated by the Proposed Development on surrounding properties, during both construction and operational phases.

9.126 The assessment has been based on a series of environmental noise measurements undertaken at the Site and noise predictions.

9.127 The impact of noise and vibration during construction of the Proposed Development has been predicted and assessed in accordance with BS 5228. Mitigation measures have been recommended, which when implemented are capable of ensuring that the impact of noise and vibration during the construction of the Proposed Development will at worst be a minor adverse effect.

9.128 An assessment has been carried out in accordance with the adopted criteria to determine the suitability of the Site for residential accommodation, school and care facilities. Proposed units located adjacent to the A414 will, in some instances require the appropriate glazing and ventilation specification, in order to achieve the required internal noise levels.

9.129 The impact of development associated traffic has been assessed. It is predicted that on this basis, no significant increase in road traffic noise will be experienced at receptors adjacent to the surrounding roads. Mitigated effects are assessed as Negligible.

9.130 A summary of the noise significance and residual effects for the Site are presented in Table 9.20.

177

Table 9.20: Noise and Vibration Summary Table

Nature of Mitigation/ Effect Residual Potential Effect Significance (Permanent or Enhancement Effects Temporary) Measures

Noise during Temporary Minor Adverse The adoption Minor to construction of the to Major of Best Moderate installation Adverse at the Practicable Adverse at all closest noise- Means, as receptors close sensitive defined in the to the site. receptors to Control of the proposed Pollution Act development 1974

Vibration during the Temporary No Change None No Change construction of the installation

Noise during Permanent Moderate Façade Minor adverse operational phase adverse Mitigation

178

REFERENCES

9.1 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB): 2008: Volume 11 Environmental Assessment: Section 3 Environmental Assessment Techniques. The Stationary Office, 2008

9.2 British Standard 5228: 2009+A1, 2014: Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. BSI, 2014

9.3 The Noise Policy Statement for England, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2014

9.4 British Standard 8233: 2014: Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of Practice. BSI, 2014.

9.5 World Health Organisation (WHO): 1999: Guidelines for Community Noise, WHO, Geneva 1999.

9.6 Environmental Noise Directive, 2002/49/EC, Europa, 2002.

9.7 British Standard 6472: 2008: Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings, Part 1, Vibration sources other than blasting. BSI, 2008.

9.8 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), The Department of Environment, The Stationary Office, 1988.

9.9 British Standard 4142: 2014: Method for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. BSI, 2014.

9.10 Communities and Local Government (2012); National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government

9.11 Epping Forest District Council Local Plan, Epping Forest District Council 2017

9.12 British Standard 7445: 2003: Description and measurement of environmental noise. BSI, 2003.

179

10 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY

INTRODUCTION

Background

10.1 This chapter of the ES describes the landscape character and visual amenity associated with the Proposed Development and its surroundings. It assesses whether there would be any likely significant landscape or visual effects as a consequence of the Proposed Development and identifies any mitigation measures necessary. This chapter has been prepared by David Williams Landscape Consultancy Ltd, and in order to assess the landscape and visual effects, a “Study Area” extending up to 2.0 to 3.0 kilometres from the centre of the Site was considered (see paragraphs 10.6 to 10.10 below).

10.2 The chapter assesses three topics it:

 firstly, sets out the baseline landscape and visual appraisal for the Site following desktop studies and field surveys in March 2017 and subsequent visits in January 2018 including a photographic record;  secondly, it identifies those aspects of the Proposed Development proposals and construction activities that are likely to impose landscape and visual effects on the baseline situation, including by the selection and analysis of representative ‘key viewpoints’, chosen to represent potential impacts on the local area; and  thirdly, it identifies the potential magnitude and significance of these effects on landscape and visual amenity during both the construction and on completion, and where adverse effects are identified, mitigation measures are highlighted that would avoid, reduce or compensate for such effects.

10.3 The residual landscape and visual effects are also considered.

10.4 The location of the Site together with a full description of the Proposed Development is given in Chapters 2 – “The Site and Surroundings”, 4 – “Alternatives and Design Evolution” and 5 – “The Proposed Development” of the ES prepared by Entran Ltd.

10.5 The Site is situated either side of the A414 Harlow to Chipping Ongar Road, to the east of Rayley Lane and to the north of Vicarage Lane West. The northern edge of the Site is formed by Cripsey Brook and existing field boundaries and wooded areas. The Site forms an irregularly

180

shaped parcel of land consisting of North Weald Golf Course with the main entrance and Clubhouse served off Rayley Lane near the A414 / Rayley Lane roundabout junction. The land surrounding Little Weald Hall Farmhouse is excluded from the Site. The Site lies within the administration area of Epping Forest District Council and in the parish of North Weald. The location of the Site is shown on Figure 10.1 – Landscape Context Plan and in more detail on Figure 10.2 – Site Appraisal Plan.

Study Area Definition

10.6 The ‘Study Area’ for this appraisal has been defined in part by the use of ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV) of the Proposed Development which is illustrated on Figure 10.5 – Visual Appraisal – Zone of Theoretical Visibility Plan (Bare Earth) and Figure 10.6 - Visual Appraisal – Zone of Theoretical Visibility Plan (with Visual Barriers). A ZTV is defined in the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA3) (Ref 10.1) as “A map usually digitally produced, showing areas of land within which, a Proposed Development is theoretically visible”. The methodology used for the preparation of these ZTV plans is contained in Appendix 10.2.

10.7 The first ZTV (Figure 10.5) was prepared using the standard method of producing ZTV (GLVIA3 – paragraphs 6.8 to 6.12), which is based on the topographical data and proposed building height parameters based on indicative development platforms within the Site. This indicates that the Site and Proposed Development could potentially be visible / seen from an extensive area immediately around the Site, including areas to the south of North Weald Bassett, areas to the west of the M11 motorway near Epping Green approximately 8 kilometres from the Site, areas to the north east between the villages of Moreton and Matching Green approximately 5 to 8 kilometres from the Site and a further outlying area to the east of Chipping Ongar extending northwards from the village Kelvedon Hatch in the south to Willingale in the north approximately 7 to 12 kilometres from the Site.

10.8 The second ZTV (Figure 10.6) is also based on topographical data and the proposed building height parameters based on indicative development platforms although in addition to the landform, the main visual barriers within the landscape, such as existing built up areas, woodlands and tree belts, have been assigned an assumed height (woodland areas 15m, tree belts 12m, housing areas 12m and industrial areas 15m) which generates a much reduced and more realistic ZTV. Figure 10.6 indicates that the visibility of the Site and Proposed Development is confined to a significantly reduced area within about 2 to 3 kilometres of the Site although it still indicates potential views from elevated land between the villages of Moreton and

181

Matching Green approximately 5 to 8 kilometres from the Site and much reduced area to the north east of Chipping Ongar approximately 9 to 12 kilometres from the Site where theoretically views of the Site and Proposed Development would be seen. These locations have been visited and potential views assessed.

10.9 This preliminary visual assessment concluded that, in the majority of cases, views of the Site were curtailed by local landscape features, such as field hedgerows, small copses, isolated residential properties / farmsteads / hamlets and also changes in topography such as hedge banks adjoining the network of roads and lanes, or the views were at such a distance that the Site was very difficult to perceive and it is considered that the likely impact and visual effect of the Proposed Development would be negligible.

10.10 On the basis of the above, the “Study Area" for the appraisal was therefore defined as an area up to 3.0 kilometres from the Site as this is considered to be the reasonable radius from which views of the Site will be perceived and where parts of the Site can be readily identified by reference to the adjoining land uses (such as the existing North Weald Clubhouse or adjoining airfield) and boundary features. Beyond this distance views of the Site were curtailed by local landscape features, changes in topography or the views were at such a distance that the Site was very difficult to perceive and it is considered that the likely impact and visual effects of the Proposed Development would be negligible. Given the comments made by Epping Forest District Council to the Scoping Report (see paragraph 10.23 below) it is assumed that the Study Area is agreed.

Contents

10.11 This chapter first sets out the technical and planning context of the Site and Appendix 10.1 sets out the terminology used in this chapter. The methodology used is set out in detail in Appendix 10.2 and each landscape issue or aspect is considered in terms of the potential landscape effects and visual effects, the scope for mitigating adverse effects and an assessment of the residual effects following mitigation.

10.12 The following figures have been prepared to support this chapter:

Figure 10.1 – Wider Landscape Context Plan; Figure 10.2 – Landscape Context Plan; Figure 10.3 – Site Appraisal Plan; Figure 10.4 – Topography Plan; Figure 10.5 – Visual Appraisal – Zone of Theoretical Visual Influence Plan (Bare Earth);

182

Figure 10.6 – Visual Appraisal – Zone of Theoretical Visual Influence Plan (with Visual Barriers); Figure 10.7 – Location of Selected ‘Key Representative’ Viewpoints (assessed); and Figure 10.8 – Landscape Strategy Plan.

Overview of Overall Conclusions

10.13 In terms of landscape effects, arising from the Proposed Development, on landscape features and landscape character of the Site and the surrounding area, the assessment indicated that these would range from moderate / substantial to moderate adverse effects during construction and on completion (Year 1) as expected, (due to the loss of some existing hedgerows and trees and loss of the openness of parts of the Site due to the introduction of the Proposed Development) with similar effects occurring within the immediate locality.

10.14 The assessment of other landscape receptors and character areas within the wider landscape, including the wider countryside to the west, north and east of the Site are predicted to be slight adverse to neutral / negligible effects on the wider surrounding landscape character areas but these effects are not considered significant.

10.15 In terms of the visual effects, arising from the Proposed Development, on views within the Site and close, middle and longer distance in the surrounding area, the assessment indicated that the minority (approximately 30%) of receptors assessed, users of the local network of roads and public footpaths, are predicted experience moderate or lesser visual effects during construction with the remainder of receptors likely to experience moderate to substantial adverse visual effects with one receptor predicted to experience major substantial adverse visual effects.

10.16 The visual effects on completion / Year 1 would be similar as majority of receptor would continue to experience moderate substantial or greater visual effects, with a short section of Public Footpath No.31 (Viewpoint No.10) predicted to experience major substantial adverse visual effects. These significant visual effects are mainly due to the close proximity of the vantage point to the Site or due to the very high to high sensitivity of the some of the receptors mainly those located on the Stort Valley Way and public rights of way adjoining the Site where the introduction of the Proposed Development would result in very high to low magnitude of change depending on the location of the receptor and form a visible or recognisable new element / feature in the views and, at this stage, any mitigation measures will do little to screen or curtail / reduce views or provide an appropriate setting to the Proposed Development.

183

10.17 However, the longer-term residual effects, following the establishment and maturing of the landscape proposals, say in 15 years’ time, the majority of visual effects most of visual effects will be significantly reduced resulting in moderate to lesser visual effects or beneficial / positive effects. This is primarily due to the retention of the existing trees and sections of hedgerow within the Proposed Development together with their ongoing management and the establishment and maturing of landscape planting within the Site which will increase tree cover and habitat diversity within and throughout the Proposed Development. The retention of the northern parts of the Site in open uses for educational facilities and sports / recreational uses and maturing of the structural planting along the boundaries of the Site / Proposed Development will also screen some parts of the Proposed Development whilst controlling other views from public rights of way near the Site.

10.18 Overall, the Proposed Development would result in some local adverse effects but the effects of the development on character and visual appearance of the wider open countryside will not be significant or harmful.

184

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Methodology

10.19 The methodology for the landscape and visual assessment is one based on the “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Third Edition” (Ref 10.1) which is widely regarded by the landscape profession as the “industry standard” and referred to in shorthand as GLVIA3, the Countryside Agency’s (now part of Natural England) “Landscape Character Assessment Guidelines” (Ref 10.2) and “Topic Paper No.6 – Techniques and Criteria for Judging Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity” (Ref 10.3) are also referred to as appropriate. Landscape and visual assessment, in common with many assessments of environmental effects, includes a combination of objective and subjective judgements and it is therefore important that a structured and consistent approach is used. Wherever possible, tables or matrices are used so that the landscape and visual effects are recorded and quantified in a systematic and logical manner.

10.20 At the outset of the assessment of landscape and visual effects, it is useful to provide a definition of the terms “Landscape effects” and “Visual effects”.

 Landscape effects: These consist of direct and indirect effects or changes in the fabric, character, individual features or elements and condition, (quality) of the landscape i.e. landscape receptors within the Site or surrounding area, and;  Visual effects: These are the predicted effects on views available to the public from publicly accessible areas and residential dwellings i.e. visual receptors. Specific effects result from changing the consistent elements within an existing view. This may be caused by the construction of a new feature / element, or the obstruction or modification of an existing view. The overall effect upon visual amenity can range from degradation to enhancement.

10.21 In line with best practice (as informed by GLVIA3), this chapter describes the effects of the Proposed Development on both landscape receptors and visual receptors in terms of the sensitivity of the receptors (landscape resource and / or views and visual receptors); the magnitude of change on the receptors; and the significance of effects. The detailed methodology used to assess landscape and visual effects is set out in Appendix 10.2 and should be read in conjunction with this chapter.

185

Scoping

10.22 The EIA Scoping Report provided the basis for defining the scope of the EIA and considered which landscape and visual effects could be ‘scoped out’ from the EIA. It concluded that no topics could be identified which could be ‘scoped out’ from further assessment therefore all landscape and visual topics identified in the EIA Scoping Report are included this chapter.

10.23 The Scoping Report was submitted to Epping Forest District Council on the 21st December 2017 and their response was received 5th February 2018. In their response letter, the Council stated that they had “no additional comments” to make relating to landscape and visual amenities and therefore this assessment follows the methodology and purposed scope as set out in the submitted Scoping Report.

10.24 The proposed methodology for this appraisal is one adapted from GLVIA3 (Ref 10.1) and, in relation to impacts on the surrounding countryside, the ZTV (Figure 10.5) indicates that confined to a significantly reduced area within about 2 to 3 kilometres of the Site (and the Proposed Development) although it still indicates potential views from elevated land between the villages of Moreton and Matching Green approximately 5 to 8 kilometres from the Site and much reduced area to the north east of Chipping Ongar approximately 9 to 12 kilometres from the Site where theoretically views of the Site and Proposed Development would be seen.

10.25 These areas have been visited and the preliminary visual assessment indicated that in in the majority of cases, views of the Site were curtailed by local landscape features, such as field hedgerows, small copses, isolated residential properties / farmsteads / hamlets and also changes in topography such as hedge banks adjoining the network of roads and lanes, or the views were at such a distance that the Site was very difficult to perceive and it is considered that the likely impact and visual effect of the Proposed Development would be negligible.

10.26 The assessment therefore concentrated on landscape and visual receptors with a Study Area up to 3 kilometres from the Site.

Community Consultations

10.27 A number of meetings have been undertaken regarding the Proposed Development with the Local Planning Authority and Parish Councils (North Weald Parish Council, North Weald Airfield, Epping Youth Football Club, United Karate Association, 3rd North Weald Scouts and

186

local resident’s groups) and other stakeholders at public exhibition and other events held in June 2017. This level of public consultation was agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

10.28 During these consultations a number of wildlife, environmental and landscape issues were raised including:

i) Encroachment in the Green Belt;

ii) Changes to character of the area;

iii) Loss of wildlife habitats;

iv) Wildlife enhancing measures and working with the Essex Wildlife Trust.

10.29 The above concerns have been considered as part of this landscape and visual assessment and the proposals revised to provide appropriate mitigation measures included where possible to minimise the effects of the scheme.

Limitations, Constraints and Assumptions

10.30 In undertaking the landscape and visual assessment of the Site and wider surrounding area, there are a number of limitations and constraints affecting the work. These are identified as:

i) The baseline assessment has been based on information readily available at the time of undertaking the assessment using sources listed in the methodology – Appendix 10.2;

ii) During the site visits undertaken during March 2017 and in January 2018 weather conditions and seasonal factors have influenced the visual assessment and photographic record of the Site. Every effort has been made to ensure that the photographs and their locations are “representative” of the Site and its surroundings; and;

iii) Access to assess the predicted visual effects from private individual properties has not been possible for all the residential dwellings surrounding the Site, and the assessment of likely effects has been made from vantage points and representative views taken from the nearest available public viewpoint.

10.31 In undertaking the assessment of landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development, the following assumptions have been made:

i) The establishment and growth rates of the landscape mitigation proposals are based on established forestry (Forestry Commission / Enterprise) methods and it is assumed that planting of new trees and shrubs will achieve a height of 7 to 10 m

187

after 10 – 15 years allowing for the local growing conditions / environment. This timescale could be reduced / shortened if semi-mature specimens are used; ii) The ‘Outline’ nature of the majority of the Proposed Development and that the construction programme for the core elements of the Proposed Development is as set out in Chapter 5 – “The Proposed Development”; iii) The proposed maximum building height of 12metres (3 storey development) has been used as the ‘worst-case’ scenario across the whole Site; iv) The number / type of users of the Public Rights of Way within Study Area has been made / assessed on the basis of the wear and state of footpath routes and from observations during the site visits. The state and predicted use of these routes has also informed the ‘value’ assessment of these routes; v) That the residents who live or use properties that look towards the Site are habituated to a certain degree by the changes and activities that occur over time; vi) The design and layout of the Proposed Development will accord with BS 5837:2012 (Ref 10.4) with sufficient space allowed within the Proposed Development to accommodate the future mature height and canopy growth of tree planting; vii) That the implementation of the landscape (landscape screening / amenity planting and habitat creation) proposals set out in paragraph 10.139 to 10.145 of this chapter. Advanced planting will be implemented along the western (Rayley Lane) edges of the development and along the northern edge of the Sports Hub and to the north of the Medical facilities. The exact extent and areas to be agreed with the local planning authority prior to commencement of the main housing areas; however, at this stage, the Landscape Strategy Plan (Figure 10.8) indicates the general areas proposed for advanced planting which would be carried out at the commencement of the first phase of the development. Other areas of open space / landscape planting will be phased and implemented either in advance (where possible) or immediately at the end of the construction works of each phase or sub- phase and; viii) That the provision of areas of open space and following the establishment and maturing of the landscape planting, the green infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development will result in beneficial ‘positive’ effects as parts of the Site will be made available for public use (which currently the public are not able to use) and planting proposals and: ix) That the planting proposals in addition to assimilating and mitigating the impacts of the Proposed Development will improve and enhance the baseline situation and edge of North Weald especially when viewed from locations to the north of the Site.

188

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

10.32 Landscape planning designations and policies are used to provide an indication of the value attributed to countryside / landscape / townscape and visual resources by National and Local Government.

Planning Policy Context

10.33 In terms of the planning context of the Site and surrounding area, the relevant Planning Policy Documents and Statutory Plans for the area are as follows:

 The 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 (Ref 10.5);  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) various dates from March 2014 (Ref 10.6);  Emerging Draft Revised National Planning Policy Framework (DRNPPF) March 2018 (Ref 10.7)  the ‘Saved’ and retained Policies of the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (1998) and Local Plan Alterations (2006) (Ref 10.8); and  the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9).

2012 National Planning Policy Framework

10.34 The policies in the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref 10.5) apply from the 27th March 2012 and it is a material consideration in dealing with planning applications for development. The Framework superseded previous PPG and PPS guidance (Annex 3) and sets out the Government’s vision of sustainable development, which should be interpreted and applied locally to meet local aspirations. It provides a framework within which local people and their ‘accountable’ councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities (Paragraph 1). It also states that the Framework should be read and interpreted as a whole (Paragraph 6). The relevant policy sections are listed below:

 Chapter 2 ‘Achieving sustainable development’ – Paragraphs 15 and 17 in particular;  Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ – Paragraphs 58 and 61 in particular;  Section 8 ‘Promoting healthy communities’ – Paragraphs 73 and 75 in particular; and  Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ – Paragraphs 109, 110, 113, and 114. Paragraph 115 is not relevant to the Site and the Proposed Development.

189

National Planning Policy Guidance

10.35 National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (Ref 10.6) provides further context to the National Planning Policy Framework (Ref 10.5) and it is intended that both documents should be read together. In relation to landscape matters, the NPPG explains the key issues in implementing policy to protect biodiversity and natural environment and provides advice on how the character of landscapes can be used to inform planning decisions and what green infrastructure is and why it is important to delivering sustainable developments. The NPPG explains how green infrastructure can help to deliver wider planning policy including:

 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes;  Requiring good design;  Promoting healthy communities;  Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; and  Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Emerging Draft Revised National Planning Policy Framework

10.36 The Government have recently published draft revised National Planning Policy Framework (Ref 10.7) and it is a material consideration in dealing with planning applications for development. The relevant policy sections are listed below:

 Chapter 2 ‘Achieving sustainable development’ – Paragraphs 11 and 12 in particular;  Section 8 ‘Promoting healthy communities’ – Paragraphs 97 and 99 in particular;  Section 11 ‘Making effective use of land – Paragraph 118 and 122;  Section 12 ‘Achieving well-designed places’ – Paragraphs 127 and 129 in particular;  Section 13 ‘Protecting Green Belt land’ – Paragraphs 134, 138, 142 and 143; and  Section 15 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ – Paragraphs 168 and 169 and 173. Paragraph 170 is not relevant to the Site and the Proposed Development.

10.37 The draft revised National Planning Policy Framework does not materially change the approach taken to assessing the landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development or conclusions / judgements reached.

190

Local Planning Policy

Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan, Published February 2008

10.38 The Site is not located within a designated landscape, such AONB or Area of Special Landscape Value and forms a small part of the open countryside to the north west of North Weald Bassett between Tyler’s Green to the east and North Weald Airfield to the west. The adopted Proposal Map (East) of the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (1998) and Local Plan Alterations (2006) (Ref 10.8) identifies the Site is located outside the settlement boundary of North Weald Bassett and therefore within the open countryside (subject to Policy CP2, Policy LL1 and Policy LL2) and Metropolitan Green Belt (subject to Policy GB1, Policy GB2A and Policy GB7A).

10.39 However, the above policies do not strictly accord with NPPF as they are not consistent with the NPPF and therefore some are out of date, but they do seek to protect for its own intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all and prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and prevent inappropriate development.

10.40 The relevant policies are listed below:

 Policy CP1 – Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives;  Policy CP2 – Protecting the Quality of the Rural and Built Environment;  Policy CP3 – New Development;  Policy CP4 – Energy Conservation;  Policy CP6 – Achieving Sustainable Urban Patterns;  Policy CP7 – Urban Form and Quality;  Policy CP8 – Sustainable Economic Development;  Policy CP9 – Sustainable Transport;  Policy GB1 – Green Belt Boundary;  Policy GB2A – Development in the Green Belt;  Policy GB7A – Conspicuous Development;  Policy HC12 – Development affecting the setting of Listed Buildings;  Policy NC4 – Protection of Established Habitats;  Policy H1A – Housing Provision;  Policy H3A – Housing Density;  Policy H4A – Dwelling Mix;

191

 Policy H5A- Provision of Affordable Housing;  Policy H6A – Site Threshold for Affordable Housing;  Policy H7A – Levels of Affordable Housing;  Policy H9A – Lifetime Homes;  Policy RST1 – Recreational, Sporting and Tourist Facilities;  Policy RST2 – Enhance rights of way network;  Policy RST3 – Loss or diversion of rights of way;  Policy RST8 (iv) & (v) – Play Areas;  Policy RST13 – Allotment provision/ protection;  Policy RST14 – Playing Fields;  Policy RST22 – Potentially Intrusive Activities;  Policy CF2- Health care facilities  Policy CF8- Public halls and places of religious worship  Policy U1- Infrastructure adequacy;  Policy A2A – Development in flood risk areas;  Policy U2B – Flood risk assessment zones;  Policy U3B – Sustainable drainage systems;  Policy DBE1 – Design of new buildings;  Policy DBE2 – Effect on neighbouring properties;  Policy DBE4 – Design in the Green Belt;  Policy DBE5 – Design and layout of New Development;  Policy DBE7 – Public Open space;  POLICY DBE8- Private amenity space;  Policy DBE9 – Loss of Amenity;  Policy DBE9 – Loss of Amenity;  Policy LL1 – Rural Landscape;  Policy LL2 – Inappropriate rural development;  Policy LL3 – Edge of Settlement;  Policy LL7 – Planting protection and care of trees;  Policy LL10 – Adequacy of provision of landscape retention;  Policy LL11 – Landscaping schemes  Policy LL12 – Street trees;  Policy LL13 – Highway / Motorway Schemes.

192

Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan (December 2017)

10.41 Epping Forest District Council is in the process of undertaking a review of the Local plan and published the Epping Forest District Council Submission Version of the Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9). Once adopted the emerging plan will replace the planning policies contained in the adopted Combined 2008 Local Plan. This new Local Plan sets out the Council’s preferred spatial strategy for the District for meeting the District’s needs for the next 17 years.

10.42 The draft policies relevant to the Site and immediate surrounding area are listed below:

 Draft Policy SP1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development;  Draft Policy SP2 – Spatial Development Strategy 2011 – 2033;  Draft Policy SP3 – Place Shaping;  Draft Policy SP6 – Green Belt and District Open Land;  Draft Policy SP7 – The Natural Environment. Landscape Character and Green Infrastructure;  Draft Policy H1 – Housing Mix and Accommodation types;  Draft Policy H 2 – Affordable Housing  Draft Policy T1 – Sustainable Transport Choices;  Draft Policy DM1 – Habitat Protection and improving biodiversity;  Draft Policy DM3 – Landscape Character and ancient landscapes;  Draft Policy DM4 – Green Belt;  Draft policy DM5 – Green and Blue Infrastructure;  Draft policy DM6 – Designated and undesignated open spaces;  Draft Policy DM7 – Heritage Assets  Draft Policy DM9 – High Quality Design;  Draft Policy DM10 – Housing Design and Quality;  Draft Policy DM 15 Managing and Reducing Flood Risk;  Draft Policy DM 16 Sustainable Drainage Systems;  Draft Policy DM 17 – Protecting and Enhancing Watercourses and Flood Defences;  Draft Policy P6 – North Weald Bassett;  Draft Policy D1 – Delivery of Infrastructure;  Draft Policy D2 – Essential Facilities and Services;  Draft Policy D3 – Utilities;  Draft Policy D4 – Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities

193

10.43 To the south and east of the Site and south of Vicarage Lane West, the land has been identified for mixed use residential and commercial development as part of the North Weald Masterplan Area, draft Policy P6 – North Weald Bassett, of the emerging Epping Forest District Council Submission Version of the Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9). The Site and Proposed Development lie immediately to the north of Vicarage Lane South (and housing along the lane) and is being promoted as an extension of the proposed allocated site.

Other Planning Considerations / Designated Areas and Sites

10.44 During the preparation of the emerging Epping Forest District Council Consultation Draft Local Plan October 2016, the Council produced a number of reports as part of its supporting evidence base. These included the Epping Forest Landscape Studies – Landscape Character Assessment January 2010, (Ref 10.10) which is referred to below (Paragraph 10.67 to 10.76) and the ‘Settlement Edge Landscape Sensitivity Study’ January 2010 (Ref 10.11) which is referred to below (Paragraph 10.77 to 10.84).

10.45 Draft Policy DM9 states that: “All development proposals must demonstrate that they are in general conformity with the design principles set out in other relevant Local Development Documents, Design Guides, Neighbourhood Plans or Village Design Statements (VDSs) adopted or endorsed by the Council”. The “Essex Design Guide” November 2005 (Ref 10.12) is one such document and this encourages new development to respect and fit in with the character of the area; including the traditional character of Essex towns and villages, and for developments to take account many factors, such as landscape structure and biodiversity and use of landscape in urban spaces, that contribute to the sense of place and character of the Proposed Development and surrounding area.

194

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Introduction

10.46 In addition to the above which set out the planning context (part of the baseline) of the Site and Study Area, this section sets out the existing landscape and visual context of the Site and surrounding Study Area in terms of:

 The landscape character and features of the Site (and identifies the landscape receptors within the Site and its immediate surrounding area);  The landscape character of the surrounding area (and identifies the landscape receptors within the locality and wider Study Area which may be affected by the Proposed Development);  The nature and extent of the Site’s visibility and identification of key views and visual receptors; and  The value of the landscape and visual receptors.

Landscape Context

10.47 The Site is situated either side of the A414 Harlow to Chipping Ongar Road, to the east of Rayley Lane and to the north of Vicarage Lane West. The northern edge of the Site is formed by Cripsey Brook and existing field boundaries and wooded areas. The Site forms an irregular shape parcel of land consisting of North Weald Golf Course with the main entrance and Clubhouse served off Rayley Lane near the A414 / Rayley Lane roundabout junction Figure 10.1 shows the location of the Site within its wider context whilst Figure 10.2 illustrates the local landscape context and key features in the locality of the Site.

10.48 The Site lies approximately 5.0 kilometres to the north east of Epping town centre and about 6.5 kilometres to the south east of Harlow town centre. The village of Chipping Ongar and Marden Ash lie about 5.5 kilometres to the east of the Site. To the west of the Site and Rayley Lane is North Weald Airfield and areas of commercial development within the airfield beyond which is open undulating farmland and the M11 motorway and Junction 7.

10.49 To the south east of the Site and Vicarage Lane West is the settlement of North Weald Bassett and areas of residential development adjoining the B181. To the south of North Weald Bassett is the Chipping Ongar Railway line (a heritage railway which connects to the London

195

Underground at Loughton) beyond which is open countryside and farmland extending towards the M25 which is approximately 6km to the south of the Site.

10.50 The landscape to the north of the Site comprises large scale open arable farmland extending towards the hamlet of Magdalen Laver / Matching Green to the north and Moreton / Fyfield to the north east of the Site. The landscape crossed by a network of minor roads, lanes, farm tracks and public right of way (footpaths / bridleways) connecting individual scattered farmsteads and villages.

10.51 To the south the landscape is smaller scale open and semi-enclosed farmland consisting a mosaic of mixed arable and pasture fields / horse paddocks subdivided by robust hedgerows, hedgerow trees and small copses / wooded areas following a tributary stream to the Cripsey Brook towards North Weald Bassett. This area of land has been identified for mixed use residential and commercial development as part of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version December 2017 (Ref 10.9).

Topography

10.52 The topography of the surrounding area is dominated by the shallow open valley of the Cripsey Brook and Shonks Brook which converge near the northern corner of the Site with the brook flowing eastwards then southwards to connect with the River Rodding near Marden Ash. The surrounding undulating landform lie between 60 metres AOD to 105 metres AOD with the land gently rising to the north a low ridge at about 90 to 110metres AOD to the south of Harlow following a west to east alignment from Kingsmoor in the west to Hastingwood in the east. Junction 7 of the M11 motorway lies on this low ridgeline.

10.53 To the south of North Weald Bassett, the land rises to a low ridge and area of higher ground at about 110 metres AOD between Toot Hill in the east and edge of Epping and Coopersale Common in the west. Figure 10.4 illustrates the general topography of landscape surrounding the Site.

Landscape Character

10.54 In terms of landscape character, the Site and adjoining farmland lie on the southern fringes but within National Character Area Profile No.86 – ‘South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland’ as identified on the Natural England National Character Map of England published in

196

July 2013 (Ref 10.16). National Character Area Profile No.111 – ‘Northern Thames Basin’ lies to the south of North Weald Bassett and the Site.

10.55 The South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland National Character Area Profile (NCAP) extends across the four counties of Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire. It stretches from Bury St Edmunds in the north-west to Ipswich in the north-east, to Stevenage in the west and to urban areas of Harlow, Braintree and Chelmsford in the south. The area is described as an ancient landscape of wooded arable countryside with a distinct sense of enclosure. The overall character is of a gently undulating, chalky boulder clay plateau, the undulations being caused by the numerous small-scale river valleys that dissect the plateau. There is a complex network of old species-rich hedgerows, ancient woods and parklands, meadows with streams and rivers that flow eastwards. Traditional irregular field patterns are still discernible over much of the area, despite field enlargements in the second half of the 20th century. The widespread moderately fertile, chalky clay soils give the vegetation a more or less calcareous character. Gravel and sand deposits under the clay are important geological features, often exposed during mineral extraction, which contribute to our understanding of ice- age environmental change. The area covered by the South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland NCAP is about 328,988 hectares.

10.56 NCAP profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain is aimed to support the planning of conservation initiatives at a landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change.

10.57 The National Character Profiles therefore provides a generalised overview of the character of England, the assessment identifies the ‘South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland’ as having the following characteristics:

 “An undulating chalky boulder clay plateau is dissected by numerous river valleys, giving a topography of gentle slopes in the lower, wider valleys and steeper slopes in the narrower upper parts.  Fragments of chalk give many of the soils a calcareous character, which also influences the character of the semi-natural vegetation cover.  South-east-flowing streams and rivers drain the clay plateau. Watercourses wind slowly across flood plains, supporting wet, fen-type habitats; grazing

197

marsh; and blocks of cricket-bat willows, poplars and old willow pollards. Navigation locks are present on some rivers.  Lowland wood pasture and ancient woodlands support the dormouse and a rich diversity of flowering plants on the clay plateau. Large, often ancient hedgerows link woods and copses, forming wooded skylines.  The agricultural landscape is predominantly arable with a wooded appearance. There is some pasture on the valley floors. Field patterns are irregular despite rationalisation, with much ancient countryside surviving. Field margins support corn bunting, cornflower and brown hare.  Roman sites, medieval monasteries and castles and ancient woodlands contribute to a rich archaeology. Impressive churches, large barns, substantial country house estates and Second World War airfields dot the landscape, forming historical resources.  There is a dispersed settlement pattern of scattered farmsteads, parishes and small settlements around ‘tyes’ (commons) or strip greens and isolated hamlets. The NCA features a concentration of isolated moated farmsteads and numerous well-preserved medieval towns and large villages.  Larger 20th-century development has taken place to the south and east around Chelmsford, Ipswich and the new towns of Harlow and Stevenage.  Traditional timber-frame, often elaborate buildings with exposed timbers, colour-washed render, pargeting and steeply pitched roofs with pegtiles or long straw thatch. Sometimes they have been refronted with Georgian red brick or Victorian cream-coloured bricks (‘Suffolk whites’). Clay lump is often used in cottages and farm buildings.  Winding, narrow and sometimes sunken lanes are bounded by deep ditches, wide verges and strong hedgerows. Transport infrastructure includes the A14, A12, M11 and Stansted Airport.  A strong network of public rights of way provides access to the area’s archetypal lowland English countryside”.

10.58 The assessment also identifies a number of changes in the countryside including:

 “Commercial agricultural improvement combined with a number of other factors has resulted in the loss of some structural landscape features such as hedgerows, ditches, banks, copses and lines of trees. The absence of these features has lead in some places to a loss of definition and texture within the

198

landscape. The removal of hedgerows has largely ceased and hedgerow replanting and management under environmental stewardship is increasing.

 Existing road and rail links to London are good and combined with the proximity to Stansted Airport this has led to increasing growth, mainly in the south, connected with towns such as Chelmsford, Harlow and Stevenage.

 Other areas of extensive housing, retail and commercial development have occurred around the edges of the NCA. The north east of the character area falls within the Haven Gateway Growth Point, centred on Colchester and Ipswich. This is one of the key international gateways to the UK which has seen increasing urban development. Development has also occurred along the Gipping Valley/A14 corridor at Stowmarket, Claydon, and the west of Ipswich, which has had a localised impact on rural character. Bury St Edmunds in the north has also seen a significant increase in its housing stock on its north-eastern side.

 Development pressure across the central arable plateau has generally been low, although considerable scattered development has occurred. Haverhill has rapidly expanding over the last two decades.

 Increased light pollution from major roads and urban development has detracted from the rural character of the NCA.

 Recreational pressures from increased numbers of people visiting popular sites within the Dedham Vale AONB, has caused detrimental effects relating to traffic volumes. This has resulted in reduced levels of tranquillity. Seasonal congestion has resulted in increased pressure on the area in terms of demands for visitor attractions, accommodation, road space and parking”.

10.59 The assessment also identifies a number of other key drivers for change including:

 “Changes to rainfall patterns and timings will impact upon wetland features and habitats such as grazing marsh, fen type habitats and ponds.

 River valleys prevented from naturally evolving may increase flood risks if climate change impacts increase rainfall levels and subsequent flow volumes in rivers. Increased flood events may also impact on footpaths and infrastructure increasing their maintenance requirements.

199

 Adapting agricultural practices in response to water availability and longer growing seasons will result in pressure on traditional pastoral landscapes and grasslands in a move towards drought tolerant crops and grasslands. The role of adaptation strategies will become increasingly important.

 Planning for future development will need to address potential pressures on already stressed areas, for example water availability. The findings and development of techniques from water cycle studies will play an important part in taking forward green infrastructure strategies.

 Historic woodlands and native species may not be the most resilient and therefore unable to survive reduced soil moisture or extreme events. There may be potential opportunities to alter species mix to build resilience to climate change.

 Drying out of bedrock and top soil during periods of drought may have associated impacts on the stability of buildings, especially on the clay plateau.

 Longer, drier summers may reduce soil moisture resulting in desiccation/ of top soils/surface deposits and may lead to erosion of geological faces/exposures.

10.60 A copy of the summary description of National Character Area Profile No.86 – ‘South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland’, taken from the Natural England website (Ref 10.16), is contained in Appendix 10.3.

10.61 In 2003, Essex County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council published the ‘Essex Landscape Character Assessment’ (Ref 10.17). The assessment was prepared by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of the County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council and focussed on establishing a ‘baseline’ of the existing character of the Essex landscape and involved a broad review of the landscape based on written sources, existing local assessments and an extensive survey in the field. The intention of the Study was to provide a strategic understanding of the character and sensitivity of landscapes throughout the plan area to underpin landscape policies in the then Adopted Replacement Structure Plan (April 2001). It also provides the framework for the more detailed landscape character assessments of District areas to help inform the preparation of Local Plans.

200

10.62 The assessment methodology used followed the Countryside Agency (now Natural England) “Interim Landscape Character Guidance” dated 1999. This has subsequently been superseded by the current “Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland” dated 2002 (Ref 10.2). The Study identified thirty-five ‘Landscape Character Areas’ - geographical areas with a recognisable pattern of landscape characteristics, both physical and experiential, that combine to create a distinct sense of place.

10.63 The assessment sub divided the County into seven landscape character types (LCT) and thirty-five landscape character areas (LCA). The Site and landscape to the east of Harlow is identified as lying within the LCT ‘B: Glacial Till Plateau’ and ‘B1: Central Essex Farmland’ LCA.

10.64 The key characteristics of the ‘B1: Central Essex Farmland’ are defined as:

 “Irregular field pattern of mainly medium size arable fields, marked by sinuous hedgerows and ditches.  Many small woods and copses provide structure and edges in the landscape.  Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small hamlets, typically with greens and ponds.  A concentration of isolated moated farmsteads.  Network of narrow, winding lanes.  Mostly tranquil character away from major roads and Stansted Airport”.

10.65 The Study goes on to analyses the areas condition, past, present and future trends for change and also the sensitivities as follows:

“Landscape Condition The condition of the hedgerows and woodlands overall is moderate. In some parts, many hedges have been lost, or are very fragmented. In others, such as around Terling they are well managed. Localised erosion of character occurs due to sand and gravel workings. The condition of the small settlements overall is good. However, some farmsteads have large visually intrusive modern sheds and/or conifer planting out of character.

Past, Present and Future Trends for Change The landscape was subject to early enclosure and then evolved gradually. However, significant change has occurred since the Second World War with

201

rationalisation of field pattern and loss of hedgerows associated with agricultural intensification. This is now considered to have peaked. Future trends for change may include increasing urban and transportation developments especially associated with the major road corridors. This may include pressure related directly or indirectly to Stansted Airport expansion and potential growth area in RPG9. The main influence on the landscape will probably continue to be agricultural. Pressures could include larger farm buildings, irrigation reservoirs, forestry and various recreational uses near urban areas. Equally changes in the agricultural subsidy regime could bring opportunities for conservation and restoration of hedgerow pattern, and improved management of woodlands.

Sensitivity Evaluation

TYPE/SCALE OF KEY LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY AND LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT/CHANGE ACCOMMODATION OF CHANGE ISSUES SENSITIVITY LEVEL I. Major urban extensions  Moderate intervisibility. M  (>5 ha) and new settlements Integrity of hedgerow and woodland pattern.  Tranquil character away from existing major road corridors/Stansted.  Distinctive settlement pattern/form.

Possible opportunities for landscape enhancement in areas of poorer landscape condition and/or weaker strength of character e.g. westside of Chelmsford, northside of Boreham, east of Hatfield Peveral. Could create new landscape frameworks that respect traditional character/pattern of hedgerows, woodlands and linear greens in settlements.

2. Small urban extensions  Moderate intervisibility of the landscape. L

(<5 ha) Possible opportunities to improve some existing visually poor urban edges.

3. Major transportation  Woodland / hedgerow pattern. M  developments / Irregular grain of the landscape.  Tranquil character away from existing major road improvement corridors/Stansted.

Selection of appropriate route alignments and responding to woodland form/pattern in design of mitigation planting is critical.

202

4. Commercial / warehouse  Moderate intervisibility of the landscape. M  estate/port development Integrity of hedgerow and woodlands pattern.

Appropriate siting, massing, form and colour as well as strong landscape frameworks respecting traditional character are important.

5. Developments with  Moderate intervisibility. M individual large/bulky buildings

6. Large scale 'open uses'  Integrity of hedgerow pattern. M  Woodland shape and character.  Moderate intervisibility.

7. Mineral extraction / waste  Integrity of hedgerow and woodland pattern. M  disposal Moderate intervisibility.  Tranquil character away from existing major road corridors/Stansted.

8. Incremental small-scale  Character and setting of small M settlements/farmsteads. developments  Distinctive character of the lanes.

9. Utilities development, i.e.  Moderate intervisibility of the landscape. M  masts, pylons Tranquil away from existing major road corridors/Stansted.

10. Decline in traditional  Hedgerow condition/pattern. M  countryside management Woodland condition.

Note: (a) Some areas in good condition and / or with strong strength of character, e.g. Terling / Fairstead area would have a high sensitivity to most types of development/change. Table to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 1.4.15 - 1.4.17 of the assessment on page 6 – 8.

10.66 Copies of the relevant extracts taken from ‘Essex Landscape Character Assessment’ (Ref 10.17) are included as Appendix 10.4.

10.67 In January 2010, Epping Forest District Council published the ‘Epping Forest Landscape Studies – Landscape Character Assessment’ (Ref 10.10) as part of the evidence base supporting the emerging Local Plan. The assessment was prepared by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of Epping Forest Council. The aim of the LCA Study was to provide a comprehensive District-wide assessment of landscape character within the study area to inform

203

land use planning and land management decisions as well as to inform policy within the Epping Forest District Local Development Framework.

10.68 The methodology used for the assessment followed the current “Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland” dated 2002 (Ref 10.2). As with the County level character assessment, the District study divided the landscape into landscape character types and landscape character areas. The Site and surrounding is identified as lying within Landscape Character Type (LCT) ‘F: Ridges and Valleys’ and Landscape Character Area (LCA) ‘F5: North Weald’.

10.69 The Ridges and Valley LCT is situated towards the centre of the District and extends from Little Laver in the northeast to Holyfield in the west and is subdivided in to five LCAs. The landscape characteristics of the Ridges and Valleys LCT are identified as:

 Series of small valleys which are encapsulated by minor ridges, resulting in an undulating landform;  Strong sense of tranquillity in places, at distance from major road corridors;  A pattern of predominantly arable fields, which are interspersed with pockets of pasture;  Field pattern is delineated by a series of hedgerows, which often contain mature deciduous trees;  Mature deciduous field trees are also a key feature;  A series of narrow, rural road corridors cross the landscape, and are often lined with mature hedgerows and deciduous trees.

10.70 The proposed landscape strategy objectives for the landscape type are to:

“Conserve - seek to protect and enhance positive features (as set out within the ‘sensitivities to change’ sections for each Landscape Character Area below) that are essential in contributing to local distinctiveness and sense of place through effective planning and positive land management measures. Enhance – seek to improve the integrity of the landscape, and reinforce its character, by introducing new and/or enhanced elements where distinctive features or characteristics are absent”.

10.71 The study then goes on to assess the LCA ‘F5: North Weald’ and identifies the key characteristics of the area are defined as follows:

204

 “Mature trees and hedgerows at field boundaries (of low to medium height);  North Weald airfield is a dominant human element, with its associated metal railings, roadways and control tower;  Overall sense of tranquillity is disturbed in the west by proximity to the noise of traffic on the M11 road corridor;  A small-scale settlement pattern of scattered farmsteads and occasional nurseries, other than the large linear settlement of North Weald Bassett towards the centre of the area.  Predominantly arable farmland;  Rural road corridors lined with verges and mature deciduous trees;  Mature field trees and hedgerow trees are key landscape features;  Copses of mature deciduous woodland contribute to a sense of enclosure”.

10.72 In term of the visual character of the area, the assessment highlights that the following:

 “Views to the urban edges of North Weald Bassett from surrounding areas of farmland;  Views southwards from the southern edge of the area are dominated by the wooded ridge (Landscape Character Area D1: Lower Forest to Beachet Wood);  Open and framed views across a patchwork of arable fields are characteristic of this landscape”.

10.73 The assessment goes on to identify the key planning and land management issues as follows:

 Potentially visually intrusive development of new farm buildings;  Deterioration and eventual loss of mature treed hedgerows and single mature trees through lack of appropriate management;  Potential for the expansion of the urban edges of North Weald Bassett to the south;  Potential for the conversion or development of North Weald Bassett airfield”.

10.74 It also identifies the sensitivity to change of the area as follows:

“Sensitive key characteristics and landscape elements within this Landscape Character Area include hedges, hedgerow trees and species-rich verges. Open

205

views across this area are visually sensitive to potential new development, particularly large-scale or tall vertical elements. As a result of the above factors, overall this Landscape Character Area is considered to have moderate sensitivity to change”.

10.75 The assessment further suggests that the following landscape planning and land management guidelines as follows:

Landscape Planning Guidelines:  Conserve the landscape setting of North Weald;  Ensure that any new development within the farmland is small-scale, responding to historic settlement pattern of small villages, hamlets and scattered farmsteads, landscape setting and locally distinctive buildings styles;  Maintain characteristic open and framed views across the area;  Land Management Guidelines:  Conserve and enhance the existing hedgerow pattern (and associated headlands), and strengthen through planting using local provenance species;  Conserve mature and veteran trees within fields and hedgerows as key landscape and ecological features;  Conserve patches of broadleaved woodland as key landscape and ecological features;  Conserve and promote the use of building materials, which are in keeping with local vernacular/landscape character;  Establish species rich field margins within arable fields as an important nature conservation habitat.

10.76 Copies of the relevant extracts taken from ‘Epping Forest Landscape Studies – Landscape Character Assessment’ (Ref 10.10) are included as Appendix 10.5.

10.77 In January 2010, Epping Forest District Council also published the Epping Forest District Council; Settlement Edge Landscape Sensitivity Study’ (Ref 10.11) as part of the evidence base supporting the emerging Local Plan. The assessment was prepared by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of Epping Forest District Council. The purpose of the Study was to provide a landscape sensitivity study of areas around the principal settlements including North Weald Bassett, to inform policy within the Epping Forest District Local LDF. It also outlines the extent to which these areas of landscape contribute towards the purposes of including land within the

206

Green Belt and how they contribute now, and potentially in the future, towards Green Belt objectives.

10.78 The general approach of the Study has been informed by the Countryside Agency’s (now Natural England) and Scottish Natural Heritage ‘Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland’ (Ref 10.2) and ‘Topic Paper 6 Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity’ (Ref 10.3). In order to be consistent with neighbouring Local Authority areas, this methodology was based on the approach set out within the Harlow Area Landscape and Environment Study 1 and refined through discussions with the Epping Forest District Council Steering Group.

10.79 The Study involved a number of tasks include desk-based analysis, and field survey analysis in defining a number of landscape setting areas around each settlement which were then evaluated to determine the landscape and visual sensitivities of each area to establish the overall landscape sensitivity of the defined setting areas. In undertaking this part of the Study, it drew on the information contained in the ‘Epping Forest Landscape Studies – Landscape Character Assessment’ (Ref 10.10) referred to above in paragraphs 10.67 to 10.76. The definitions and criteria for the sensitivity assessment are set out on pages 10 to 15 of the Study.

10.80 In addition, the Study assessed the contribution that the land around each settlement made to the purposes and objectives of the Green Belt as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts. The definitions and criteria for the Green Belt assessment are set out on pages 15 to 19 of the Study. Paragraph 1.5.37 included a caveat as follows:

“It is important to recognise that the information in this report is not intended to provide an indication of likely planning consent for any given proposal, or to be interpreted as an indication of where Green Belt land might be released for development by the Council in the future. Land designated as Green Belt in the adopted Local Plan will be treated as such, unless its status is changed through the statutory planning process”.

10.81 Section 11 of the Study considered the landscape setting areas around North Weald Bassett and identifies the southern part of the Site and land between Vicarage Lane West and North Weald Bassett as lying within Landscape Setting Area No.2 whilst the northern part of the Site and land to the north of the A414 are identified as part of Landscape Setting Area No.3. The Study identifies the overall sensitivity of the two Landscape Setting Areas as “Moderate” based on the following:

207

Landscape Character Sensitivity Visual Sensitivity

Representativ Number of Overall Intervisibility Visual Overall Visual e of Typical sensitive Landscape Prominence Sensitivity Character natural, Character cultural and Sensitivity historic features Overall Sensitivity to Change

igh Landscape Area Setting Positive Moderate Limited High Moderate Low High Moderate Low H Moderate Low High Moderate Low High Moderate Low 2

Moderate 3

Moderate

10.82 In addition, the southern part of the Site and area to the north of the airfield to the west of the Site are identified as ‘Urban Greenspace Character’ although the reason for this is not set out as this area is not a school playing field or sport fields although the Site does provide a private accessible area for playing golf and that is considered to be a ‘key sensitive landscape / environmental feature’ that are considered ‘desirable’ to safeguard within the fringes of North Weald Bassett and North Weald Airfield.

10.83 In term of Opportunities for Growth the Study concludes:

“Drawing on the above analysis, those Landscape Setting Areas identified as high or moderate overall sensitivity are considered desirable to safeguard in landscape terms and are considered to have a significant role in contributing to the structure, character and setting of the settlement. Landscape Setting Areas that have been identified as low sensitivity may be suitable for development in landscape terms and are considered to have a less significant role in contributing to the structure, character and setting of the settlement. Further assessment work would, however, be needed to examine site-specific landscape and visual sensitivities”.

10.84 In relation to the Green Belt assessment of landscape setting areas No.2 and 3 the Study concluded the following:

Green Belt Aim Summary evaluation: Landscape Setting Area

208

2 3 Contribution to The setting of North Weald Bassett and North Weald Airfield Moderate Moderate openness of Green is considered to be semi-enclosed. There are generally few Belt areas of built development, other than scattered, isolated farmsteads. There is a high degree of visual enclosure to the south, provided by woodland within Epping Forest, which limits views from and to Epping to the southwest. Only transient, glimpsed views of the settlement and Airfield are obtained from most sections of the adjacent road corridors.

Green Belt Purposes Summary Evaluation: Checking unrestricted The landscape setting of North Weald Bassett and the Airfield Major Major sprawl of large built up are situated at distance from large built up areas. areas? Preventing There is little built development other than scattered Limited Major neighbouring towns farmsteads and North Weald Airfield. The setting to both the from merging into one village and the Airfield is predominantly rural. The landscape another? setting area to the west of the North Weald Airfield however is close to Thornwood but there is little built development between these two areas. An area of predominantly rural landscape also provides separation between the southern edges of the village and Airfield and the edges of the town of Epping to the south-west.

Assisting in There is little built development other than scattered Moderate Moderate safeguarding the farmsteads and the M11 which encroach into the countryside. countryside from encroachment? Preserving the setting Not applicable (N/A) N/A N/A and character of historic towns? Assisting in urban The landscape setting is considered to make a limited Limited Limited regeneration by contribution to assisting in urban regeneration by encouraging the encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. recycling of derelict and other urban land?

10.85 Following on from the January 2010, Epping Forest District Council; Settlement Edge Landscape Sensitivity Study’ Epping Forest District Council undertook a ‘Green Belt Review: Stage One’ which was published in September 2015 (Ref 10.18) and further ‘Green Belt Assessment: Stage Two’ that was published in August 2016 (Ref 10.19).

209

10.86 The ‘Green Belt Review – Stage One’ report (Ref 10.18) identified the land to the north, north west and west of North Weald Bassett as Area DSR-008 and DSR-010 (using the A414 as an area boundary) and both areas were assessed as making a “Relatively Strong / Strong Contribution” to the purposes of the Green Belt. It should be noted that the A414 marks a clear boundary and that the land to the north is slightly different to the land the south in terms of character and topography. Notwithstanding this outcome the area was identified for further consideration in Stage Two of the Green Belt Review (Ref 10.19).

10.87 The Stage Two report (Ref 10.18) did not follow the same division of areas of land as the earlier review document, so it is difficult to make a direct comparison, but the report identified the land to the north and west of North Weald Bassett as Parcels 008.2 and 010.2 using Vicarage Lane West as the boundary between the two parcels.

10.88 The assessment indicated that the parcels around North Weald Bassett varied in their contribution to Green Belt but concluded that the release of land to the south of Vicarage Lane West would have ‘moderate’ harm to the Green Belt whilst land to the north of the lane would have ‘very high’ harm to the Green Belt notwithstanding that Parcel 010.2 only made a ‘strong’ contribution to Purpose 3: “Safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” with land the making a ‘moderate’ contribution to Purpose 2: “Prevent neighbouring towns from merging” and no contribution to other purposes of the Green Belt.

10.89 ‘Moderate’ contribution to Purposes 2 is defined as: “where the parcel forms part of a gap / space between the identified towns but it is not of critical importance due to perceived distance between the settlements and/or the presence of barrier features to preserve separation. There may be evidence of ribbon development on well-used thoroughfares indicating the Green Belt designation has not been particularly successful in preventing development which could result in the coalescence of towns. A reduction in the gap is not likely to compromise the separation of the towns physically or visually” whilst a ‘strong’ contribution to Purpose 3 is defined as: “where the vast majority of the parcel contains countryside (in use for agriculture, outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries and local transport infrastructure: uses that are not considered inappropriate in the Green Belt) and those uses do not represent an urbanising influence. The parcel is not separated from the wider countryside by significant barrier features”.

10.90 The Green Belt Assessment concluded, in relation to the land to the west and north of North Weald Bassett, that if Purpose 3 of the Green Belt was excluded from the assessment then both parcels 008.2 and 010.2 caused the same harm (moderate) to the Green Belt.

210

10.91 However, notwithstanding the conclusions of the above studies, the Council have identified a large portion of land to the north and west of North Weald Bassett as having the potential for growth and have allocated the land for major mixed use residential development as part of the emerging Local Plan.

Public Rights of Way

10.92 The Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in the locality have been marked on Figure 10.2 – Landscape Context Plan. There are two Public Rights of Way (public footpaths / public bridleways etc) across the Site. These are:

 Public Bridleway No.201-19 which extends from Vicarage Lane West northwards through the Site roughly following the stream / Cripsey brook to connect to Public Footpath No. 201-30 before continuing northwards across the open farmland to Hastingwood Road near Church Farm;  Public Footpath No.201-31 which extends from Rayley Lane northwards and then eastwards across the southern parts of the Site to connect to Bridleway No.201-19 and continue eastwards to connect to Vicarage Lane West between St Clements and Kilnash on Vicarage Lane West.

10.93 In addition, there are a number of Public Right of Way (PRoW) in the vicinity of the Site as shown on Figure 10.2.

10.94 To the south and east of the Site, there are seven PRoWs which cross the open farmland and connect Vicarage Lane West to the northern edge of North Weald Bassett including Byway No.201-36 and Public Footpath No’s.201-37, 201-38, 201-39, 201-41, 201-42 and 201-43.

10.95 To the west and north west of the Site, PRoWs include Public Footpath No’s 201-8, 201- 51, 201-18, 201-28, and 201-29 whilst to the north and north-east PRoWs include Public Footpath No’s 201-17, 201-20, 201-24, 201-25, 201-26, 201-27 and 197-24, 197-27, 197-28, and 197-29.

Landscape Designations

10.96 The planning context for the Site and surrounding area is set out above and this demonstrates that the Site lies within the open countryside and Green Belt to the north of North Weald Bassett and whilst the Site is not designated as having any particular value, such as

211

National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV), it is nevertheless located in a sensitive location.

10.97 However as referred to in paragraph 10.43 above, the land to the south east of the Site, to the south of Vicarage Lane West, is proposed to be allocated for mixed use residential and employment development as part of draft Policy P6 – North Weald Bassett, of the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version December 2017 (Ref 10.9) and the Site and Proposed Development is capable of being linked to this site.

Historic Landscape and Listed Buildings / Conservation Areas

10.98 There are no designated or non-designated historic landscape assets that cover the Site. However, a review of historic OS mapping and local landscape character assessments indicates there have been some noticeable local landscape changes due to the construction and operation of the former North Weald Golf Course.

10.99 The Interactive Planning Constraints Map on the Council’s website (Ref 10.13), the Historic England website (Ref 10.14) and the Magic website (Ref 10.15) have been checked. These checks indicated that there is no Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM) or Conservation Areas within 1.0 kilometre of the Site but showed that there are a number of statutory listed buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

10.100 The listed buildings located nearest the Site are shown on Figure 10.3 – Site Appraisal Plan and include the following:

i) Little Weald Hall Farmhouse, Rayley Lane, North Weald Bassett – Grade II listed building lying to the west of the Site adjoining the North Weald Driving range about 15.0 metres from the Site. To the east, there is limited visual connection between the listed building and the Site due to a tall conifer hedge (Leyland Cypress) whilst to the south, is a belt of mature trees (Cherry, Plum and Leyland Cypress) and the golf driving range although the driving range will be remove as part of the Proposed Development. The original historic setting of the listed building has changed with the construction and operation of the North Weald Golf Course and introduction of the evergreen tree screens to the east and south of the farmhouse. The main developed parts of the Site are screened from views by evergreen vegetation and the Proposed Development would have low to negligible impact on the setting of this listed building.

212

ii) Parish Church of St Andrew, Vicarage Lane North Weald Bassett – Grade II* listed building lying approximately 70.0 metres to the south of the Site. There is limited visibility from the immediate surrounds of the Church due the intervening trees and hedgerows to the north and west of the Church. However, the Church tower is visible and forms a notable feature within the landscape with views of the tower obtained from parts of the Site. The original historic setting of the listed building has changed with the construction and operation of the North Weald Golf Course but the main developed central and southern parts of the Site whilst having limited visual impact on ground level views, are likely to impact on the setting of this listed building. iii) Church Cottage, Vicarage Lane, North Weald Bassett – Grade II listed building lying approximately 100.0 metres to the south of the Site and adjoins Vicarage Lane and Scribbles Pre-School / Nursery. The building is a 1 ½ storey cottage with the Parish Church of St Andrew situated immediately to the north. There is limited visual connection between the listed building and Site due to the Church and existing vegetation to the north and west of the building. The main parts of the Site are screened from view by the landform and existing vegetation and the Proposed Development would have negligible impact on the setting of this listed building. iv) St Clements, Vicarage Lane, North Weald – Grade II listed building lying approximately 35.0 metres to the south east of the Site. There is some intervisibilty between the listed building and the Site to the north of the listed building due to the lack of mature vegetation forming a screen or obscuring views. The original historic setting of the listed building has changed with the construction and operation of the North Weald Golf Course. The southern eastern parts of the Site / Proposed Development whilst having limited visual impact on ground level views, may impact on the setting of this listed building. v) White Friars, Vicarage Lane, North Weald – is a locally listed building lying approximately 50.0 metres to the south of the Site. The property lies adjacent to St Clements. There is limited visibility between the locally listed building and the Site due to intervening building and wall courtyard although the upper parts of the house can be seen from the southern parts of the Site. As with St Clements, the original historic setting of the locally listed building has changed with the construction and operation of the North Weald Golf Course. The southern eastern parts of the Site / Proposed Development whilst having limited visual impact on ground level views, may impact on the setting of

213

this locally listed building albeit the effect would be low to negligible on the setting of this building.

Site Appraisal

10.101 The existing layout and features of the Site are shown on Figure 10.3 – Site Appraisal Plan. The drawing shows the existing land uses, landscape features and the existing trees, wooded areas and hedgerows within and adjacent to the Site and adjoining land uses. The Site forms two irregular shaped parcels of land lying to the south (Parcel A) and north of the A414 (Parcel B).

10.102 The southern parcel of land extends eastwards from Rayley Lane between Vicarage Lane – West to the south and the A414 to the north with the eastern boundary formed by a discontinuous tall hedgerow beyond which is a linear pasture field and Art Nursery Garden Centre and the Vicarage Lane West junction with the A414. To the north of the A414, the Site is roughly triangular in shape and extends eastwards from the A414 / Rayley Lane roundabout following the Cripsey Brook and its adjoining belt of trees and tall hedgerow which formed the majority of the northern boundary of the Site with a section of the boundary extending across the former golf course up to a tall hedgerow and mature hedgerow trees which defines the eastern boundary. The southern boundary of this part of the Site is formed by the A414 and its embankment and robust tall belt of trees and understorey hedgerows / shrub planting.

10.103 The overall Site covers an area of 63.43 hectares (156.73 acres) and consists of former North Weald Golf Course including the clubhouse, car park areas, ground maintenance areas, practice areas, and championship golf course with tees, open fairways, bunkers, areas of rough / rank grassland, water courses and ponds, sections of hedgerows, areas of scrub vegetation, numerous young, semi-mature and mature individual trees, groups of trees and boundary vegetation. The main entrance and clubhouse are located within the north-western corner of the southern part of the Site with access off Rayley Lane near the A414 / Rayley Lane roundabout junction. Adjoining the car park and clubhouse are five enclosed artificial pitches used for 5 – 6 a side football. The land surrounding Little Weald Hall Farmhouse is excluded from the Site.

Site Boundaries

10.104 The boundaries to the Site are well defined by existing landscape features. The southern boundary of the Site is formed by existing property boundaries for part of its length to

214

the east of the stream and a section of Vicarage Lane West and North Weald Bassett Cemetery to the west of the stream. These boundaries defined by sections of tall hedgerows, hedgerows trees and groups of trees between 5.0 to 12.0 metres in height which provides some containment and enclosure to the Site but there glimpsed / partial views from sections of Vicarage Lane West, Bridleway No.19 and also Public Footpath No.31 at the south east corner of the Site, as well as views from Public Footpath No.42 to the south where there are views over the hedgerow adjoining Vicarage Lane West towards the driving range.

10.105 The eastern boundary of the Site is formed by field boundaries and is defined by sections of hedgerow and hedgerow trees. The south eastern section of the boundary to the south of the A414 is formed by two discontinuous section of hedge up to 4 metres in height. To the east of this hedge is an open linear field the eastern edge of which is formed by a tall continuous hedgerow and trees between 7.0 to 17.0 metres in height. To the north of the A414 the Site’s eastern boundary is formed by a continuous tall native hedgerow about 6 metres in height and number of mature Oak trees up to 20.0 metres in height which provides some containment and enclosure to the Site.

10.106 The north western boundary of the Site follows the alignment of Cripsey Brook and its robust belt of trees and native understorey planting with north western section of the boundary extending across the . The boundary forms a strong well-defined recognisable feature in the landscape with the planting up to 15.0 metres in height for most of it length apart from individual Ash trees between 15.0 to 17.0 metres in height and a group of White Willow trees approximately 22.0 metres in height. Consequently, the tree and other planting provides good enclosure and containment to the Site along this edge although glimpsed and partial views are possible into the north eastern parts of the Site.

10.107 The western boundary of the southern part of the Site follows Rayley Lane for most of its length apart from the central section which extends around Little Weald Hall Farmhouse. The boundary is defined by the robust hedgerows and trees adjoining the lane which are approximately 9.0 to 14.0 metres in height with the section around Little Weald Hall Farmhouse formed by mature conifer trees up to 8.0 to 11.0 metres in height.

10.108 The A414 and its embankment extends across the Site in a north-west to south-east alignment and separates the Site into two parcels of land. Adjoining the A414 and its embankments are robust tall belts of trees and understorey planting which are about 11.0 metres in height. This belt of trees and shrubs form a good screen / containment to southwards views from the A414 and vice versa.

215

Topography

10.109 As noted earlier, the Site lies within an area of undulating topography dominated by the shallow open valley of the Cripsey Brook and Shonks Brook which converge near the northern corner of the Site. The surrounding undulating landform lie between 60metres AOD to 105metres AOD with the land gently rising to the north a low ridge at about 90 to 110metres AOD to the south of Harlow following a west to east alignment from Kingsmoor in the west to Hastingwood in the east. Junction 7 of the M11 motorway lies on this low ridgeline. To the south of North Weald Bassett, the land rises to a low ridge and area of higher ground at about 110metres AOD between Toot Hill in the east and edge of Epping and Coopersale Common in the west.

10.110 The topography of the Site is very undulating associated with its use as a golf course with landform undulating between approximately 62.8 metres AOD to 79.0 metres AOD within parcel B and between approximately 66.0 metres AOD and 77.6 metres AOD within parcel A. Figure 10.3 shows the detailed topography of the Site whilst Figure 10.4 illustrates the general topography of landscape surrounding the Site.

Land Uses

10.111 As shown on Figure 10.3, the majority of the Site comprises the fairways and greens associated with its use as a former golf course together with areas of rough grassland and scrub, tree planting and ponds which drain to the brook that extends through the Site. The clubhouse, car park areas, ground maintenance areas, practice areas and five/six-a-side enclosed artificial pitches are located within the north-western portion of the southern part of the Site.

Vegetation

10.112 Vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the Site is relatively sparse and comprises predominantly Oak, Ash, Willow and Sycamore tree species between 13.0 to 19.0 metres in height with hedgerows consisting of a mix of mainly blackthorn, hawthorn, field maple and other deciduous species up to 6.0 metres in height.

10.113 Within the Site itself, vegetation is generally limited to boundary hedgerows and trees together with mature trees / groups of trees / former field hedgerows following the brook through the centre of the Site, described above paragraph 10.102 to 10.108 although there are

216

numerous mature and semi-mature individual trees and groups of trees separating the fairways within the golf course.

10.114 None of the trees within or on the boundaries of the Site are protected by TPO’s. However, the trees adjoining the western boundary of the Site are protected under TPO No.1 1991 / G13 and there are a number of protected trees to the west of the Site. In addition, a number of woodlands within the wider Study Area are designated as ‘Ancient Woodlands’ and therefore protected under planning policies in the adopted Epping Forest Local Plan. However, these woodlands are situated some distance from the Site and there would be no direct impact on the woodlands themselves.

10.115 A detailed arboricultural survey of the trees within and adjoining the Site has been completed by Aspect Arboriculture in accordance with BS 5837:2012 (Ref 10.4). The survey contains details of 165No. individual trees, 71No. collections of trees / shrubs forming cohesive groups or tree belts and one hedgerow located nearer the entrance to the golf course. There are no areas defined as woodlands within or immediately adjoining the Site. The full details of the tree survey are enclosed within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment which is submitted separately as part of the planning application. The relative quality of the existing tree cover has been assessed by reference to grading categories.

10.116 There are a number of trees occurring throughout the Site that warrant category A and B status (13No. category A trees, and 31No. category B tree and 23No. category B tree groups), either on individual merit or where occurring in numbers which confer a higher collective value. Whilst category A and B components of the survey represent priorities for retention as part of the proposed scheme, there are a significant number of trees that are considered suitable for removal subject to appropriate mitigation replanting, these are category C trees; whilst there 6No. trees within the Site that should be removed (considered inappropriate to retain) on the grounds of sound arboricultural reasons (category U trees).

10.117 A number of photographs of the Site have been taken and these are included in Appendix 10.7 - Photographic Appendices, Photographs P/01 – Site Appraisal Photographs – A to Z, and AA to BB. The locations from where these photographs are taken are shown on Figure 10.3 – Site Appraisal Plan and they serve to illustrate the nature and extent of views across the Site, and also the character of the Site as existing.

217

Visual Appraisal

10.118 An assessment of the visibility of the Site within its surroundings has been carried out initially in March 2017 and then again in January 2018, by walking and travelling along the network of local roads, footpaths, bridleways and other paths in the area surrounding the Site. In addition to the above, the visual assessment was informed by the preparation of two computer generated ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ Plans (ZTV Plan) (see Figure 10.5 and 10.6) referred to earlier in paragraphs 10.6 to 10.10.

10.119 The second ZTV plan (Figure 10.6) provides a more realistic ZTV indicating that the visibility of the Site and Proposed Development is confined to a significantly reduced area within about 2 to 3 kilometres of the Site. However, the ZTV still indicates potential views from elevated land between the villages of Moreton and Matching Green approximately 5 to 8 kilometres from the Site and much reduced area to the north east of Chipping Ongar approximately 9 to 12 kilometres from the Site where theoretically views of the Site and Proposed Development would be seen. This second plan indicates that the highest visibility scores (yellow areas - relating to the number of individual targets visible) extends mainly to the immediate north east, north, west and south west and an outlying area to the north east about 5 to 6 kilometres from the Site with lower scores (green, blue and pink areas) to the east and outlying areas to the west and north, north east within the wider surrounding countryside (landscape) up to 8.0 kilometres from the Site.

10.120 The second ZTV plan helped to confirm and identify the potential viewpoints which have been visited and the potential views assessed. During the field surveys, a series of photographic panoramas (See Appendix 10.8 – Photographic Appendices – P/02) were taken to illustrate the nature and extent of the views from near, middle, and longer distance vantage points. This preliminary visual assessment also concluded that in the majority of cases views of the Site were curtailed by local landscape features, such as field hedgerows, small copses, isolated residential properties / farmsteads / hamlets and also changes in topography, such as hedge banks / cuttings adjoining the network of roads and lanes, or the views were at such a distance that the Site was very difficult to perceive and it is considered that the likely impact and visual effect of the Proposed Development would be negligible.

10.121 For this reason, views in excess of 3.0 kilometres have not been assessed as part of this Study and therefore the visual assessment concentrated on assessing the potential visual effects of the Proposed Development proposals from key viewpoints within an area up to 2 to 3 kilometres from the Site, mainly to the north.

218

10.122 Thirty assessment viewpoints were selected from a comprehensive review of the likely visibility of the Site within the Study Area and these have been chosen to represent typical views from publicly accessible locations and also where the Site can be readily identified by reference to the former clubhouse building within the north western parts of the Site. Descriptions of the baseline situation (including the sensitivity of the receptors) at each of the selected key viewpoints are given in Table 10.1 below, and their locations are shown on Figure 10.7.

Table 10.1: Key Viewpoints: Baseline Situation

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 1 View from Rayley Open close transient views from a Varied – low to medium Lane at the existing section of Rayley Lane looking users of Rayley Lane (local entrance to North towards to north western portion of minor road - cars / lorries / Weald Golf Course the southern parts of the Site. farm vehicles / cyclists & looking north The viewer is aware of built horse riders) obtaining eastwards towards development including car parking transient oblique and the Site areas, former golf course clubhouse restricted views. There are 10 metres and other large barn structures within no footways adjoining the + 70m AOD and adjoining the Site. In the Rayley Lane. North east foreground to the view the change in Duration of view varies – levels / slight bank to the east of the short for passers-by (cars, lane is evident as is the entrance lorries & farm vehicles). gates and walls with timber post and rail fencing defining the edge of the car park allowing views into the Site. Much of the Site is screened from view.

2 View from Rayley Open close transient views from a Varied – low to medium Lane at the existing section of Rayley Lane looking users of Rayley Lane (local entrance to North towards part of the north-western minor road - cars / lorries / Weald Golf Course portion of the southern parts of the farm vehicles / cyclists & looking south Site. horse riders) obtaining eastwards towards The viewer is aware of built transient oblique and the Site development including large barn restricted views. There are 10 metres structures within and adjoining the no footways adjoining the + 70m AOD Site. In the foreground to the view the Rayley Lane. South east change in levels / slight bank to the Duration of view short for east of the lane is evident as is the passers-by (cars, lorries & entrance gates and walls with close farm vehicles). board fencing and line of mature Poplar trees defining the garden areas to Little Weald Hall Farmhouse obscuring views into the Site. Much of the Site is screened from view.

219

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 3 View from midway Open close transient views from a Varied – low to medium along Rayley Lane section of Rayley Lane looking east users of Rayley Lane (local at the approximate towards the central western portion of minor road - cars / lorries / location of the new the southern parts of the Site. farm vehicles / cyclists & access to the The viewer is aware of the walled / horse riders) obtaining Proposed gated entrance to Little Weald Hall transient oblique and Development Farmhouse with views extending restricted views. There are 10 metres north and south along Rayley Lane. no footways adjoining the + 73.9m AOD The viewer is also aware of North Rayley Lane. East Weald airfield behind the viewpoint. Duration of view short for In the foreground to the view looking passers-by (cars, lorries & east the tall robust hedgerow and farm vehicles). trees adjoining the east side of the lane effectively curtail views into and across the southern parts of the Site. Much of the Site is screened from view.

4 View from southern Open close transient views from a Varied – low to medium section of Rayley section of Rayley Lane looking east users of Rayley Lane (local Lane opposite towards the southern portion of the minor road - cars / lorries / Public Footpath southern parts of the Site. farm vehicles / cyclists & No.31 looking From this viewpoint the existing views horse riders) obtaining eastwards into the Site are severely restricted by transient oblique and 10 metres tall robust hedgerow and trees adjoin restricted views. There are + 73.9m AOD Rayley Lane although the alignment no footways adjoining the East of Public Footpath No.31 is evident Rayley Lane. forming a gap through the vegetation Duration of view short for allowing partial / glimpsed views into passers-by (cars, lorries & the southern parts of the Site. farm vehicles). Rayley Lane forms the prominent feature in the view, but the viewer is also aware of North Weald airfield behind the viewpoint. Much of the Site is screened from view.

220

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 5 Views from section Open direct transient close views Varied – low to medium of Merlin Way near looking north eastwards towards the users of Merlin Way (local the roundabout Rayley Lane boundary to the Site. minor road - cars / lorries / junction with Rayley From this viewpoint the existing views cyclists & horse riders) Lane looking north into the Site are severely restricted by obtaining transient oblique eastwards tall hedgerow and trees adjoining the and restricted views. There 120 metres Rayley Lane / Merlin Way are no footways adjoining + 75m AOD roundabout. the Merlin Way. North east Merlin Way and the roundabout Duration of view – short for junction forms the prominent feature passers-by (cars, lorries / of the view, but the viewer is also very other vehicles). aware of North Weald airfield behind the viewpoint. Much of the Site is screened from view.

6 View from North Open direct close views looking Varied – Low to High Weald Bassett northwards from North Weald Bassett depending on the time of Cemetery looking Cemetery looking towards the day and burials consisting of northwards southern boundary of the Site which visitors to the cemetery and 40 - 100 metres is seen as a tall hedgerow / trees in local residents using the + 74m AOD the middle distance forming the visual cemetery for peaceful North horizon. To the east the tower of St comtemplation obtaining Andrew’s Church is evident amongst restricted views. the trees. The cemetery forms a Duration of view varies but relatively peaceful and tranquil area generally for relatively to the west of St Andrew’s Church longer duration. adjoining the former golf course although the tranquillity of the location is occasional reduced when aircraft are using the North Weald airfield to the west. Much of the Site is screened from view.

7 Views from section Open panoramic close views from a Varies – Medium usage in of the Public short section of Public Bridleway summer / weekends, lower Bridleway No.19 No.19 within the southern parts of the usage in winter period, within the southern Site looking across the open parts of users of Public Bridleway parts of the Site the Site towards St Andrew’s Church. No.19 forming part of the looking southwards Route forms part of the Bassett Bassett Millennium Walks in 0 metres Millennium Walks. the parish. + 70.5m AOD The open former golf course use of Medium to longer duration South the Site is very evident together with depending on speed of the undulating topography and nature walkers / horse riders. and extent of the views towards St Andrew’s Church which forms a notable feature of the views. Most of the Site is too the rear of the viewpoint.

221

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 8 Views from junction Open direct transient close views Road users - varies – low to of Vicarage Lane looking north towards the southern medium users of Vicarage West and Church boundary to the Site. Lane West / Church Lane Lane looking From this viewpoint the existing views (local minor road - cars / northwards into the Site are severely restricted by lorries / cyclists) obtaining 100 - 120 metres intervening hedgerows and trees to transient restricted views. + 70m AOD the north of Vicarage Lane West Duration of view – short for North together with the lying undulating passers-by (cars, lorries / topography. Public Bridleway No.19 other vehicles). is visible to the centre right of the view. The Vicarage Lane West and Pedestrian Users - varies – Church Lane form part of the Bassett Medium usage in summer / Millennium Walks in the parish as weekends, lower usage in they link the network of paths in the winter period, users of area. networks of paths forming Vicarage Lane West and its junction part of the Bassett with Church Lane forms the Millennium Walks in the prominent feature of the view, parish. although the viewer is also aware of Medium to longer duration built development to the east on depending on speed of Vicarage Lane West and St Andrew’s walkers / horse riders. Church to the north east. Due to the landform and intervening vegetation, the Site is screened from view.

9 Views from section Open direct transient close views Varies – Medium usage in of Public Footpath looking north towards the southern summer / weekends, lower No.42 to the south of boundary to the Site. usage in winter period, Vicarage Lane West From this viewpoint the existing views users of Public Footpath looking northwards into the Site are restricted by No.42. 100 – 110 metres intervening hedgerows and trees to Medium to longer duration + 74m AOD the north of Vicarage Lane West depending on speed of North together with the lying undulating walkers. topography. The open arable in the foreground forms the prominent feature in the views with the hedgerows adjoining Vicarage Lane West and Church Lane seen with St Andrew’s Church tower visible to the north east. The viewer is also aware of North Weald airfield and activity associated with the airfields use. Due to the landform and intervening vegetation, parts of the Site are screened from view.

222

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 10 Views from short Open panoramic close views from a Varies – Medium usage in section of Public short section of Public Footpath summer / weekends, lower Footpath No.31 on No.31 within the southern parts of the usage in winter period, southern boundary Site looking north and north- users of Public Footpath of the Site looking westwards across the open parts of No.31. northwards the Site. Medium to longer duration 0 metres The open former golf course use of depending on speed of + 77.0m AOD the Site is very evident together with walkers. North west the undulating topography and open nature and extent of the views. Restricted long views are possible to north west across the golf course to the rising ground / distance horizon near Hastingwood Farm otherwise the existing undulating topography and vegetation within the Site curtail and limit views. Much of the Site is screened from view.

11 Views from short Open panoramic close views from a Varies – Medium usage in section of Public short section of Public Footpath summer / weekends, lower Footpath No.31 on No.31 within the southern parts of the usage in winter period, southern boundary Site looking north and north users of Public Footpath of the Site looking westwards across the open parts of No.31. northwards the Site. Medium to longer duration 0 metres The open former golf course use of depending on speed of + 77.6m AOD the Site is very evident together with walkers. North west the undulating topography and open nature and extent of the views. Restricted long views are possible to north across the golf course to the rising ground / distance horizon near Hastingwood otherwise the existing undulating topography and vegetation within the Site curtail and limit views. Much of the Site is screened from view.

223

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 12 Views from short Restricted close transient views from Varies – Medium usage in section of Public a short section of Public Footpath summer / weekends, lower Footpath No.31 on No.31 near the southern boundary of usage in winter period, southern boundary the Site looking north westwards. users of Public Footpath of the Site looking The views from this location are No.31. northwards restricted and limited by intervening Medium to longer duration 40 metres vegetation even during the winter depending on speed of + 77.5m AOD period with glimpsed views obtained walkers. North west towards the south-eastern parts of the Site or rising ground along the eastern edge of the Site. Long distance views are also possible over the Site to the rising ground / visual horizon near Hastingwood. Much of the Site is screened from view.

13 Views from Public Open panoramic close transient Varies – Medium usage in Bridleway No.19 views from a short section of Public summer / weekends, lower within the northern Bridleway No.19 near the southern usage in winter period, parts of the Site boundary of the northern parts of Site users of Public Bridleway 0 metres looking northwards. Route forms part No.19 forming part of the + 68.0m AOD of the Bassett Millennium Walks. Bassett Millennium Walks in North The open former golf course use of the parish. the Site is very evident together with Medium to longer duration the undulating topography and open depending on speed of nature and extent of the views. walkers / horse riders. Although long distance views are restricted by the intervening landform and vegetation within the Site. Much of the northern parts of the Site is screened from view. Whilst the southern parts of the Site screened by the A414 embankment and belt of trees and shrubs following the road.

224

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 14 Views from Public Open panoramic close transient Varies – Medium usage in Bridleway No.19 views from a short section of Public summer / weekends, lower within the northern Bridleway No.19 near the northern usage in winter period, parts of the Site boundary of the northern parts of Site users of Public Bridleway 0 metres looking southwards. Route forms part No.19 forming part of the + 64.0m AOD of the Bassett Millennium Walks. Bassett Millennium Walks in South The open former golf course use of the parish. the Site is very evident together with Medium to longer duration the undulating topography and nature depending on speed of and extent of the views. Due the walkers / horse riders. undulating landform of the golf course long views are contained within the Site. Much of the Site is screened from view.

15 Views from Public Restricted close transient views from Varies – Medium usage in Bridleway No.19 a short section of Public Bridleway summer / weekends, lower adjoining the No.19 immediately adjoining the usage in winter period, northern boundary northern boundary of the Site looking users of Public Bridleway of the Site southwards. The route forms part of No.19. 20 metres the Bassett Millennium Walks and Medium to longer duration + 64.0m AOD Stort Valley Way a long distance depending on speed of South recreational route. walkers / horse riders. The riverine vegetation adjoining Cripsey Brook effectively screens and curtails views in to the Site from this section of the bridleway. Glimpsed views are possible in to the northern parts of the Site through the gap in the hedgerow. Much of the Site especially southern parts of the Site are screened from view.

16 Open views from the Open panoramic views from short Varies – medium to high layby adjoining the section of A414 at the layby on the depending on the time of A414 eastward carriageway looking day - users of major road 100 to 180 metres westwards. (cars / lorries / buses / farm + 74.0m AOD The A414 forms the prominent vehicles) with transitory West feature of the views with the mature views. belt of trees and understorey planting on the south side of the A414 effectively screening views into the southern parts of the Site. Much of the Site especially northern parts of the Site are screened from view.

225

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 17 Open views from Open panoramic views from short Low to medium users of section of Vicarage section of Vicarage Lane West at a local minor road (cars / Lane West near its field gate near the A414 junction lorries / farm vehicles / horse junction with the looking north westwards. riders) with transitory views A414 Views extend across the open arable although some residents/ 360 metres field seen in the foreground to the walkers and horse riders will + 80.0m AOD nursery glasshouses occupying the experience views for longer North west middle distance. The rooftop of North duration. Weald Clubhouse and the golf driving range are visible with views extending to the rising ground / visual horizon beyond. Much of the Site especially northern parts of the Site are screened from view.

18 Open views from the Restricted views from short section of Varies - medium to high A414 at its junction the A414 at its junction with Vicarage users of major road (cars / with Vicarage Lane Lane West looking north westwards. lorries / buses / farm West The A414 / Vicarage Lane West vehicles) with transitory 460 metres junction and A414 to the north forms views although some + 84.0m AOD the prominent feature of the views residents/ walkers and North west with the mature belt of trees and horse riders using Vicarage understorey planting on the either Lane West will experience side of the A414 effectively screening views for longer duration. views into the southern parts of the Site. In the centre left of the view, the view extends across the open arable field to the nursery glasshouses occupying the middle distance with views continuing to the rising ground / visual horizon beyond. The rooftop of North Weald Clubhouse is just visible between trees in the centre right of the view. Much of the Site is screened from view.

226

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 19 View from short Partial and restricted views from a Varied – low to medium section of Byway short section of Byway No.36 looking users of Byway (local minor No.36 looking west westwards through a gap in the lane - farm vehicles / horse 460 metres hedgerow / trees that adjoin the riders / walkers) obtaining + 84.0m AOD byway. Open views can be obtained transient oblique and West from Public Footpath No.37 which lies restricted views. Some to the west of the byway. residents/ walkers and The open arable field and adjoining horse riders will experience vegetation seen in the foreground views for longer duration form the prominent feature of the view although the views extend westwards over the nursery glasshouses and the site the rising ground and visual horizon to the west / north west of the Site. The majority of the Site is screened from view.

20 View from section of Open direct transient middle distance Varies – Medium usage in Public Footpath views looking north towards the Site. summer / weekends, lower No.43 near Church From this viewpoint the existing views usage in winter period, Lane Flood Meadow into the Site are severely restricted by users of Public Footpath Local Nature intervening hedgerows and trees to No.43. Reserve looking the north of Vicarage Lane West and Medium to longer duration north around St Andrew’s Church together depending on speed of 600 metres with the lying undulating topography. walkers. + 80m AOD The open arable in the foreground North forms the prominent feature in the views with the hedgerows adjoining Vicarage Lane West and Church Lane seen with St Andrew’s Church tower visible to the north amongst the trees. Due to the landform and intervening vegetation, parts of the Site are screened from view.

227

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 21 View from Public Open close panoramic transient Varies – Medium usage in Bridleway No.19 / views from a section of Public summer / weekends, lower Stort Valley Way to Bridleway No.19 to the north of the usage in winter period, the north of the Site Site looking southwards. The route users of Public Bridleway looking south forms part of the Bassett Millennium No.19. 220 metres Walks and Stort Valley Way a long Medium to longer duration + 67m AOD distance recreational route. depending on speed of South The riverine vegetation adjoining walkers / horse riders. Cripsey Brook effectively screens and curtails some views in to the Site from this section of the bridleway. Glimpsed views are possible in to the elevated north-eastern parts of the Site visible above the boundary vegetation (centre left of view) whilst the rooftop of the North Weald Clubhouse is just perceived to the right-hand side above the tree line. Much of the Site especially southern parts of the Site are screened from view.

22 View from Public Open panoramic transient views from Varies – Medium usage in Bridleway No.19 / a section of Public Bridleway No.19 summer / weekends, lower Stort Valley Way to looking southwards. The route forms usage in winter period, the north of the Site part of the Bassett Millennium Walks users of Public Bridleway looking south and Stort Valley Way a long distance No.19. 400 metres recreational route. Medium to longer duration + 69m AOD View very similar to Viewpoint No.19 depending on speed of South – the vegetation adjoining Cripsey walkers / horse riders. Brook screens and curtails some views in to the northern parts of the Site from this section of the bridleway. Glimpsed views are possible in to the elevated north-eastern parts of the Site visible above the boundary vegetation (left hand side of view) whilst the rooftop of the North Weald Clubhouse is just perceived to the right-hand side above the tree line. Much of the Site especially southern parts of the Site are screened from view.

228

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 23 View from the A414 Open panoramic transient view from Varies - medium to high (Canes Lane) the A414 at the entrance to Weald users of major road (cars / looking south Hall Farm looking south eastwards lorries / buses / farm eastwards across open farmland and intervening vehicles) with transitory 500 metres hedgerows towards the Site. views. There are no + 74m AOD The A414 and access road to Weald footways adjoining the A414 South east Hall Farm form the prominent (Canes Lane). features of the view with views Duration of view short for possible through gaps in the adjoining passers-by (cars, lorries / and intervening hedgerows and trees buses & farm vehicles). towards the North Weald Clubhouse which forms a notable feature in the centre of the view. Partial views are possible of the elevated north-eastern parts of the Site visible above the boundary vegetation (centre left of view). The majority of the open parts of the Site are screened from view.

24 View from Public Open views looking south westwards Varies – Medium usage in Footpath No.30 from section of Public Footpath No.31 summer / weekends, lower looking south to the north east of the Site following usage in winter period, westwards Cripsey Brook. users of Public Footpath 220 metres View are across the open farmland No.30. + 63m AOD and riverine vegetation adjoining the Medium to longer duration South west brook towards the Site although the depending on speed of open parts of the Site are screened by walkers. intervening trees and other vegetation. Much of the Site especially southern parts of the Site is not visible.

229

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 25 View from Public Middle distant open panoramic Varies – Medium usage in Bridleway No.19 / transient views from a section of summer / weekends, lower Stort Valley Way to Public Bridleway No.19 / Stort Valley usage in winter period, the north of the Site Way / Bassett Millennium Walks users of Public Bridleway looking south looking south eastwards. No.19. eastwards Views are very similar to Viewpoint Medium to longer duration 600 metres No.20 although the Site forms a small depending on speed of + 75m AOD proportion of the overall scene. The walkers / horse riders. South east open arable farmland, blocks of woodland and open skyline form the prominent features of the view with partial views possible in to the elevated north-eastern parts of the Site visible above the boundary vegetation (centre right side of view). The rooftop of the North Weald Clubhouse is just perceived to the right-hand side near Cane Wood. Much of the Site especially southern parts of the Site are screened from view.

26 View from Public Middle distance panoramic transient Low usage, users of Public Footpath No.29 to view from a section of Public Footpath Footpath No.29 as route the north of the Site No.29 looking south eastwards. does not form part of a looking south View very similar to Viewpoint No.23 circular footpath route. eastwards with the Site forming a small Medium to longer duration 900 metres proportion of the overall scene. The depending on speed of + 80m AOD open arable farmland, blocks of walkers. South east woodland and open skyline form the prominent features of the view with partial views possible in to the elevated north-eastern parts of the Site visible above the boundary vegetation (centre right side of view). The rooftop of the North Weald Clubhouse is just perceived to the right-hand side near Cane Wood. Much of the Site especially southern parts of the Site are screened from view.

230

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 27 View from Public Long distance panoramic transient Low usage, users of Public Footpath No.20 / 27 view(s) from a section of Public Footpath No.20/27 as route looking south Footpath No.20 / 27 near Paris Hall does not form part of a eastwards Farm looking south eastwards. circular footpath route. 1.2 kilometres In this long-distance view, the Site Medium to longer duration + 84m AOD forms a very small proportion of the depending on speed of South east overall scene. The open arable walkers. farmland, blocks of woodland and open skyline form the prominent features of the view. The elevated north-eastern parts of the Site are just perceived to the left of the block of woodland occupying the centre of the view. The remainder of the Site is hidden from view.

28 View from Public Long distance panoramic transient Low usage, users of Public Footpath No.27 view(s) from a section of Public Footpath No.20/27 as route looking south Footpath No. 27 near to and west of does not form part of a westwards Sewalds Hall Farm looking south circular footpath route. 1.2 kilometres westwards. Medium to longer duration + 84m AOD This view is similar to Viewpoint depending on speed of South No.25 as the Site forms a very small walkers. proportion of the overall scene either side of Canes Wood. The open arable farmland, blocks of woodland and open skyline form the prominent features of the view. The elevated north-eastern parts of the Site are just perceived to the left of the block of woodland occupying the centre of the view whilst the rooftop of North Weald Clubhouse is just perceived to the right side of the view. The majority of the open parts of the Site are screened from view.

231

Location / VP Approximate Receptor Numbers and Ref Distance from Site, Description of View Type No. AOD height and Direction 29 View from Public Long distance panoramic transient Low usage, users of Public Footpath 29 looking view(s) from a short section of Public Footpath No.29 as route south Footpath No.29 to the east of does not form part of a 1.1 kilometres Sewalds Hall farm looking circular footpath route. + 84m AOD southwards. Medium to longer duration South The open arable farmland, blocks of depending on speed of woodland and open skyline form the walkers. prominent features of the view. The elevated north-eastern parts of the Site are just perceived to the left of the block of woodland occupying the centre of the view whilst St Andrew’s Church tower is barely perceived to the south of the Site. As with other views, the majority of the open parts of the Site are screened from view.

30 View from A414 Very long distance transient view(s) Varies – medium to high near junction 7 of the from a short section of the A414 depending on the time of M11 motorway (Canes Lane) at bus stop near day - users of major road 1.8 kilometres junction 7 of the M11 motorway. (cars / lorries / buses / farm + 84m AOD The viewpoint is at an elevated vehicles) with transitory South position looking across the Cripsey views. Brook valley with North Weald airfield Duration of view varies – evident beyond the A414 to the south short for passers-by (cars, (right hand side of the view). To the lorries / buses & farm centre left the rooftop of North Weald vehicles) although some Clubhouse is just perceived with the residents / walkers will elevated undulating northern parts of experience views for longer the Site also perceived below the duration. horizon. The Site forms a minor part of the overall view. As with other views, the majority of the open parts of the Site are screened from view.

232

Baseline Lighting Assessment

10.123 The baseline assessment for the lighting studies involved gathering and mapping information about existing lighting in the locality. As presently there is no best practice guidance on assessing the effects of lighting but a methodology for the assessment of the effects of the lighting associated with the development has been developed from the document entitled “Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice” (1997) (Ref 10.20) and “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” 2011 (Ref 10.21). These documents set out the initial step in the baseline assessment, which is primarily a desk top exercise to identify any planning policy areas or other designations that may need to be taken into account, whilst the Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light includes a range of environmental zones useful in describing the area within which a development sit. This work has already been completed as part of the baseline studies with the relevant landscape designations covering the area.

10.124 The next stage is to consider how dark the area surrounding the Site is at present. Existing sources of light in the area include:

 Existing security lighting associated with existing farms and residential dwellings adjoining the Site and within the immediate surrounding area (houses on Vicarage Lane West and nursery / glasshouses also on Vicarage Lane West to the east of the Site);  Existing security lighting associated with farms and commercial areas to the east and north east of the Site including New House Farm and Slough House Farm, and commercial areas at North Weald Airfield to the west;  Lighting associated with the A414 / Rayley Road, Junction 7 of the M11 motorway and other road junctions;  General “night sky glow” from existing urban areas to the south west, north west and south east of the Site and scattered farmsteads a ribbon development occupying elevated ground to the north.

10.125 The main potential receptors of additional light (pollution) include existing properties adjoining the Site and users of the existing roads and public footpaths in the immediate area of the Site. These are currently affected to some degree by the existing light sources and users of public footpaths / bridleways to the north and south are unlikely to be using these remote paths at night time. Whilst the Site is already affected to a degree by existing lighting from the North Weald Airfield and lighting on the A414 / Canes Lane and other road junctions to the north west and east. However, the area to the north, north east and south is generally devoid of light sources creating relatively ‘dark skies’.

233

10.126 The sensitivity of the local landscape to the introduction of additional lighting has been considered. The sensitivity of the landscape depends on visibility, remoteness and scenic quality with the degree of enclosure afforded by landform and vegetation being key factors, along with land use patterns such as field boundaries and settlement dispersal.

10.127 Remoteness and scenic quality are interrelated and are reflected in the character of an area. The area is not designated as forming part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Special Landscape Area / Area of High Landscape Value although planning policy seeks to minimise light pollution in the open countryside and therefore, the general area can be considered of medium sensitivity to the introduction of new lighting.

10.128 The baseline assessment showed that the landscape condition of the Site is considered to be ‘medium to low’ due to the majority of the Site consisting of the former golf course (of limited intrinsic interest / quality) and the state of the existing field boundary hedgerows and trees as they are generally in a poor condition. The overall sensitivity of the Site to change; however, is considered to be ‘medium’ due to its location within the open countryside (and Metropolitan Green Belt) although the southern parts of the Site are generally well enclosed and contained within the landscape. However, the Site is already affected to a degree by existing lighting from the North Weald Airfield and lighting on the A414 / Canes Lane and other road junctions to the north west and to the east which are evident in views and forming part of the visual context for the Site.

10.129 The baseline visual assessment also indicates that the area surrounding the Site is sensitive to the introduction of new lighting, but the Site is already affected to a degree by lighting at night time from development close to and within the application site. On the basis of the above and by reference to the “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” 2011 (Ref 10.21) and the environmental zones set out in this document it is considered that the Site is located within Environmental Zone – E2 – Rural (low district brightness).

Landscape Condition

10.130 In accordance with the methodology contained in Appendix 10.2, (and Table 10.1 of the methodology) together with the findings of the baseline assessment, national, regional and district / local level landscape character assessment; in particular those parts of the landscape character areas (LCA) within which the Site is located Landscape Character Type (LCT) ‘F: Ridges and Valleys’ and Landscape Character Area (LCA) ‘F5: North Weald’, the landscape condition of the Site and its immediate surrounds has been assessed.

234

10.131 The landscape of the Site is generally open rural in character where there is seasonal change although the southern parts of the Site are generally well enclosed and contained within the landscape, primarily due its boundary vegetation along the A414 and Rayley Lane and vegetation and built development to the south and east. Hedgerows are regularly maintained although they are generally in a poor condition. The landscape condition of the Site and its immediate surrounds is considered to be ‘moderate / low’.

Landscape Value

10.132 The methodology contained in Appendix 10.2 sets out the factors that need to be considered to assess the landscape value of the Site and its immediate surrounds, whilst Table 2.0 of the methodology sets out the definition of criteria used for ranking value. The overall value of the Site is assessed ‘moderate / low’ taking in to account the following:

 The Site is not covered by any national, regional or local landscape designations;

 The findings of the Essex and Southend on Sea Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment (Ref 10.17) which concludes that the condition of the Central Essex Farmland LCA (Area B1) is ‘moderate’ and that the sensitivity is also ‘moderate’ albeit this is a broad-brush strategic assessment;

 The findings / conclusions of the ‘Epping Forest Landscape Studies – Landscape Character Assessment’ (Ref 10.10) the Epping Forest District Council; Settlement Edge Landscape Sensitivity Study’ (Ref 10.11) which concludes that Landscape Character Type (LCT) ‘F: Ridges and Valleys’ and Landscape Character Area (LCA) ‘F5: North Weald has a ‘moderate’ sensitivity to change;

 The limited contribution that the Site makes to the wider landscape as the Site is generally well enclosed and contained within the landscape, primarily due its boundary vegetation along the A414 and Rayley Lane and vegetation and built development to the south and east;

 The moderate / low landscape condition of the Site although to surrounding landscape is in a ‘moderate’ condition and has a ‘moderate’ sensitivity;

235

 The limited network of hedgerows within the Site due to loss of the historic field hedgerow boundaries when the former golf course was constructed although the hedgerows are regularly maintained;

 The lack of rare elements or features in the landscape and relatively few features of wildlife or historic cultural interest in the area surrounding the Site although parts of the Site can be seen from and contributes to a degree to the wider rural setting of the Parish Church of St Andrew;

 The use of the local network of footpath across and within the vicinity of the Site and the amenity value derived from users together with those residents who lived closed to and adjoining the Site with views overlooking the Site although the Site is not of high scenic quality or visually attractive being a former golf course;

 The Site does not form area of wilderness nor is it a tranquil landscape due to its proximity to North Weald Airfield, the A414 (trunk) road crossing the Site and M11 motorway and Junction 7 to the north west;

 The proposed allocation of land to the south east of the Site, to the south of Vicarage Lane West, for mixed use residential and employment development as part of draft Policy P6 – North Weald Bassett, of the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version December 2017 (Ref 10.9) and the Site and Proposed Development is capable of being linked to this site.

10.133 As part of the baseline assessment of the Site and surrounding area, the key landscape receptors that lie within the Study Area are considered to include the Site’s landscape elements, the Site’s landscape patterns / character and well as National / Regional and Local Landscape Character Areas covering the Site. In relation to the landscape value of these receptors (and based on the findings of the baseline assessment above and the national / county and local character assessments) these are assessed as follows:

236

Table 10.2 – Landscape Receptors: Value

Ref Receptor Landscape Receptor Reasoning / Rationale No. Value

The Site 1 Landscape Elements Moderate to There are very few landscape elements or Low patterns of more than local significance apart from some boundary hedgerows and trees (which provide some local containment and screening) within the Site. The Site contains numerous mature and semi-mature individual trees and groups of trees together with mature trees / groups of trees / former field hedgerows following the brook through the centre of the Site. The Site contains a number of higher value trees and groups of trees (category A and B trees) but the vast majority are lower value Category C trees. The landform within the Site is very undulating reflecting former use as a golf course. 2 Landscape pattern’s / Moderate / Refer to reasoning above paragraph 10.132 Site character Low National Character Areas Profiles 3 National Level: Moderate This NCAP extends across the four counties of NCAP: South Suffolk Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire and and North Essex Cambridgeshire. It is an ancient landscape of Clayland – Character wooded arable countryside with a distinct sense of Area No.86. enclosure. The overall character is of a gently undulating, chalky boulder clay plateau, the undulations being caused by the numerous small- scale river valleys that dissect the plateau. There is a complex network of old species-rich hedgerows, ancient woods and parklands, meadows with streams and rivers that flow eastwards. There is a dispersed settlement pattern of scattered farmsteads, parishes and small settlements around ‘tyes’ (commons) or strip greens and isolated hamlets. The NCA features a concentration of isolated moated farmsteads and numerous well-preserved medieval towns and large village. Larger 20th-century development has taken place to the south and east around Chelmsford, Ipswich and the new towns of Harlow and Stevenage. County Character Areas (Essex and Southend on Sea Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment)

237

Ref Receptor Landscape Receptor Reasoning / Rationale No. Value

4 Character Type ‘B: Moderate This character area lies to the east of Harlow and Glacial Till Plateau’ covers an extensive area of the County. It has an and ‘B1: Central irregular field pattern of mainly medium size arable Essex Farmland’ LCA fields, marked by sinuous hedgerows and ditches, with many small woods and copses provide structure and edges in the landscape. Scattered settlement pattern, with frequent small hamlets, typically with greens and ponds and isolated moated farmsteads. It has a network of narrow, winding lanes and is mostly tranquil character away from major roads and Stansted Airport although there are some farmsteads which have visually intrusive modern shed and area of conifer planting which discordant features in the landscape. Its landscape condition is moderate. District Landscape Character Areas (Epping Forest Landscape Character Assessment 2010) 5 Ridges and Valley Moderate Landscape Character Area No. F5 lies towards LCT - F5: ‘North the centre of the District which is dominated by Weald’ LCA North Weald airfield to the west and arable farmland elsewhere with scattered farmsteads and nurseries and large linear settlement of North Weald Bassett towards the centre of the LCA. The urban edge of North Weald Bassett are evident in views as are open and framed views of the patchwork of arable fields. The landscape sensitivity is identified as moderate.

238

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

10.134 In this section, the potential impacts and the significance of the effects on landscape character and views are characterised in the absence of mitigation measures, beyond those identified and described below as embedded into the Proposed Development, for construction and operational phases (On completion and Year15) of the Proposed Development

10.135 As part of the baseline assessment of the Site and surrounding area the key landscape receptors that lie within the Study Area have been identified included including the Site’s landscape elements, the Site’s landscape patterns / character and well as National / Regional and Local Landscape Character Areas (LLCA) whilst the key visual receptors are set out in Table 10.1 above.

Stages of Assessment of Effects

10.136 The landscape and visual effects have been considered / assessed at three stages of the Proposed Development. These include:

 Construction phase include retention and protection of existing vegetation, site clearance, land changes and construction of the Proposed Development. Chapter 6 contains the details of the construction period and any phasing;  On completion – Year 1; it is assumed that many of the landscape mitigation measures will have been undertaken and start to establish; and;  Residual effects – 15 years after completion.

Development Proposals and Embedded Mitigation

10.137 As mentioned in the introduction, details of the Proposed Development are set out in Chapter 5 – “The Proposed Development” and Chapter 6 – “Proposed Development Programme and Construction” but in summary they are as follows:

“Hybrid planning application with outline planning permission (all matters reserved except for points of access) sought for:  up to 555 dwellings, including affordable and key worker housing;  a 70-bed retirement accommodation (Class C3) and a 70-bed extra care / nursing care accommodation (Class C2);

239

 a two-form entry primary school with associated outdoor space and vehicle parking;  a Special Educational Needs centre;  Class D1 medical facilities;  a local centre comprising a Class A1 retail space of up to 500 sq m and a community centre of up to 300 sq m;  B1 office space of up to 3,744 sq m;  a sports hub with associated open-air sports pitches, including a sports pavilion of up to 400 sq m;  a scout hut facility;  and formal and informal open space incorporating SuDS, a new Country Park, new planting / landscaping and ecological enhancement works; points of access including new roundabout on the A414.

10.138 The design principles below will be accorded to throughout the Proposed Development in its entirety, and in each phase:

 The Proposed Development will be high quality and will respond to and complement the unique character, qualities and local distinctiveness of the local area;  The Proposed Development will be well designed, with character areas and accessible focal points;  The design and layout of the Proposed Development will provide an appropriate transition to the Sites boundaries through the use of building heights, densities, open space, ‘landscape buffers’ and planting to the wider countryside beyond; and  The design of the Proposed Development will demonstrate best practice design, sustainability and construction approaches from the UK and Europe.

10.139 The following embedded mitigation measures include:

240

Construction Mitigation

10.140 It is inevitable with a development in close proximity to residential properties and other receptors that some landscape and visual effects would be caused during the construction period. However, whilst the construction period extends over 10- years, each area / sub-phase of construction is likely to be relatively short, so the effects will be temporary and localised. There are also a number of measures which could be incorporated in to the scheme which would minimise these effects.

10.141 During construction the mitigation measure would include:

 Locate contractor’s compound and material stockpiles away from nearby sensitive receptors i.e. locate the main compound within the low lying partially screened parts of the Site to the north and south of the A414;  Minimise length of construction time required for scaffolding, and use of designated routes within the Site, and;  Reduce the visual effects of mobile cranes by minimising the length of time required for crane activity, ensuring that the cranes are maintained in good order with fresh paint and establishing guidelines to ensure that they do not operate during unsociable hours.  Advanced planting of tree belts along the western (Rayley Lane) edges of the development and along the northern edge of the Sports Hub and to the north of the Medical facilities. The exact extent and areas of planting will be agreed with the local authority prior to the commencement of the main housing areas within the Site.

Landscape Strategy/Designed Mitigation Measures

10.142 Following completion of the construction phase, a number of mitigation measures will be introduced across the Site. Landscaping is a reserved matter in this application and therefore the details and materials to be used for landscaping have not been finalised. However, the broad outlines / areas of the proposed landscape strategy are illustrated on Figure 10.8 – Landscape Strategy Plan and the text below sets out the general design principles behind the open space and landscape strategy and have been used to inform of the landscape and visual assessment.

241

Landscape/Ecology Concept

10.143 The landform and existing features within and adjoining the Site (together design and layout for the Proposed Development) have strongly influenced the landscape / ecology strategy and location of areas of public open space within the Site. The key features of the Proposed Development are:

Existing Landscape Features

 The retention of existing boundary trees and shrubs within the application site which are worthy of retention; and their protection to be compliant with BS5837:2012 – ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations’;  Retaining, where possible, the majority of existing hedgerows, trees and wooded areas within the Site area, including areas within the central parts of the Site and along the northern, southern boundaries as the remainder of the Site is predominantly grass fairways and areas of rough / scrub of lesser importance; and  The provision of appropriate ‘buffers’ to the retained hedgerows, wooded strips and higher quality / category trees on the Sites boundaries and within the Site.

Ecological Habits / Enhancements

 The retention and enhancements (through appropriate management) of the existing wooded areas / tree belts and higher quality trees within the Site where possible including appropriate ‘buffers’ where necessary;  The retention of the existing watercourse within the Site and establishment of a green corridor along its length, incorporating a range of wildlife habitats (see below) and maintaining the function of the watercourse as connective habitat;  The retention and enhancement of existing waterbodies as part of the drainage strategy;  Management of existing mature trees to retain standing dead wood features likely to be of benefit to species including bats, hole nesting birds and invertebrates;  The creation of new habitats to enhance the biodiversity value within the Site, and compliment the surrounding habitats including: o the introduction / creation of new hedgerows and low-intensity mowing margins to establish long-sward grasslands adjoining existing and new hedges; o the introduction of new native tree and shrub planting within the Site (see below) where this is appropriate;

242

o establishment of wildflower grassland providing a rich flowering resource for invertebrates and other wildlife; o establishment of tussocky grassland and ruderal vegetation, left uncut over winter to provide a seed resource for farmland bird species; o provision of new wildlife ponds; and o creating a variety of habitats adjoining SuDS and other drainage features to encourage amphibians, wetland birds and aquatic invertebrates.

 The provision of new bird and bat roosting habitat in the form of bat and bird boxes on trees;  Establishment of mixed scrub and grassland mosaics and provision of hibernacula and refugia to form suitable habitat for reptiles and terrestrial amphibians;  The creation of additional habitat features for invertebrates including habitat piles and butterfly banks; and  The creation of a ‘Landscape / Wildlife’ trail using existing and proposed footpath / cycleway routes and linking existing wildlife features and areas of ecological interest / value within the Site and providing interpretation boards and other information, at appropriate locations, so the new residents and visitors can understand and appreciate the ecological assets on the Site and those within the surrounding area.

Landscape / Open Space Provision

 Provision of substantial areas of multifunctional greenspace, natural and semi-natural greenspace (SNGS / Country Park), and amenity open space, youth and children’s play spaces, recreational areas and community facilities including an area of allotment(s) which accord with or exceed the requirements of “Saved” Policy RST2 – Enhance Rights of Way network, RST8 (iv) & (v) – Play areas, DBE5 – Layout and Design of New Development, DBE7 LL7 – Public Open Space, LL1 – Rural landscapes, LL3 – Edge of Settlement and LL11 – Landscaping Schemes of the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (1998) and Local Plan Alternations (2006) (Ref 10.6) and Policy D4 – Community, Leisure and Cultural Facilities of the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.7).  The key landscape areas are as follows:

243

A) Linear Park / Greenways

 The creation of a new linear park extending through the central parts of the site following the existing watercourse and Public Footpath No.19 through the Proposed Development, providing links to other open spaces within the Proposed Development and areas of green space adjoining housing parcels including the provision of areas of both native and ornamental tree and shrub planting, grassed areas (to provide a diversity of grassland habitats), land ‘sculpture(s)’ where appropriate, provide range of play areas to accommodate very young children to teenagers, formal and informal seating areas and street furniture, new foot / cycleway routes and a number of crossing points to link parts of the Proposed Development.  The creation of a number of ‘Greenways’ of varying widths adjoining existing Public Right of Way (PRoW No.31) through the Site and the Proposed Development maintaining the alignment of the PRoW where possible and providing links to other open spaces and links to the wider network of PRoW in the surrounding area. The ‘Greenways’ to include new tree and shrub planting and grassed areas.

B) Amenity Green Space / Areas

 A number of smaller pocket parks or areas of designed amenity green space will be created within the Proposed Development and adjoining the southern boundary of the Site with each area designed to its own individual ‘character’ and ‘sense of place’ to reflect the layout and design of the adjacent residential development. These open spaces will be laid out as informal open space / play areas with informal and formal footpath / cycleways linking to other parts of the Proposed Development. Such areas will also incorporate wildlife habitats, notably new wildlife ponds forming habitat for Great Crested Newt within the south-east.

C) Semi-Natural Green Space (SNGS) / Country Park

 The existing gently undulating land and ponds within the north western and north eastern parts of the Site will be retained and used to create area of SNGS / Country Park adjoining Cripsey Brook stream corridor and either side of the linear park / stream extending northwards through the Site.  It is anticipated that the Country Park / SNGS will provide informal recreational open space and areas of educational interest for use by existing and new residents to experience and enjoy. The exact design for the ‘semi-natural green space’ has yet

244

finalised but it is anticipated that this area would be relatively low key and designed in consultation with the District Council and interested stakeholders.  It is anticipated that the SNGS / Country Park areas will include open parkland of individual trees / groups of trees, short and long grassland and mosaic of ecological / wildlife habitats as follows: o Open Grassland Areas – The creation of open areas of informal parkland mainly within the north eastern parts of the Site to maintain the open character of the landscape. The area will include predominantly individual / groups of trees with short grassland areas and number of footpath routes and trails linking the areas of parkland occasional seating areas and educational signage to be included. o Long Grassland / Scrub Habitats – The creation of a mosaic of long grassland / scrub habitat with groups / blocks of native tree planting western part and at the boundaries of the Country Park. These areas would provide suitable habitat for a range of wildlife including reptiles and terrestrial amphibians. o Water / Marginal / Damp Areas – Existing waterbodies will be retained, and together with creation of new wildlife ponds, will provide a range of habitats for species including amphibians, birds and aquatic invertebrates. Access to some of these areas is to be limited to provide undisturbed areas for wildlife.

D) Landscape Buffer – Site Boundaries

 The existing hedgerows and vegetation on the Sites western (Rayley Lane), southern and northern (Cripsey Brook) boundaries will be retained and strengthen with additional new native tree and hedgerow (shrub) planting to enhance the existing screens and provide wildlife foraging and disposal routes north – south.  In addition, new tree and shrub planting will be provided to the rear of / behind the sightlines at the access points to the Site (new roundabout on the A414 and on Rayley Lane) to integrate and create a ‘green’ entrance(s) to the Proposed Development.

E) Landscape Buffer – Woodlands

 The provision of wide landscape woodland ‘buffers’ up to 30 metres in width will be created along the eastern edge of the southern parts of the Site and adjoining the northern edge of the Sports Hub and to the north of the Medical facilities. The design and uses within the buffers is to include predominantly woodland planting of native trees and understorey planting, and possibly low earth mounding (to accommodate some of the spoil from the Proposed Development thereby avoiding vehicle movements to take

245

the material off site), recreational areas such as footpaths / cycle way routes, seating areas, exercise trail(s), educational signage and other features.

F) Tree Line Avenue

 The creation of tree line avenues extending north to south of the A414 roundabout and eastwards from the Rayley Lane roundabout access following the main access spine road through the Site with additional tree lined avenues extending into housing parcels to provide a pleasant and attractive environment for adjoining residential areas and break up the extent of the Proposed Development within the elevated parts of the Site.

G) Sports Hub / Community Facilities

 The provision of a ‘Sports Hub’ within the north eastern parts of the Site north of the A414 including formal sport pitches (senior and junior pitches) and other facilities such as a clubhouse, sport changing facilities and car parking areas located near the A414 boundary. The exact design for the ‘sports hub’ has yet finalised but it is anticipated that this area would be relatively low key and designed in conjunction with the District Council and interested stakeholders.

H) Allotment Gardens

 The provision of an area of allotment garden will be created to the north of the A414 near the Primary School together with a small area of car parking and outdoor storage areas, and watering facilities. It is anticipated these allotments will be used by the new residents and local residents.

Long term Management of Open Spaces and Parkland

 At this stage, the exact management structure and who will manage the landscaped area is not confirmed but discussions are ongoing with the Parish Council regarding the Open Space / SNGS within the central, southern and northern parts of the Site. With regards to the developed parts of the Site, at this stage, it is envisaged that the long- term landscape management of existing and new landscape areas will be undertaken by two management companies. One company would deal with the commercial areas of the Proposed Development whilst the other management company will deal with the residential areas (not adopted by the highway authority) which would include

246

representative from the new residents until such time that the residents take full control of the company when the Proposed Development is complete.  It is likely that Commercial Areas Management Company will oversee the management and maintenance of areas outside the curtilage of the individual commercial buildings, which include the roads, footpaths, street lighting and communal soft and hard landscaped areas; and another Residential Areas Management Company would be set up to oversee the maintenance of the common areas within the residential estate, such as the un-adopted roads and footpaths in the residential areas, communal areas and amenities such as the play areas and equipment, and the green amenity spaces including litter picking and dog waste.  It is envisaged that the majority of the open spaces will be accessible to new and existing residents unless there is a need to limit or prohibit access for safety or other reasons, for instance access to some of the ponds and ecology areas in order to maintain an undisturbed area for wildlife, although information will be provided through the use of interpretation signs to educate residents and users of the open spaces.

Delivery of Embedded Mitigation Measures

10.144 The delivery of the mitigation measures will through the implementation of the Landscape Strategy Plan and implementation of a Landscape and Biodiversity Management Strategy (LBMS). The detail of these strategies will be prepared and agreed with Epping Forest District Council at the appropriate time (following the grant of outline permission and prior to completion of each phase of the Proposed Development). At this stage, it is anticipated that the contents of LBMS would include or may include all or part of the following:

o Introduction – scope and purpose and long term ‘vision’; o Management Aims and Objectives; o Inventory – Existing and Proposed Landscape Components; o Component Descriptions (by area), Landscape Management Objectives and Prescriptions; o Implementation, Work Programme and Funding; and o Monitoring and Review

10.145 The distribution of the proposed open spaces and natural greenspaces within the Proposed Development is shown on the Open Space Strategy / Green Infrastructure Plan forming part of the planning application.

247

Assessment of Landscape Effects

10.146 As part of the baseline assessment of the Site and surrounding area the key landscape receptors that lie within the Study Area have been identified including the Site’s landscape elements, the Site’s landscape patterns / character and well as National / Regional and Local character areas. In addition, consideration is also given to Planning Policy designations within or close to the Site.

10.147 The significance of landscape effects can be described as a consideration of the effects in terms of the sensitivity of the receptor taking account of the its susceptibility and value. The value of landscape receptors is set out earlier in Table 10.2 and in the paragraphs below, consideration is given to the susceptibility of the landscape resource to accommodate the Proposed Development without undue negative consequences. The criteria for the consideration of susceptibility is set out in Table 2.0 of the methodology in Appendix 10.2.

10.148 The Proposed Development would introduce an extensive area of built development, range of residential, business development, transport infrastructure and amenity open space uses, on to the southern parts of the Site whilst school development and community / sports facilities, situated within the northern parts of the Site. This would result in the loss of the former golf course including some areas of existing lower value vegetation and changes to the landform. The land to the south of the Site is allocated for mixed use residential and employment development as part of draft Policy P6 – North Weald Bassett, of the emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version December 2017 (Ref 10.9) and the Site and Proposed Development is capable of being linked to this site and therefore form a logical future extension to this allocation and North Weald Bassett.

10.149 The new dwellings would be similar in height to existing building found in the locality although the elevated parts of the Site, north of the A414, results in these parts of the Site being more susceptible to taller forms of development as this area adjoins the open rural countryside to the north of the Site. The introduction of open space and areas of landscape planting as proposed would assist in assimilating the proposals into the wider landscape to the north west, north and east.

10.150 There would be some localised adjustments to the landform in the southern parts of the Site to accommodate the proposed mixed use predominantly housing development in order to form building platforms, but these would be relative minor and can be accommodated without notable impacts as the changes in level can be disguised within the planting areas whilst more

248

noticeable changes to landform would be required within the northern parts of the Site to create large generally flat areas for the playing fields and sport pitches associated with the Primarily School and Communities / Sports facilities.

10.151 Existing landscape element such as hedgerows and trees would be vulnerable to the housing development and access road proposals but would mitigated by careful design of the housing development to incorporate these into the scheme and by the introduction of new tree and hedgerow planting.

10.152 Taking in to account the above considerations and criteria set out in Table 2.0 of the methodology, the susceptibility of the identified landscape receptors is set out on Table 10.3 below and is as follows

Table 10.3 – Landscape Receptor: Susceptibility

Ref Landscape Receptor Receptor Susceptibility No.

The Site

1 Landscape Elements Moderate

2 Landscape pattern’s / Site character Moderate to High

National Character Area Profiles

3 National Level: NCAP: South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland – Character Moderate to Low Area No.86.

County Character Areas (Essex and Southend on Sea Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment)

4 Character Type ‘B: Glacial Till Plateau’ and ‘B1: Central Essex Farmland’ Moderate LCA

District Landscape Character Areas (Epping Forest Landscape Character Assessment 2010)

5 Ridges and Valley LCT - F5: ‘North Weald’ LCA Moderate to High

Landscape Sensitivity

10.153 The methodology, contained in Appendix 10.2, sets out the factors that need to be considered to assess the sensitivity of landscape receptor and relates to combining judgements of the susceptibility of the receptor (to a specific type of change or development proposed) and the value related to that landscape (receptor), whilst Table 3.0 of the methodology sets out the definition of criteria used for ranking value.

249

10.154 Taking account of the evaluation of landscape value, Table 10.2 above, and the assessment of susceptibility set out above, the landscape sensitivity of the identified landscape receptors within the Study area are categorised in Table 10.4 below.

Table 10.4 – Summary of Landscape Receptor: Sensitivity

Ref Receptor Receptor Landscape Receptor Receptor Value No. Susceptibility Sensitivity

The Site

1 Landscape Elements Moderate to Low Moderate Medium to Low

2 Landscape pattern’s / Site character Moderate Moderate Medium

National Character Area Profiles

3 National Level: NCAP: South Suffolk and Moderate Moderate to Low Medium North Essex Clayland – Character Area No.86.

County Character Areas (Essex and Southend on Sea Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment)

4 Character Type ‘B: Glacial Till Plateau’ and Moderate Moderate Medium ‘B1: Central Essex Farmland’ LCA

District Landscape Character Areas (Epping Forest Landscape Character Assessment 2010)

5 Ridges and Valley LCT - F5: ‘North Weald’ Moderate Moderate to High High to Medium LCA

Magnitude and Significance of Landscape Effects

10.155 This section considers the likely magnitude of landscape effects (change) that would arise from the Proposed Development for the construction period and then assesses / predicts significance of effects for the same period for the identified landscape receptors. The section goes on to consider the magnitude of effects and consequential significance of landscape effects on completion of the Proposed Development on the same receptors.

250

Predicted Landscape Effects – Construction

Landscape Overview

10.156 The construction period of about 10- years comprising 3 phases (subject to being granted planning permission) will generate a number of landscape effects / changes. The principle activities that could influence the fabric, quality and character of the landscape during the enabling works and construction phases of the Proposed Development are set out in Table 10.5 below. The table facilitates a brief consideration of the potential landscape changes (magnitude of landscape effects) for each identified construction activity.

Table 10.5: Construction Phase – Predicted Landscape Changes and Effects

Identified Activity Predicted Changes and Consequent Landscape Effects (Construction Phase)

Loss of landscape elements Loss of former North Weald Golf Course including greens, fairways and (topography / land use / vegetation tees, areas of rough grassland / scrub, sections of hedgerows, cover) due to construction activities individual trees, and groups of trees and belts of trees (mainly on western boundary and on A414) primarily to provide access to various parts of the Site. These will be replaced initially by re-profiled ground levels to create building platforms for dwellings, community and commercial buildings and road improvements, depending on the final design, and a number of water attenuation ponds as well as construction compound sites. The removal of existing land uses will have the consequence of creating a new temporary landscape of differing contrasting landscape character and elements with continual change and activity in differing parts of the application site over the 10-year construction period. However, the important landscape features within or surrounding the Site such as the majority of the hedgerows, number of individual mature trees, and groups of trees found within and on the boundaries of the Site will be protected and retained. The central and southern parts of the Site will remain in open uses as part of the sustainable urban drainage strategy (SuDS), whilst the north western and north eastern parts of the Site will also remain in open uses as semi-natural green space (SNGS / Country Park) although the changes within these parts of the Site will be minimal relating to creation of new wildlife / landscape habitats and introduction of tree and shrub planting and different management regime for the land.

251

Identified Activity Predicted Changes and Consequent Landscape Effects (Construction Phase)

Introduction of new temporary Introduction of new, contrasting temporary elements within the Site elements including materials area which will form a new landscape pattern and temporary change to stockpiles, site compounds, lighting, the character of the Site. The change will result in a temporary fencing / hoardings around the trees / change(s) of differing parts of the Site relating to each phase and to a groups of trees to protect them and to lesser extent within the immediate surrounding area. the perimeter of each parcel of The proposed advanced planting would be of varying width primarily housing / commercial areas / located along the western (Rayley Lane) boundary and northern community facilities etc to be boundary to the Sports Hub and to the north of the Medical facilities of constructed within the different phases the Proposed Development. The proposed planting will have limited of the Site. The introduction of areas effects initially due to the size of plants but as the planting establishes of advanced planting to the western and matures (increasing growth and height) during the 10-year (Rayley Lane) boundary and northern construction it should soften and partially screen the Proposed boundary to the Sports Hub and to the Development as well as adding diversity to the landscape and north of the Medical facilities of the improving wildlife habitats in the area. Proposed Development at the commencement of the first phase of development and ongoing management during the construction period.

Increased movement of plant and Increases in movement and noise levels albeit temporarily will generate vehicles on local roads primarily the a series of shifting patterns across different parts of the Site during the A414 / Canes Lane and Rayley Lane 10- year of the construction phase. As these changes extend over the serving the Site including some crane Site and as differing areas are built out (completed / become activity. operational) the landscape character of the Site will change, some as permanent changes such as the housing / built development and other as temporary changes such as the open space and recreational areas. The use of mobile cranes during the construction period is likely to have a more widespread effect (primarily on local and medium distance views).

Highway improvements because of Temporary disruption of traffic flow patterns (with diversions where the Proposed Development. necessary) primarily during construction of the new road junctions on to the A414 / Canes Lane and Rayley Lane in the initial phase of the Proposed Development, and during later phases on to Vicarage Lane West / Church Lane together with increased traffic during the 10-year construction period may have a consequential landscape effect.

252

10.157 The magnitude of landscape effect (change) resulting from the above would be ‘high to medium’ (i.e. substantial or partial loss / alteration or enhancement of the landscape resource).

10.158 The sensitivity of the Site and surrounding landscape is considered to be ‘medium’ due to its location within the open countryside (and Metropolitan Green Belt) although the majority of the Site, consisting of the former golf course, is of limited intrinsic interest / quality and that the existing field boundary hedgerows, hedgerow trees and trees within the Site are generally in a poor condition.

10.159 However, the natural containment of parts of the Site (especially the southern parts of the Site) provided by topography, surrounding hedgerows and trees ensure that any change to the Site is localised to the vicinity of the Site. The effects of the construction work on the landscape would generally be adverse due to site clearance and the cumulative effects of various construction activities across the Site over the 10 -year construction period (i.e. medium to long term) although some activities will be for a considerably shorter timescale (i.e. short term).

10.160 In accordance with the methodology described in paragraph 10.19 to 10.21, Table 10.6.1 contained in Appendix 10.6; considers the construction effects with embedded mitigation on the landscape character and features during the construction phase of the Proposed Development and assesses their significance. It should be noted that whilst the overall construction works will continue over a medium to long period (10- years), the landscape effects will be relatively short and temporary depending on the stage of Proposed Development in differing parts of the Site.

Conclusions on Landscape Effects – Construction

10.161 In total five potential landscape receptors have been identified and considered in this assessment. Moderate / Substantial to Moderate adverse effects will occur on the Site due to its ‘medium’ sensitivity, the ‘medium’ magnitude of change to elements and features within the Site and ‘medium to high’ change in the landscape patterns and character within the Site and also the local character area within which the Site is located (Ridges and Valley Landscape Character Type and F5-North Weald Landscape Character Area). The effects on the wider surrounding area and surrounding regional / county character areas would reduce marginally to moderate / slight adverse to negligible indirect effects, as effects are localised to the vicinity of the Site.

253

10.162 However, the impact of the construction activities will be for a relatively short period depending on the area of the Site involved and the majority of the activities would be contained within in the western and eastern portions of the southern parts of the Site and south eastern portions of the northern parts of the Site with few of the important / higher quality trees, and / or lengths of hedgerow lost due to the construction works.

10.163 However, over 50% (53.7%) of the Site will remain in open space use including the central, southern and eastern parts of the Site as part of the sustainable urban drainage strategy (SuDS) or as landscape buffers, whilst the north western and north eastern parts of the Site will also remain in open uses as semi-natural green space (SNGS / Country Park) and effectively remain unchanged with relatively few, minor changes occurring apart from the additional drainage ponds and recreational routes.

10.164 The assessment of other receptors and character areas within the wider landscape indicated that the likely construction works will have slight adverse to negligible effects, primarily due to indirect impacts on views towards the Site when seen from the wider area and these are assessed in a later section of this chapter.

10.165 The likely effects of the construction work on landscape / countryside planning policies in the adopted and emerging Local Plan indicates that will have similar effects. However, construction impacts will be moderated by the use of mitigation measures and a large proportion of the Site will remain essentially unchanged or enhanced during the initial stage of the development and most of the existing trees, hedgerows and woodland areas on the boundaries and some within the Site will be retained as part of the landscape proposals for the Site reducing the significance of effect to substantial adverse.

Predicted Landscape Effects – On Completion

Landscape Overview

10.166 Completion of the Proposed Development will result in a number of irreversible landscape changes. The principle activities that could affect the fabric, quality and character of the landscape on completion and in the longer term are set out in Table 10.6 below.

254

Table 10.6: On completion - Predicted Landscape Changes and Effects

Identified Activity Predicted Changes and Consequent Landscape Effects (On Completion)

Introduction and use of new buildings The arrangement of new buildings and associated infrastructure will including rear gardens, communal generate new patterns both in relationship to each other and in their areas / open spaces, fencing and relationship to existing elements. The new landscape character however lighting using a range of building will contrast to a degree with the surrounding landscape due to an increase forms, sizes / types, heights and in urban area / built forms (including building heights / densities) and new densities across the Site with taller arrangement of open spaces / landscape areas and planting within and buildings and densities generally around the Proposed Development. The existing landscape patterns and located within more contained features within the Site have informed the general framework for the southern parts of the Site with a Proposed Developments layout and design and have been retained where transition to lower densities towards possible. the edge of the Site and associated The proposed advanced planting of varying widths, primarily located along lighting. Retaining the central and the western (Rayley Lane) boundary and northern boundary of the Sports southern portions of the southern parts Hub and to the north of the Medical facilities of the Proposed Development, of the Site and western and north would have established and matured to a degree (increasing growth and eastern portions of the northern parts height) during the 10-year construction and at completion some areas of of the Site in ‘open uses’ as public planting should soften and partially screen the Proposed Development as open space / landscape buffers well as adding diversity to the landscape and improving wildlife habitats in together with open areas on the the area. boundaries to the Site with ‘open space areas’ extending into the developed parts of the Site.

Introduction and use of new The introduction of changes to the A414 / Canes Lane and section of infrastructure in the form of a new Rayley Lane including the introduction of a tree lined avenue / open space roundabout on the A414 and on along the new access spine road and linear park / open space adjoining Rayley Lane and lighting layouts, new the stream extending through the Site and provision / layout of minor internal road layout, street / amenity streets / road to serve housing parcels / commercial areas together with furniture, formal and informal play and associated public / private space, associated lighting, and arrangement of recreational areas and arrangement of landscape planting etc will form a new different landscape pattern and new hard and soft landscape areas, character to the Site. water attenuation features, and new The change however, will result in a permanent change to different parts wildlife / ecological habitats and other of the Site and to a lesser degree to the immediate surrounding area. The features. Proposed Development will provide opportunities for landscape enhancements, management of the existing hedgerows and trees, creation of new parks / open spaces / wildlife habitats located within and on the boundaries of the Site and create a transition with the adjoining countryside using landscape buffers to the east and south and a substantial landscaped area of open space occupying the northern parts of the Site.

255

Identified Activity Predicted Changes and Consequent Landscape Effects (On Completion)

Highway access changes / The introduction of a new roundabout to the A414 / Canes Lane with new improvements because of the access roads to the north and south and a new roundabout access road Proposed Development. on Rayley Lane including new street furniture, signage, lighting and change in traffic flow patterns following completion.

10.167 The magnitude of landscape effects (change) would vary from high to medium depending on the location within the Site on completion (Year 1) and therefore the effects would also vary due to the medium sensitivity of the Site and immediate surrounding landscape. The effects of the Proposed Development on the landscape on completion would range from substantial to slight adverse / neutral as the cumulative effects of new urban elements and landscape features will contrast with the surrounding area to the north, west and east.

10.168 In accordance with the methodology described in paragraph 10.19 to 10.21, Table 10.6.2 contained in Appendix 10.6; considers the effects with embedded mitigation on the landscape character and features on completion and assess their significance.

Conclusions on Landscape Effects – On Completion

10.169 In total five potential landscape receptors have been identified and considered in this assessment. Moderate to Substantial adverse effects will occur on the Site and the landscape character of the immediate surrounding area which is to be expected. The character of the Site will inevitably change as the Proposed Development will create a new landscape character type (townscape) and new elements / features and patterns created predominantly built development on parts of the Site which will replace the former golf course use.

10.170 However, the Proposed Development would introduce of new areas of open space, landscape features and areas of new planting enhancing the landscape including retaining the central, southern and eastern portion of the southern parts of the Site in open uses as part of the sustainable urban drainage strategy (SuDS) or landscape buffers, whilst the north western and north eastern portion of the northern parts of the Site will also remain in open uses as semi- natural green space (SNGS / Country Park) which would improve local environment, diversifying wildlife habitats and adding interest to the character of the surrounding area as the early phases of the development and areas of planting / open space will have had up to 10 years in which to establish and mature during the 10-year construction period.

256

10.171 In addition, the Proposed Development would form a logical extension to the proposed allocated development sites (Policy P6 - North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area of the Epping Forest Local Plan Submission Version 2017 (Ref 10.9) to the south of Vicarage Lane West with the A414 road forming a strong well-defined firm and defensible boundary to the housing development and Cripsey Brook forming a logical, robust and firm northern edge to the overall development.

10.172 As with construction effects, the assessment of effects on other receptors and character areas within the wider landscape indicated that the likely construction works will have moderate / slight adverse to neutral effects, primarily due to indirect impacts on views towards the Site when seen from the wider area and these are assessed in a later section of this chapter.

10.173 The likely effects of the Proposed development on completion on landscape / countryside planning policies in the adopted Local Plan (Ref 10.8) and Epping Forest Local Plan Submission Version 2017 (Ref 10.9) indicates that will have similar effects. However, the significance of effect would reduce to substantial adverse following mitigation and a large proportion of the Site (approximately 53.7%) will remain essentially unchanged or enhanced as part of the Proposed Development and most of the existing trees, hedgerows and woodland areas on the boundaries and some within the Site will be retained as part of the landscape proposals for the Site.

Assessment of Visual Effects

10.174 In the baseline section, the main ‘key’ representative viewpoints have been identified and these have been used to assess the visual effects of the Proposed Development. In addition, the few private views from properties adjoining the Site have been considered on the basis that where the property is visible from the Site the resident are likely to obtain a view, but the assessment of likely effects has been made from vantage points and representative views near the property.

10.175 The methodology, contained in Appendix 10.2, set out the factors that need to be considered in assessing the significance of visual effects which can be described as a consideration of the effects in relation to the sensitivity of the visual receptor (i.e. the susceptibility to change arising from the specific Proposed Development to the viewer) and the value that can be attached to the viewpoint / views. The methodology also includes in Tables 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0, the criteria used for ranking visual value, susceptibility, magnitude of visual effect and significance of effect and should be read in conjunction with the section below.

257

Visual Susceptibility

10.176 The susceptibility of a visual receptor to change is mainly a function of the occupation or activity of people experiencing to view and the extent to which their attention or interest may be focussed on the views and the visual amenity they experience from that location.

10.177 The most susceptible visual receptors in this case relate to users engaged in outdoor activity where they have a particular interest in the view with a prolonged viewing opportunity and this would include people on Public Rights of Way within and close to the Site, North Weald Bassett Cemetery, Church Lane Flood Meadow Local Nature Reserve, as well as residents who have views from adjacent properties overlooking the Site.

10.178 Medium susceptibility receptors would include users with a partial interest in their view and their surroundings, although this may not be the main focus of their attention, and this would include users of the local road network, A414 / Canes Lane, Vicarage Lane West, Church Lane, Rayley Lane, Merlin Way, although users of vehicles on these routes are less likely to have an interest in the views as they would be concentrating on other activities and would be assessed as having low susceptibility.

Value of Views

10.179 The value of views is based on a judgement on the recognition of the value attached to particular views e.g. in relation to heritage assets or through planning designations and indicators of value attached to views by visitors e.g. through appearances in guidebooks, shown on tourist maps or interpretation boards and references to them in literature or art. Table 5.0 of the methodology in Appendix 10.2 set out the rankings (High, Moderate or Low) and criteria used to assess the value of views.

10.180 In relation to the Site and surrounding area, there are no designated, recognised or protected views towards or across the Site and therefore views in the locality are likely to be of local importance where the views forms part of the visual experience but in the case of views from the Public Rights of Way and Borden Recreation Ground the importance of the view is likely greater as the viewer experiences prolonged views over open farmland, whilst in views from the Kent Downs AONB and views from private properties adjoining the Site, are considered to have a high value.

258

10.181 Based on the above considerations the sensitivity of visual receptors has been ranked as set out in Table 10.7 below:

Table 10.7 - Key Viewpoints: Summary of Receptor Value, Susceptibility and Sensitivity

Ref Receptor Receptor Receptor Visual Receptor No. Value Susceptibility Sensitivity

1 View from Rayley Lane at the Low Moderate / Low Low existing entrance to North Weald Golf Course looking north eastwards towards the Site. 2 View from Rayley Lane at the Low Moderate / Low Low existing entrance to North Weald Golf Course looking south eastwards towards the Site. 3 View from midway along Rayley Low Moderate / Low Low Lane at the approximate location of the new access to the Proposed Development. 4 View from southern section of Low Moderate Medium Rayley Lane opposite Public Footpath No.31 looking eastwards. 5 Views from section of Merlin Way Low Moderate Medium near the roundabout junction with Rayley Lane looking north eastwards. 6 View from North Weald Bassett Moderate High High Cemetery looking northwards. 7 Views from section of the Public Moderate High High Bridleway No.19 within the southern parts of the Site looking southwards. 8 Views from junction of Vicarage Low / Moderate Moderate / High Low / High Lane West and Church Lane looking northwards. 9 Views from section of Public Moderate High High Footpath No.42 to the south of Vicarage Lane West looking northwards. 10 Views from short section of Public Moderate High High Footpath No.31 on southern boundary of the Site looking northwards. 11 Views from short section of Public Moderate High High Footpath No.31 on southern boundary of the Site looking northwards.

259

Ref Receptor Receptor Receptor Visual Receptor No. Value Susceptibility Sensitivity

12 Views from short section of Public Moderate High High Footpath No.31 on southern boundary of the Site looking northwards. 13 Views from Public Bridleway Moderate High High No.19 within the northern parts of the Site. 14 Views from Public Bridleway Moderate High High No.19 within the northern parts of the Site. 15 Views from Public Bridleway High High Very High No.19 adjoining the northern boundary of the Site. 16 Open views from the layby Low Moderate / Low Low adjoining the A414. 17 Open views from section of Low Moderate / Low Low Vicarage Lane West near its junction with the A414. 18 Open views from the A414 at its Low Moderate / Low Low junction with Vicarage Lane West. 19 View from short section of Byway Moderate High High No.36 looking west. 20 View from section of Public Moderate High High Footpath No.43 near Church Lane Flood Meadow Local Nature Reserve looking north. 21 View from Public Bridleway No.19 High High Very High / Stort Valley Way to the north of the Site looking south. 22 View from Public Bridleway No.19 High High Very High / Stort Valley Way to the north of the Site looking south. 23 View from the A414 (Canes Lane) Low Moderate / Low Low looking south eastwards. 24 View from Public Footpath No.30 High High Very High looking south westwards. 25 View from Public Bridleway No.19 High High Very High / Stort Valley Way to the north of the Site looking south eastwards. 26 View from Public Footpath No.29 High High Very High to the north of the Site looking south eastwards. 27 View from Public Footpath No.20 / High High Very High 27 looking south eastwards. 28 View from Public Footpath No.27 High High Very High looking south westwards. 29 View from Public Footpath 29 High High Very High looking south. 30 View from A414 near junction 7 of Low Moderate / Low Low the M11 motorway.

260

Magnitude of Visual Effects (Change) and Significance / Level of Effects

10.182 Earlier in Tables 10.5 and 10.6, they describe the changes that are likely to arise from the Proposed Development during the construction period and on completion (year 1) whilst the methodology in Appendix 10.2, it set out the factors that need to be considered in determining the magnitude of visual effect (change) including the distance and angle of view, degree of change experienced and duration of change with the thresholds of rankings and examples of the magnitude of effects described.

10.183 The significance of visual effects has been determined using Table 7.0 of the methodology, but it should be noted that the significance of an effect is not absolute and the categories in Table 7.0 are indicative of the set of criteria used to determine the level of effect and the visual effects can either be beneficial and adverse depending on the development proposals and the existing view. It should be emphasised that professional judgement is ultimately applied to determine the level of each effect.

10.184 As with landscape receptors, the likely visual effects have been assessed based on the proposed range building heights of the Proposed Development shown on the Density Parameter Plan and Building Height Parameter Plan (Drawing No.2860 – 013 and 014 respectively). The maximum height of the residential buildings would be up to 2 ½ storeys (12 metres), a maximum building height of 12 metres for non-residential / commercial areas and a maximum building height of 10 metres for educational and community facilities, as described in Chapter 5 of the ES and also in the Design and Access Statement accompanying the planning application.

Predicted Visual Effects and their Significance (Construction and On Completion – Year 1)

Visual Assessment Overview

10.185 Paragraphs 10.118 to 10.127 and Table 10.1 sets out the existing visual baseline appraisal of the Site and surrounding area and the assessment identified a number of potential visual receptors towards the Site from Public Rights of Way (PRoWs - roads, byways, bridleways and footpaths) in the area.

261

10.186 Thirty assessment viewpoints were selected from a comprehensive review of the likely visibility of the Site within the surrounding area. These viewpoints have been chosen to represent typical views from publicly accessible locations and also where the Site can be readily identified by reference to the former North Weald clubhouse and adjoining St Andrew’s Church tower and adjoining North Weald airfield. A brief description of the baseline situation at each of the selected key viewpoints is given at Table 10.1 and the location of the vantage point is shown on Figure 10.7. These viewpoints have been assessed during construction and immediately following completion (Year 1).

10.187 It is accepted that any development would result in significant adverse visual effects on the sensitive receptors in particular those within the Site. However, the effects of the Proposed Development are considered to be generally localised, and therefore of local importance, and the effects will diminish with distance minimising the likely impact of the Proposed Development.

10.188 There are also, in addition to providing a new housing, business / commercial areas and educational / community facilities, a number of proposals which would compensate for the loss of hedgerows and trees arising from the Proposed Development, provide areas of public open space and recreational areas. Approximately 53.7% of the Site area would be provided as open space and landscaped areas and the arrangement / design and uses of these open space areas will also minimise the visual effects of the Proposed Development including the introduction of new landscape planting and wildlife habitats and enhancements.

Conclusions on Assessment of Selected Viewpoints

10.189 Of the thirty viewpoints assessed, the majority, (Viewpoint No’s 1 to 19, 21, 22 and 24) are views within the Site or near or close distance views of or into the Site where the magnitude of change due the Proposed Development would be expected to be readily seen. The remaining viewpoints assessed are middle or long / very long-distance views towards the Site.

10.190 Of the thirty viewpoints assessed, one (Viewpoint No.10) is predicted to experience major substantial adverse visual effects (primarily due to the close proximity of the viewpoint to the Proposed Development and the receptors high sensitivity) with twenty viewpoints (Viewpoint No’s. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28 and 29) predicted to experience significant adverse visual effects (Moderate / Substantial or higher) during construction with a similar number of receptors (Viewpoint No’s. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29) experiencing significant adverse visual effects on completion (Year 1).

262

10.191 This is primarily due to the close proximity of the viewpoints to the Proposed Development i.e. views from Public Footpath No.31 or Public Footpath No.19 where there is a very high or high magnitude of change or very / high or high sensitivity of the viewpoint location, (i.e. views from public footpaths / bridleways including parts of the Stort Valley Way, a long distance recreational route) to adjoining the Site or in longer distance views where the users focus is on the view / surrounding landscape, and the majority of the Site is visible resulting in very high to low magnitude of change. Similar significant effects would occur to views from the few residential properties adjoining the Site as the effects would be major substantial to moderate visual effects depending on the nature and extent of the views from these properties.

10.192 The remaining viewpoints are predicted to experience moderate to slight adverse / negligible visual effects during the construction period and at completion (Year 1) and therefore not significant.

10.193 Table 10.8 below summarizes the visual assessment of the selected viewpoints / receptors with embedded mitigation up to 3 kilometres of the Site.

Table 10.8 Summary of Visual Effects from Selected Viewpoints / Receptors

263

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects with Embedded No. Mitigation

1 View from Rayley Lane at the existing Const Moderate / Substantial Adverse entrance to North Weald Golf Course looking north eastwards towards the Site Year 1 Moderate / Substantial Adverse

2 View from Rayley Lane at the existing Const Slight Adverse / Negligible entrance to North Weald Golf Course looking south eastwards towards the Site Year 1 Slight Adverse / Negligible

3 View from midway along Rayley Lane at the Const Moderate / Substantial Adverse approximate location of the new access junction / road to the Proposed Development Year 1 Moderate / Substantial Adverse

4 View from southern section of Rayley Lane Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse opposite Public Footpath No.31 looking eastwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

5 Views from section of Merlin Way near the Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse roundabout junction with Rayley Lane looking north eastwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

6 View from North Weald Bassett Cemetery Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse looking northwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

7 Views from section of the Public Bridleway Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse No.19 within the southern parts of the Site looking southwards Year 1 Moderate to Slight / Moderate Adverse

8 Views from junction of Vicarage Lane West Const Moderate / Substantial to Slight Adverse and Church Lane looking northwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Slight Adverse

9 Views from section of Public Footpath Const Substantial to Moderate Adverse No.42 to the south of Vicarage Lane West looking northwards Year 1 Substantial to Moderate Adverse

10 Views from short section of Public Footpath Const Major Substantial to Substantial Adverse No.31 on southern boundary of the Site looking northwards Year 1 Major Substantial to Substantial Adverse

11 Views from short section of Public Footpath Const Substantial to Moderate / Substantial Adverse No.31 on southern boundary of the Site looking northwards Year 1 Substantial to Moderate / Substantial Adverse

12 Views from short section of Public Footpath Const Moderate / Substantial to Slight Adverse No.31 on southern boundary of the Site looking northwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

13 Views from Public Bridleway No.19 within Const Substantial to Moderate / Substantial Adverse the northern parts of the Site Year 1 Substantial to Moderate Adverse

264

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects with Embedded No. Mitigation

14 Views from Public Bridleway No.19 within Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse the northern parts of the Site Year 1 Moderate to Slight Adverse

15 Views from Public Bridleway No.19 Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse adjoining the northern boundary of the Site Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

16 Open views from the layby adjoining the Const Slight Adverse to Negligible A414 Year 1 Slight Adverse to Negligible

17 Open views from section of Vicarage Lane Const Slight Adverse to Negligible West near its junction with the A414 Year 1 Slight Adverse to Negligible

18 Open views from the A414 at its junction Const Slight Adverse to Negligible with Vicarage Lane West Year 1 Moderate / Slight Adverse to Negligible

19 View from short section of Byway No.36 Const Moderate to Slight Adverse

Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Slight Adverse

20 View from section of Public Footpath No.43 Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse near Church Lane Flood Meadow Local Nature Reserve looking north Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

21 View from Public Bridleway No.19 / Stort Const Substantial to Moderate Adverse Valley Way to the north of the Site looking south Year 1 Substantial to Moderate Adverse

22 View from Public Bridleway No.19 / Stort Const Substantial to Moderate Adverse Valley Way to the north of the Site looking south Year 1 Substantial to Moderate Adverse

23 View from the A414 (Canes Lane) looking Const Moderate / Slight Adverse to Negligible south eastwards Year 1 Moderate / Slight Adverse to Negligible

24 View from Public Footpath No.30 looking Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse south westwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

25 View from Public Bridleway No.19 / Stort Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse Valley Way to the north of the Site looking south eastwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

26 View from Public Footpath No.29 to the Const Moderate Adverse north of the Site looking south eastwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

265

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects with Embedded No. Mitigation

27 View from Public Footpath No.20 / 27 Const Moderate Adverse looking south eastwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

28 View from Public Footpath No.27 looking Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse south westwards Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

29 View from Public footpath 29 looking south Const Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

Year 1 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate Adverse

30 View from A414 near Junction 7 of the M11 Const Negligible motorway Year 1 Slight Adverse to Negligible

Effects of Proposed Lighting

10.194 The baseline assessment also indicates that the area surrounding the Site is sensitive to the introduction of new lighting, but the Site is already affected to a degree by lighting at night time from development close to and / or adjoining the Site. The baseline assessment concluded that the environmental zone that the Site is located within is Environmental Zone – E2 – Rural (low district brightness).

10.195 The Proposed Development is likely to generate additional lighting over and above the existing situation and this is a matter that will need to be carefully considered at the reserved matters application stage. However, at this stage, the details of the lighting of the Proposed Development are unknown but it is anticipated that the proposed lighting within the Proposed Development will be ‘conditioned’ and any additional lighting will be minimized by careful design, positioning of street lighting and lights to illuminate public areas / buildings and by the use of low lux levels and directional cut off lanterns and fittings that reduce light spill and night glow / pollution. The main source of additional light pollution is likely to be the community facilities and commercial areas as these will require security lighting during the night time periods. However, the use of directional cut off light fittings and introduction of limitation on the evening and late night uses of the community facilities will minimize the likely visual effects on the Site and immediate surrounding wildlife habitats.

10.196 On the basis of the above, it is considered, overall, that on completion of the Proposed Development that the effect of new lighting on the surrounding area would be of moderate to slight adverse significance.

266

ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

10.197 Cumulative impacts result from the combined impacts of multiple developments. The effects from a single development may not be significant on their own but when combined with other developments and their impacts may become significant. Chapter 3 of the ES identifies the committed developments to be assessed as part of this Environmental Statement.

10.198 However, of the six listed committed or development proposals in the area surrounding the Site only two schemes namely the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area of predominantly housing development to the south east of the Site extending up to Vicarage Lane West and Church Lane, and the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area, predominantly employment related development to the south west of the Site and west of Rayley Lane both part of Policy P6 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan Submission Version 2017 (Ref 10.9) would result in additional cumulative landscape and / or visual impacts.

10.199 The other 4 schemes (which relate to allocated sites at Chipping Ongar – Draft Policy P4, (for 599 residential dwellings), Thornwood – Draft Policy P11 (for 124 residential dwellings, High Ongar – Draft Policy P12 (for 10 dwellings) and Coopersale – Draft Policy P12 (for 10 dwellings.) are considered too distant from the Site so there are no combined effects on views and so no cumulative effects are predicted.

Cumulative Effects on Landscape Character

10.200 By reference to Figures 10.1, 10.2 and Appendix 10.5, the Site (North Weald Park) and the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area and North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area lie wholly within the same landscape character area – Ridges and Valleys - No. F5 – North Weald LCA and therefore they will have greater landscape effects on the character of this LCA.

10.201 The proposed development of the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area will slightly encroach into the adjoining countryside with an inevitable change to the current rural landscape character of the area as there will be the loss of a number of landscape elements, and changes to open field pattern and a notable change to the relationship of existing built development to the rural countryside context of the northern parts of North Weald Bassett during construction and on completion of the development(s).

10.202 Similarly the proposed development of the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area will slightly encroach into the adjoining countryside with an inevitable change to the current rural

267

landscape character of the area as there will be the loss of a number of landscape elements primarily the open character of part of the airfield although very few features such existing hedgerows and trees will be affected, there will be a notable change to the relationship of existing built development to the rural countryside context of the northern parts of North Weald Bassett during construction and on completion of the development(s).

10.203 Whilst the combined magnitude of change due to these developments will increase slightly; the cumulative effects will be localised to the locality of each site and the impact of these changes are considered to be minimal (Moderate to Slight Adverse effects and not significant) as a substantial area of the ‘Ridges and Valleys - No. F5 – North Weald’ LCA will remain unchanged and contribute to the wider landscape to the west, east and north of North Weald Bassett. However, this would result in moderate adverse effects on the wider landscape character.

Cumulative Visual Effects

The Site and North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area

10.204 The Site and land to the south comprising the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area lie adjoining each other north and south of Vicarage Lane West. The visual assessment of the Study Area identified that there are a number of views available from the network of footpaths and roads to the west, south west and south of the Site (Viewpoint No.3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 20), locations to the north east (Viewpoint No. 17, 18, and 19) and potential views from viewpoints on elevated ground to the north and north west (Viewpoint No’s. 23, 27 and 30) where the Proposed Development and development on North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area may be seen albeit some of these views are over 1 kilometre from the two sites.

10.205 In addition, and in relation to the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area, views from Public Footpath No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are either near distance views or viewpoints located within or on the edge of the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area and therefore there will be fundamental changes to these views arising from the development of the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area with views towards the Site curtailed or severely restricted by development on the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area.

10.206 In the near and middle views towards the Site, some additional construction activities will be seen on the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area during the construction period and additional rooftops seen once completed. However, the introduction of housing development

268

on the North Weald Masterplan Area site will have a marked apparent change to the views within or on the edges of the site resulting in visual effects ranging from major substantial to moderate adverse during construction and on completion depending on the location of the viewer. In addition, in the longer distance views to the north and north west there will be very limited impacts due to some construction activities such as crane activity during the construction period and a few additional rooftops seen to the south of the North Weald Park site once completed. However, the introduction of appropriate mitigation measures along the edges of the development and within the developed areas will minimize and reduce the visual effects, in the longer term, but some significant impacts will remain especially in relation to some near and middle-distance views of the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area site which will curtail / restrict views towards the Application Site.

10.207 Whilst the combined magnitude of change due to these two developments will increase markedly, primarily due to the greater visual impact of the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area development with limited visual effects due to the Proposed Development on the Site itself; the cumulative effects will be localised to the locality, and as a consequence it is considered overall that the cumulative visual effects will increase with some sections of the network of footpaths experiencing significant visual effects (Major Substantial to Moderate / Substantial adverse effects) whilst the developments will have minimal effects (Moderate to Slight Adverse effects and not significant) on views from the wider surrounding area.

The Site and North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area

10.208 North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area lies to the south east and is separated from the Site by Rayley Lane / Merlin Way and intervening countryside. The visual assessment of the Study Area identified that there are a number of views available from the network of footpaths and roads to the west, south west and south of the Site (Viewpoint No.4, 5, and 9), and potential views from viewpoints on elevated ground to the north and north west (Viewpoint No’s. 22, 23, 26, 27 and 30) where the Proposed Development and development on North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area may be seen albeit some of these views are over 1 kilometre from the two sites.

10.209 In addition, and in relation to the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area, views from Public Footpath No. 4, 5, and 9 looking westwards are either near distance views or viewpoints located on the edge of the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area and therefore there will be fundamental changes to these views arising from the development of the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area.

269

10.210 In the near and middle views towards the Site, some additional construction activities will be seen on the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area during the construction period and additional rooftops seen once completed. However, the introduction of employment development on the North Weald Airfield Area site will have a marked apparent change to the views westwards towards of the site resulting in visual effects ranging from major substantial to moderate adverse during construction and on completion depending on the location of the viewer. In addition, in the longer distance views to the north and north west, there will be very limited impacts due to some construction activities such as crane activity during the construction period and a few additional rooftops seen to the west of the North Weald Park site once completed.

10.211 However, the introduction of appropriate mitigation measures along the edges of the development and within the developed areas will minimize and reduce the visual effects, in the longer term, but some significant impacts will remain especially in relation to some near and longer distance views of the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area site where mitigation measures cannot be provided such as western edge of the development area due to the constraints formed by the use land as an airfield.

10.212 Whilst the combined magnitude of change due to these two developments will increase markedly, primarily due to the greater visual impact of the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area development, with limited visual effects, due to the Proposed Development on the Site itself; the cumulative effects will be localised to the locality, and as a consequence it is considered overall that the cumulative visual effects will increase with some sections of the network of footpaths experiencing significant visual effects (Major Substantial to Moderate / Substantial adverse effects) whilst the developments will have minimal effects (Moderate to Slight Adverse effects and not significant) on views from the wider surrounding area enhancement, Additional mitigation and residual effects

ENHANCEMENT, ADDITIONAL MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

10.213 No further mitigation measures beyond those embedded in the Proposed Development set out in paragraph No’s 10.137 to 10.145 are required because whilst there are significant adverse visual effects anticipated occurring during the construction and on completion of the Proposed Development these are localised to the Application Site and are mainly due to the close proximity of the viewer(s) and users of PRoWs to the Proposed Development. The longer- term effects will be substantially reduced / mitigated by the embedded landscape proposals resulting in no significant effects in the longer term by Year 15.

270

Residual Impacts

10.214 The residual landscape and visual effects relate to the degree of change that will occur after the proposed mitigation measures have taken affect (i.e. once they have established and are maturing). In determining the residual effects, the assumptions set out in paragraph 10.31 have been used.

Residual Landscape Effects

10.215 Table 10.6.3 in Appendix 10.6 considers the landscape effects of the Proposed Development at Year 15 whilst Table 10.9 below sets out, in summary form, a comparison of the landscape effects without and with mitigation and the residual effects resulting from the Proposed Development.

Table 10.9: Summary Comparison of Landscape Effects Year 1 and Year 15.

Ref Landscape Receptors Period Predicted Effects with Predicted Residual Effects No. Embedded Mitigation

The Site

1 Landscape elements Year 1 Moderate Adverse effects Moderate Adverse effects

Year 15 Slight Beneficial effects Slight Beneficial effects

2 Landscape patterns / Site Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Year 1 character Substantial Adverse effects Substantial Adverse effects

Neutral to Slight Beneficial Neutral to Slight Beneficial Year 15 Effects Effects

Landscape Character Areas

National Character Area Profiles 3 National Level: NCAP: Year 1 Neutral / No significant effect Neutral / No significant effect South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland – Year 15 Neutral / No significant effect Neutral / No significant effect Character Area No.86.

County Character Areas (Essex and Southend on Sea Borough Council Landscape Character Assessment) 4 Character Type ‘B: Glacial Moderate / Slight to Slight Moderate / Slight to Slight Year 1 Till Plateau’ and ‘B1: Adverse / Negligible effects Adverse / Negligible effects Central Essex Farmland’ LCA Year 15 Neutral / No significant effect Neutral / No significant effect

271

Ref Landscape Receptors Period Predicted Effects with Predicted Residual Effects No. Embedded Mitigation

District Landscape Character Areas (Epping Forest Landscape Character Assessment 2010) 5 Ridges and Valley LCT - Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 F5: ‘North Weald’ LCA. Moderate Adverse effects Moderate Adverse effects

Neutral / Slight Beneficial Neutral to Slight Beneficial Year 15 effects Effects 10.216 Moderate adverse effects will occur to the landscape elements within the Site with Substantial to Moderate / Substantial adverse effects to the landscape patterns and character of the Site as expected on completion in Year 1. These landscape effects due to the loss of some existing hedgerows and trees and other key elements. However, there would be slightly greater effects on the landscape character of the Site and immediate area due to the loss of the openness of parts of the Site and permanent changes to character and patterns because of the introduction of the Proposed Development i.e. the Site would become suburban / urban in character but would include substantial areas of landscaped open space and planting, approximately 53.7% of the Site area. Similar effects would occur within the immediate locality but predicted effects on the wider landscape character will be moderate / slight to slight adverse to neutral effects.

10.217 The assessment of other receptors and character areas within the wider landscape, including the wider countryside within the B1: Central Essex Farmland’ LCA within which the Site is located indicates that the Proposed Development will have limited direct effects on this character areas with the effects confined to a small localised area in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The resultant residual effects are also predicted to be moderate / substantial to slight adverse effects on the Site and local landscape character area (F5 – North Weald LCA) slight adverse to neutral / negligible effects on the wider surrounding landscape character areas but these effects are not considered significant.

Residual Visual Effects

10.218 Table 10.6.4 in Appendix 10.6 also considered the residual effects of the Proposed Development with embedded mitigation during construction, at Year 1 and at Year 15 and Table 10.10 below sets out in summary form a comparison of the visual effects on the selected key viewpoints / receptors and their residual effects.

272

Table 10.10: Summary Comparison of Selected Key Viewpoints / Receptors.

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects Predicted Residual Visual No. with Embedded Mitigation Effects

1 View from Rayley Lane at the Moderate / Substantial Moderate / Substantial Const existing entrance to North Weald Adverse Adverse Golf Course looking north eastwards towards the Site Moderate / Substantial Moderate / Substantial Year 1 Adverse Adverse

Moderate / Slight to Slight Moderate / Slight to Slight Year 15 Adverse Adverse 2 View from Rayley Lane at the Const Slight Adverse / Negligible Slight Adverse / Negligible existing entrance to North Weald Golf Course looking south Year 1 Slight Adverse / Negligible Slight Adverse / Negligible eastwards towards the Site Year 15 Negligible Negligible

3 View from midway along Rayley Moderate / Substantial Moderate / Substantial Const Lane at the approximate location of Adverse Adverse the new access junction / road to the Proposed Development Moderate / Substantial Moderate / Substantial Year 1 Adverse Adverse

Year 15 Moderate / Slight Adverse Moderate / Slight Adverse

4 View from southern section of Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Rayley Lane opposite Public Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Footpath No.31 looking eastwards Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Year 15 Moderate / Slight Adverse Moderate / Slight Adverse

5 Views from section of Merlin Way Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const near the roundabout junction with Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Rayley Lane looking north eastwards Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Year 15 Moderate / Slight Adverse Moderate / Slight Adverse

6 View from North Weald Bassett Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Cemetery looking northwards Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Slight / Moderate Adverse to Slight / Moderate Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 7 Views from section of the Public Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Bridleway No.19 within the Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse southern parts of the Site looking Moderate to Slight / Moderate to Slight / Year 1 southwards Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Year 15 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

273

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects Predicted Residual Visual No. with Embedded Mitigation Effects

8 Views from junction of Vicarage Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Lane West and Church Lane Slight Adverse Slight Adverse looking northwards Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse Year 15 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible 9 Views from section of Public Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Const Footpath No.42 to the south of Adverse Adverse Vicarage Lane West looking Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Year 1 northwards Adverse Adverse Moderate Adverse to Moderate Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 10 Views from short section of Public Major Substantial to Major Substantial to Const Footpath No.31 on southern Substantial Adverse Substantial Adverse boundary of the Site looking Major Substantial to Major Substantial to Year 1 northwards Substantial Adverse Substantial Adverse Moderate Adverse to Moderate Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 11 Views from short section of Public Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Const Footpath No.31 on southern Substantial Adverse Substantial Adverse boundary of the Site looking Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Year 1 northwards Substantial Adverse Substantial Adverse Year 15 Moderate to Slight Adverse Moderate to Slight Adverse 12 Views from short section of Public Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Footpath No.31 on southern Slight Adverse Slight Adverse boundary of the Site looking Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 northwards Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Year 15 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse 13 Views from Public Bridleway No.19 Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Const within the northern parts of the Site Substantial Adverse Substantial Adverse Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Year 1 Adverse Adverse Moderate / Slight Adverse to Moderate / Slight Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 14 Views from Public Bridleway No.19 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const within the northern parts of the Site Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Year 1 Moderate to Slight Adverse Moderate to Slight Adverse

Moderate / Slight Adverse to Moderate / Slight Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 15 Views from Public Bridleway No.19 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const adjoining the northern boundary of Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse the Site Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate to Slight Adverse / Moderate to Slight Adverse / Year 15 Negligible Negligible 16 Open views from the layby adjoining the A414 Const Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

274

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects Predicted Residual Visual No. with Embedded Mitigation Effects

Year 1 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

Year 15 Negligible Negligible

17 Open views from section of Vicarage Lane West near its Const Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible junction with the A414

Year 1 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

Year 15 Negligible Negligible

18 Open views from the A414 at its junction with Vicarage Lane West Const Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

Moderate / Slight Adverse to Moderate / Slight Adverse to Year 1 Negligible Negligible

Year 15 Negligible Negligible

19 View from short section of Byway Const Moderate to Slight Adverse Moderate to Slight Adverse No.36 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse Year 15 Slight Adverse / Negligible Slight Adverse / Negligible 20 View from section of Public Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Footpath No.43 near Church Lane Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Flood Meadow Local Nature Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Reserve looking north Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Slight / Moderate Adverse to Slight / Moderate Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 21 View from Public Bridleway No.19 / Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Const Stour Valley Way to the north of the Adverse Adverse Site looking south Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Year 1 Adverse Adverse Year 15 Moderate / Slight Adverse Moderate / Slight Adverse 22 View from Public Bridleway No.19 / Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Const Stour Valley Way to the north of the Adverse Adverse Site looking south Substantial to Moderate Substantial to Moderate Year 1 Adverse Adverse Year 15 Moderate / Slight Adverse Moderate / Slight Adverse 23 View from the A414 (Canes Lane) Moderate / Slight Adverse to Moderate / Slight Adverse to Const looking south eastwards Negligible Negligible Moderate / Slight Adverse to Moderate / Slight Adverse to Year 1 Negligible Negligible Year 15 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible 24 View from Public Footpath No.30 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const looking south westwards Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

275

Ref Visual Receptor Period Predicted Visual Effects Predicted Residual Visual No. with Embedded Mitigation Effects

Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse to Moderate Adverse to Year 15 Negligible Negligible 25 View from Public Bridleway No.19 / Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const Stour Valley Way to the north of the Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Site looking south eastwards Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Year 15 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

26 View from Public Footpath No.29 to the north of the Site looking south Const Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse eastwards Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Year 15 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

27 View from Public Footpath No.20 / 27 looking south eastwards Const Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse

Year 15 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse

28 View from Public Footpath No.27 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const looking south westwards Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Year 15 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse 29 View from Public footpath 29 Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Const looking south Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Moderate / Substantial to Moderate / Substantial to Year 1 Moderate Adverse Moderate Adverse Year 15 Slight Adverse Slight Adverse 30 View from A414 near Junction 7 of the M11 motorway Const Negligible Negligible

Year 1 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

Year 15 Slight Adverse to Negligible Slight Adverse to Negligible

10.219 During construction, the minority (approximately 30% of visual receptors) of visual effects are predicted to be moderate or lesser visual effects and are not significant. However,

276

1 receptors (Viewpoint No’s.10) (about 3%) is predicted to experience major substantial visual effects during the construction period, primarily to the close proximity of the users of Public Footpath No.31 to the Proposed Development.

10.220 In addition, a further 5 receptors (Viewpoint No’s. 9, 11, 13, 21 and 22) (about 16% of visual receptors) are predicted to experience substantial visual effects during construction whilst the remainder of receptors (51%) are predicted to experience moderate / substantial adverse effects. This is either due to the close proximity of the viewpoints to the Site and construction activities or due to the very high to high sensitivity of the receptor (public footpaths / bridleways including sections of the Stort Valley Way a long distance recreational route) and open nature and extent of the views from these locations where most of the Site is perceived. The magnitude of change, from these locations, would result in the construction activities associated with Proposed Development forming a noticeable new feature of the views albeit these changes would be temporary and for a relatively short period only.

10.221 The visual effects on completion / Year 1 would be similar as 22 receptors (Viewpoint No’s. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29) (about 73% of visual receptors) would continue to experience moderate substantial or greater visual effects. The visual effects from a short section of Public Footpath No.31 (Viewpoint No.10) would be major substantial. These significant visual effects are mainly due to the close proximity of the vantage point to the Site or due to the very high to high sensitivity of the some of the receptors mainly those located on the Stort Valley Way and public rights of way adjoining the Site where the introduction of the Proposed Development would result in very high to low magnitude of change depending on the location of the receptor and form a visible or recognisable new element / feature in the views and, at this stage, any mitigation measures will do little to screen or curtail / reduce views or provide an appropriate setting to the Proposed Development.

10.222 However, following the establishment and maturing of the landscape proposals, say in 15 years’ time, most of visual effects will be significantly reduced resulting in moderate to lesser visual effects and not significant effects. This is primarily due to the establishment and maturing of landscape planting within the open spaces / linear park / ‘Greenways’ / tree lined avenue(s) within the Site and on the boundaries to the Site which will break up the scale and mass of built development, screen parts of the Proposed Development whilst controlling views of other parts of the Proposed Development. The open spaces and landscape proposals would also increase tree cover and habitat diversity within and throughout the Proposed Development.

277

10.223 The retention of the north western and north eastern parts of the Site in open uses, as semi-natural greenspace / Country Park, and the maturing of areas of planting within this part of the Site will also create a transition from the main developed parts of the Site (area south of the A414) to areas of open countryside the north west, north and north east, as well as screening some parts of the Proposed Development.

10.224 Also, the structural planting along the western and eastern edges of the Proposed Development will assist in screening some parts of the Proposed Development which together with the tree belts along the A414 would form firm defensible edges to the Site and appropriate settlement boundary. In addition, existing residents and regular users of the local network of lanes and public right of way in the area will be accustomed to seeing buildings and activity.

Residual Lighting Effects

10.225 The residual effects of new lighting on the surrounding area would reduce from moderate to slight adverse significance to slight adverse to negligible significance as the proposed planting on the boundaries and within the Proposed Development matures and reduces any light pollution.

Effects on Landscape Planning Policy

10.226 The effects on the landscape related planning policies have been determined in accordance with national and local planning guidance.

10.227 The Site is not located within a designated landscape, such AONB or Area of Special Landscape Value but lies outside the settlement boundary of North Weald Bassett which currently lies about 600 metres to the south of the Site. The adopted Proposal Map of Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan, dated February 2008 (Ref 10.8), therefore identifies the Site as lying in open countryside, which the plan seeks to conserve the countryside character in particular its landscape, wildlife and heritage qualities and protect it for its own sake (Policy CP2 – Protecting the quality of the rural and built environment). However, Policy CP2 does not accord with the NPPF as this does not require the countryside to be protected for its own sake. In addition, the Site also lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt which covers the virtually all the district.

10.228 To the south and east of the Site and south of Vicarage Lane West, the land has been identified for mixed use residential and commercial development as part of the North Weald

278

Masterplan Area, draft Policy P6 – North Weald Bassett, in the emerging Epping Forest District Council Submission Version of the Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9). The Site and Proposed Development lie immediately to the north of Vicarage Lane South (and housing along the lane) and is being promoted as an extension of the proposed allocated site.

10.229 In respect of national guidance, the 2012 NPPF (Ref 10.5), the character and quality of the landscape has been considered in detail. The NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance (Ref 10.6) sets out the Government’s aims of a more sustainable pattern of development with the focus of development on previously developed land, to promote healthy communities including social interaction and inclusive communities as well as conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

10.230 A full assessment of the Proposed Development against the NPPF (also having regard to the National Planning Practice Guidance), the emerging draft NPPF and a number of saved policies contained in the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (2008) (Ref 10.8) and also the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9) is presented in the Planning Statement. In landscape terms, about half of the Site (53.7%) would be given over new character type / area (townscape) which would mean that the landscape in the relevant areas would not be maintained as it is now. However, the remainder of the Site would be laid out for green spaces, the majority of which would become publicly accessible for the first time which is of local benefit.

10.231 In addition, the Planning Statement sets out the assessment of the Proposed Development against Green Belt policy in the NPPF, the emerging draft NPPF, and in the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (2008) (Ref 10.8) and also the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9).

10.232 The assessment acknowledges that the Proposed Development will have some direct adverse landscape effects on the Site itself and its existing features / elements, and on landscape pattern of the immediate area, as well as the local landscape character area within which it is located but the wider effects on landscape character areas and countryside to the northwest, north and east are minimal / negligible. There may, however, be indirect visual effects (assessed as part of the Visual Impact assessment section) but it concludes that, apart from a local near distance viewpoints and some long-distance views, changes due to the Proposed Development will not be significant.

279

10.233 In addition, it is proposed that Proposed Development includes substantial areas of landscape planting and recreational open spaces to ensure that the Proposed Development makes a positive contribution to the local landscape character and visual amenity of the immediate and surrounding area. Consequentially, the longer-term residual effects on landscape planning policy are considered to be of slight beneficial significance.

10.234 On the basis of the assessment contained in this chapter, the Proposed Development would accord with a number of the saved policies contained in the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (2008) (Ref 10.6) and also the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9). The Proposed Development would not result in any significant adverse effects upon the landscape or on visual amenity in the area surrounding the Site apart from views from a section of Public Footpath No’s.31 and 42 near the Site and in longer views from Public Bridleway No.19 and sections of the Stort Valley Way, and includes proposals aimed at minimising / moderating the landscape and visual effect and assimilating the Proposed Development in to the local area.

280

SUMMARY

10.235 In summary, and on the basis of the assessment of landscape and visual receptors set out above, the Proposed Development would result in some adverse local impacts but the longer-term effects on character and visual appearance of the wider open countryside will not be significant or harmful.

Effects on Landscape Character

10.236 The landscape effects of the Proposed Development (paragraphs 10.156 to 10.173) would range from moderate / substantial to moderate adverse effects on landscape elements / patterns and character within the Site during construction and on completion (Year 1) as expected, (due to the loss of some existing hedgerows and trees and loss of the openness of parts of the Site due to the introduction of the Proposed Development) with similar effects occurring within the immediate locality but predicted effects on the wider landscape character will be moderate / slight adverse to negligible.

10.237 The assessment of other receptors and character areas within the wider landscape, including the wider countryside within the ‘B1: Central Essex Farmland’ LCA within which the Site is located indicates that the Proposed Development will have limited direct effects on this character areas with the effects confined to a small localised area in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The resultant residual effects are also predicted to be moderate / substantial to slight adverse effects on the Site and local landscape character area (F5 – North Weald LCA) slight adverse to neutral / negligible effects on the wider surrounding landscape character areas but these effects are not considered significant.

Visual Effects

10.238 The assessment of views and visual effects has been informed by the preparation of two theoretical zone of visual influence plans (one plan without and one plan with visual barriers).

10.239 The first TZVI (Figure 10.5) indicated that the Site and Proposed Development could potentially be visible / seen from an extensive area immediately around the Site, including areas to the south of North Weald Bassett, areas to the west of the M11 motorway near Epping Green approximately 8 kilometres from the Site, areas to the north east between the villages of Moreton and Matching Green approximately 5 to 8 kilometres from the Site and a further outlying area to

281

the east of Chipping Ongar extending northwards from the village Kelvedon Hatch in the south to Willingale in the north approximately 7 to 12 kilometres from the Site.

10.240 The second TZVI (Figure 10.6) with visual barriers included generated a more realistic TZVI indicating that the visibility of the Site and Proposed Development is confined to a significantly reduced area within about 2 to 3 kilometres of the Site although it still indicates potential views from elevated land between the villages of Moreton and Matching Green approximately 5 to 8 kilometres from the Site and much reduced area to the north east of Chipping Ongar approximately 9 to 12 kilometres from the Site where theoretically views of the Site and Proposed Development would be seen.

10.241 The visual assessment concluded that, in the majority of cases, views of the Site were curtailed by local landscape features, such as field hedgerows, small copses, isolated residential properties / farmsteads / hamlets and also changes in topography such as hedge banks adjoining the network of roads and lanes, or the views were at such a distance that the Site was very difficult to perceive and it is considered that the likely impact and visual effect of the Proposed Development would be negligible.

10.242 Based on the above, the assessment of visual effects therefore concentrated on 30 selected ‘key’ representative viewpoints from publicly accessible locations within the defined Study Area and where the Site can be readily identified.

10.243 Of the 30 viewpoints / receptors potentially affected during the construction period of the Proposed Development (paragraphs 10.184 to 10.195), the minority (approximately 30%) of visual effects are predicted to be moderate or lesser visual effects and are not significant. However, 1 receptors (Viewpoint No.10) (about 3%) are predicted to experience major substantial visual effects during the construction period, primarily to the close proximity of the users of Public Footpath No.31 to the Proposed Development.

10.244 In addition, a further 5 receptors (Viewpoint No’s. 9, 11, 13, 21 and 22) (about 16%) are predicted to experience substantial visual effects during construction whilst the remainder of receptors (51%) are predicted to experience moderate / substantial adverse effects. This is either due to the close proximity of the viewpoints to the Site and construction activities or due to the very high to high sensitivity of the receptor (public footpaths / bridleways including sections of the Stort Valley Way a long distance recreational route) and open nature and extent of the views from these locations where most of the Site is perceived. The magnitude of change, from these locations, would result in the construction activities associated with Proposed

282

Development forming a noticeable new feature of the views albeit these changes would be temporary and for a relatively short period only.

10.245 The visual effects on completion / Year 1 would be similar as 22 receptors (Viewpoint No’s. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29) (about 73%) would continue to experience moderate substantial or greater visual effects. The visual effects from a short section of Public Footpath No.31 (Viewpoint No.10) would be major substantial. These significant visual effects are mainly due to the close proximity of the vantage point to the Site or due to the very high to high sensitivity of the some of the receptors mainly those located on the Stort Valley Way and public rights of way adjoining the Site where the introduction of the Proposed Development would result in very high to low magnitude of change depending on the location of the receptor and form a visible or recognisable new element / feature in the views and, at this stage, any mitigation measures will do little to screen or curtail / reduce views or provide an appropriate setting to the Proposed Development.

Longer Term Effects

10.246 With regard to longer-term residual effects (paragraphs 10.214 to 10.221), following the establishment and maturing of the landscape proposals, say in 15 years’ time, most of visual effects will be significantly reduced resulting in moderate to lesser visual effects and not significant or beneficial / positive effects. This is primarily due to the establishment and maturing of landscape planting within the open spaces / linear park / ‘Greenways’ / tree lined avenue(s) within the Site and on the boundaries to the Site which will break up the scale and mass of built development, screen parts of the Proposed Development whilst controlling views of other parts of the Proposed Development. The open spaces and landscape proposals would also increase tree cover and habitat diversity within and throughout the Proposed Development.

10.247 The residual effects of new lighting on the surrounding area would reduce from moderate to slight adverse significance to slight adverse to negligible significance as the proposed planting on the boundaries and within the Proposed Development matures and reduces any light pollution.

Cumulative Effects

10.248 The assessment also assessed the cumulative effects of the committed or proposed development proposals in the area surrounding the Site (paragraphs 10.197 to 10.212). This indicated that two schemes (the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area and the North Weald

283

Airfield Masterplan Area – draft Policy P6 of the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9) would result in additional cumulative landscape and visual impacts arising from the Proposed Development. The other schemes are either too distant from the Site so there are no combined effects on views, so no cumulative effects are predicted.

Overall Conclusions

10.249 In conclusion, and on the basis of the assessment contained in this chapter, the Proposed Development would accord with a number of the saved policies contained in the Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (2008) (Ref 10.8) and also the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9).

10.250 It is acknowledged that there will be some significant adverse landscape and visual effects during construction and on completion on local receptors but the Proposed Development would not result in any significant adverse effects upon the landscape or on visual amenity in the area surrounding the Site apart from views from a section of Public Footpath No.31 and No. 42 near to the Site and in longer views from Public Bridleway No.19 and sections of the Stort Valley Way to the north of the Site, and includes proposals aimed at minimising / moderating the landscape and visual effect and assimilating the Proposed Development in to the local area.

Table 10.11: Landscape and Visual Summary Table

Potential Effect Nature of Embedded Significance Residual Effect Mitigation/ Effects (Permanent or Enhancement Temporary) Measures Construction Effects on Landscape Permanent Retention of Moderate Moderate Elements / Features hedgerows, Adverse effects Adverse effects trees and protection measures Effects on Landscape Permanent Retention of Moderate / Moderate / Patterns / Site hedgerows, Substantial Substantial Character trees and Adverse effects Adverse effects protection measures

284

Potential Effect Nature of Embedded Significance Residual Effect Mitigation/ Effects (Permanent or Enhancement Temporary) Measures Effects on Local Permanent Retention of Moderate / Moderate / Character Area hedgerows, Substantial to Substantial to trees and Moderate Moderate protection Adverse effects Adverse effects measures. Control of mobile cranes, and location of compounds. Use of hoarding to reduce views Effects on wider Permanent None Moderate / Moderate / Landscape Character Slight to Slight Slight to Slight Areas Adverse / Adverse / Negligible Negligible effects effects Effects on Near Temporary Retention of Major Major Distance Views hedgerows, Substantial to Substantial to trees and Slight Adverse Slight Adverse protection effects effects measures. Control of mobile cranes, and location of compounds. Use of hoarding to reduce views Effects on Middle Temporary Existing Moderate / Moderate / Distance Views planting Substantial to Substantial to retained. Slight Adverse / Slight Adverse / Control of Negligible Negligible mobile cranes, effects effects and location of compounds. Use of hoarding to reduce views. Retain northern parts of the Site in open uses

285

Potential Effect Nature of Embedded Significance Residual Effect Mitigation/ Effects (Permanent or Enhancement Temporary) Measures Effects on Long Temporary Existing Moderate / Moderate / Distance Views planting Substantial to Substantial to retained. Moderate Moderate Control of Adverse / Adverse / mobile cranes, Negligible Negligible and location of effects effects compounds. Use of hoarding to reduce views. Retain northern parts of the Site in open uses

Completed Proposed Development (Year 1) Effects on Landscape Permanent Sensitive Moderate Moderate Elements / Features design and Adverse effects Adverse effects layout. Introduction of new planting to site boundaries, provision of open space and habitats. Ongoing management. Effects on Landscape Permanent Sensitive Substantial to Substantial to Patterns / Site design and Moderate / Moderate / Character layout. Substantial Substantial Introduction of Adverse effects Adverse effects new planting to site boundaries, provision of open space especially south facing slope and new habitats. Ongoing management.

286

Potential Effect Nature of Embedded Significance Residual Effect Mitigation/ Effects (Permanent or Enhancement Temporary) Measures Effects on Local Permanent Sensitive Moderate / Moderate / Landscape Character design and Substantial to Substantial to Area layout. Moderate Moderate Introduction of Adverse Adverse new planting to effects. effects. site boundaries, provision of open space especially south facing slope and new habitats. Ongoing management. Effects on Landscape Permanent None Moderate / Moderate / Character Areas Slight to Slight Slight to Slight Adverse / Adverse / Negligible Negligible effects effects Effects on Near Permanent Sensitive Major Major Distance Views design and Substantial to Substantial to layout. Existing Slight Adverse / Slight Adverse / planting Negligible Negligible retained and effects effects introduction of new planting and open space. Building set back into the site Effects on Middle Permanent Sensitive Substantial to Substantial to Distance Views design and Slight Adverse Slight Adverse layout. Existing to Negligible to Negligible planting effects effects retained and introduction of new planting and open space especially south facing slope and new habitats.

287

Potential Effect Nature of Embedded Significance Residual Effect Mitigation/ Effects (Permanent or Enhancement Temporary) Measures Effects on Long Permanent Sensitive Moderate / Moderate / Distance Views design and Substantial to Substantial to layout. Existing Slight Adverse Slight Adverse planting to Negligible to Negligible retained and effects effects introduction of new planting and open space especially south facing slope and new habitats

288

REFERENCES

Ref 10.1: Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, April 2013 “The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition “(GLVIA3) - Spons Ref 10.2: The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage April 2002 “Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland” - Countryside Agency Publications Ref 10.3: The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage: Undated “TOPIC PAPER 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity” - Countryside Agency Publications. Ref 10.4: BSI Standards Publications 2012, “BS 5837:2012 – Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations”, BSI Standards Limited Ref 10.5: Communities and Local Government (DCLG) March 2012 “National Planning Policy Framework” - Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Ref 10.6: Communities and Local Government (DCLG) March 2014 “National Planning Policy Guidance” Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Ref 10.7: Communities and Local Government (DCLG) March 2018 “Draft revised National Planning Policy Framework” - Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Ref 10.8: Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), February 2008, Epping Forest District Council Combined Local Plan (1998) and Local Plan Alternations (2006) and its saved policies, - Epping Forest District Council Ref 10.9: Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), December 2017, Epping Forest District Council Submission Version Local Plan, - Epping Forest District Council Ref 10.10: Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) January 2010, Epping Forest Landscape Studies – Landscape Character Assessment, Epping Forest District Council Ref 10.11: Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), January 2010, Settlement Edge Landscape Sensitivity Study, Epping Forest District Council Ref 10.12: Essex County Council (ECC) and Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA), November 2005, Essex Design Guide, Essex County Council and Essex Planning Officers Association; Ref 10.13: Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), Interactive Planning Constraints Map http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building/planning- development-control/planning-interactive-map Undated, Epping Forest District Council. Ref 10.14: Historic England (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection /process/national-heritage-list-for-england/)

289

Ref 10.15: Natural England http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx Ref 10.16: Natural England, April 2014 “National Character Areas – NE515: NCA 86 – ‘South Suffolk and North Essex Clayland’ - Natural England Publications http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5095677797335040?category=587130 Ref 10.17: Essex County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council / Chris Blandford Associates, February 2003, ‘Essex Landscape Character Assessment’, - Essex County Council and Southend on Sea Borough Council Ref 10.18: Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), Green Belt Review – Stage One, September 2015, Epping Forest District Council. Ref 10.19: Epping Forest District Council / Land Use Consultants, August 2016, Epping Forest District Green Belt Assessment: Stage 2, Epping Forest District Council. Ref 10.20: Countryside Commission, July 1997: “Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice” - out of print - only available online www.communities.gov.uk The National Archives http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/ar chived/publications/planningandbuilding/lighting

Ref 10.21: Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) 2011, “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” (GN01:2011) ILP

290

11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

INTRODUCTION

11.1 This Chapter of the ES assesses the likely levels of significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of Ecology and Nature Conservation and incorporates a summary of the Baseline Ecological Assessment, which is included as Appendix 11.1.

11.2 The Chapter describes the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions at the Site and its surroundings; the likely significant environmental effects; the mitigation measures required to prevent or reduce any significant adverse effects; the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed; any compensation measures to offset significant residual effects; and enhancement measures to provide gains in biodiversity. This Chapter has been prepared by Aspect Ecology. Aspect Ecology’s established team is highly qualified in all areas of ecological planning and our ecologists are experienced in undertaking survey work within relevant terrestrial and aquatic habitat types. This Chapter has been subject to review by a member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and as such accords with CIEEM’s Code of Professional Conduct.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Zone of Influence

11.3 To inform the scope of the assessment, consideration has been given to the zone of influence of the Proposed Development. The zone of influence is defined as the area over which ecological features may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by the proposed project and associated activities. The extent of such changes will typically reduce over distance, and whether effects are experienced is dependent on the sensitivity of individual habitats, species or other ecological features, such that it is difficult to define a specific zone of influence which captures all potential effects arising from the Proposed Development. As such, two broad zones are identified:

 A primary zone of influence largely relating to the Site itself, incorporating habitats and associated species directly affected by the development footprint and associated works (in terms of habitat loss or damage). This zone also includes areas affected by factors such as noise, vibration, lighting, dust and pollution, the effects of which will be focused within the nearby surrounds (i.e. within 100m) of the development. Survey work has specifically focused on this

291

area, to allow an assessment of habitats and species directly affected by the Proposed Development.  Beyond this, a wider (or secondary) zone of influence exists, where ecological features may be subject to wider scale effects such as recreational disturbance, air pollution from traffic or water pollution within the wider river catchment. The assessment of features within this zone is largely based on background information identifying ecological designations, known habitats or species populations of importance which could be sensitive to such wider scale effects.

Consultation

11.4 The Proposed Development and the preparation of this Chapter has been informed by various scoping and consultation activities. A summary of consultations relating to ecology is set out in Table 11.1 below.

Table 11.1: Summary of consultations relating to ecology

Body / Form of Summary of comments Organisation consultation

Scoping letter to EFDC dated 24th April 2017 and Epping Forest subsequent email Agrees proposed scope of surveys and methodologies District Council correspondence and proposed approach to assessment and mitigation, (EFDC) (see Annex 2 of including designated sites and potential effects to be (Abigail Baseline considered. Oldham) Ecological Appraisal at Appendix 11.1)

292

Body / Form of Summary of comments Organisation consultation

Notes that Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys should be submitted as part of the application. Includes a summary of comments from other consultees:  Environment Agency have requested that consideration is given to measures to prevent the spread of Himalayan Balsam, in addition to other invasive plant species; Screening and EFDC  Natural England have provided advice on scoping opinion (Graham assessment requirements and indicate that dated 5th February Courtney) consideration should be given to designated sites, 2018 protected species and habitats and species of principal importance. The response specifically notes proximity to Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and potential for effects as a result of recreational pressure and air pollution, setting out that the assessment should include a full assessment of the effects of development on the interest features and identify any necessary mitigation measures.

Assessment Methodology

11.5 The methodology utilised for the survey work can be split into three main areas: desktop study, habitat survey, and faunal survey. Further details on survey methodologies are provided in the full Baseline Ecological Assessment in Appendix 11.1, and a summary is set out below:

Desktop Study

11.6 In order to compile background information on the Site and its immediate surroundings, a number of recording organisations and online data sources were consulted:

 Essex Wildlife Trust Biological Records Centre (EWTBRC);  Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database; and  Woodland Trust database of notable, veteran and ancient trees.

293

Habitat Survey

11.7 The Site was initially subject to habitat survey during December 2016 in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the land contained within the boundaries of the Site and to identify the main habitats present, based on extended Phase 1 survey methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010) (Ref. 11.1), as recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. Numerous additional visits were undertaken as part of faunal surveys during April to September 2017, allowing habitat information to be gathered within the optimal period for botanical surveys.

11.8 For pond and hedgerow habitats in particular, detailed habitat descriptions and species lists were recorded to allow a comprehensive assessment of these habitat types.

Faunal Surveys

11.9 General faunal activity, such as mammals or birds observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys was recorded. Specific Phase 2 survey work was also undertaken for protected and notable species, as set out at Table 11.2 below. Further detail on survey methodologies is provided in the full Baseline Ecological Assessment in Appendix 11.1.

Table 11.2: Summary of Phase 2 faunal surveys undertaken at the site

Date of Faunal group Survey methodology Guidance surveys

An examination of the trees within and ‘Bat Mitigation adjacent to the site was undertaken to Guidelines’ search for the presence of features (English Nature, Conducted which could be of potential value to 2004) (Ref. 11.2); during roosting bats such as splits, cracks, rot ‘Bat Surveys – Bats (tree Phase 1 holes, coverings of ivy, peeling bark or Good Practice investigations) survey similar. The potential for the trees to Guidelines’ (Bat (December support roosting bats was ranked in Conservation 2016) accordance with the criteria set out in Trust, 2012) (Ref. the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines 11.3); Bat (BCT, 2016). Surveys for Professional Conducted Ecologists – during Good Practice Bats (building Buildings within the site were subject to Phase 1 Guidelines” Bat inspections specific external investigations for bats. survey Conservation (December Trust, 2016) (Ref. 2016) 11.4).

294

Date of Faunal group Survey methodology Guidance surveys

A series of dusk and dawn activity surveys were undertaken across the site to gather information on the use of the site by foraging and commuting bats. Conducted This involved surveyors walking a Bats (manual between predetermined transect route, recording activity May and all bat activity. The transect routes were surveys) September designed to cover all the habitat types 2017 within the survey area. The site was covered by three transects, surveyed on three occasions (in May, July and September).

Static bat detectors were set out in 6 locations across the site to monitor levels of bat activity. Detectors were left Conducted Bats out for a number of days on three between (automated separate occasions at each location (in April and activity April/May, June/July and September), September surveys) with data collected and analysed for up 2017 to 5 consecutive nights during each survey period.

Conducted during ‘Occasional The entire survey area and immediate Phase 1 Publication No.9 surrounds were surveyed for evidence survey – Surveying of Badger setts and activity, including Badger (December Badgers’ presence of well-worn paths, push- 2016) and (Mammal throughs, snagged hair, footprints, subsequent Society, 1989) latrines and foraging signs survey (Ref. 11.5) visits

A survey of breeding birds was undertaken over three visits to the site, involving walking a route and recording all birds either seen or heard. These ‘registrations’ are recorded on a plan of British Trust for the Site using standard BTO codes for Conducted Ornithology’s Breeding each bird species. This survey between (BTO) Common Birds methodology has the advantage over April and Bird Census other techniques of mapping each June 2017 methodology registration to a specific point within the (Ref. 11.6) site and this therefore illustrates those areas and habitats containing the highest density and diversity of bird species.

295

Date of Faunal group Survey methodology Guidance surveys

Adapted from A single walked transect was Conducted SNH’s wintering Wintering undertaken to provide an assessment of in January bird survey Birds wintering bird activity. 2017 methodology (Ref. 11.7)

19 waterbodies are present within the site, 4 of which were considered to be unsuitable for Great Crested Newt and ‘Natural England as such were not subject to further Standing Advice: survey. The remaining waterbodies Great Crested within the site, along with two offsite Newts’ (Ref. ponds were subject to specific survey 11.8); ‘Great for Great Crested Newt. Ponds P3, P5- Crested Newt P7, P12-P15 and P22 were subject to Mitigation environmental DNA (eDNA) survey, in Guidelines’ Conducted which water samples were collected (English Nature Great Crested between from the pond and analysed for Great 2001) (Ref. 11.9); Newt April and Crested Newt DNA. Ponds P1, P2, P8 ‘Analytical and June 2017 and P16-P20 were subject to full survey Methodological work. This involved four or six visits to Development for each pond to assess the population Improved class of Great Crested Newt using a Surveillance of combination of methods, including torch Great Crested surveys, bottle-trapping, egg searching Newt’ (Biggs et and netting. Ponds P7 and P14 were al. 2010) (Ref. also subject to full surveys on two 11.10) occasions following the results of the eDNA analysis.

A number of artificial refugia in the form of a total of 300 50x50cm squares of ‘Herpetofauna thick roofing felt were strategically Workers Manual’ placed in suitable reptile habitat Conducted (JNCC, 1998) throughout the site. These were between (Ref. 11.11) and Reptiles checked at appropriate times of the day April and ‘Advice Sheet 10: in suitable weather conditions to June 2017 Reptile Survey’ establish if they were being utilised by (Froglife, 1999) reptile species. In addition, reptiles were (Ref. 11.12) also actively searched for in suitable locations throughout the site.

Evaluation of Ecological Baseline

11.10 The evaluation of ecological features and resources should be based on sound professional judgement whilst also drawing on the latest available industry guidance and research. The approach taken in this report is based on that described in ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland’ published by the Chartered Institute of

296

Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) in 2016 (Ref. 11.13) whereby important ecological features are identified, and these are considered within a defined geographical context using the following frame of reference:

 International;  National;  Regional;  County;  District;  Local;  Site (not of elevated importance at a local level).

11.11 Features considered to be of importance at the site level only have been scoped out of this assessment (with the exception of protected species which are considered in terms of mitigation and any legislative requirements).

11.12 Further details on this approach and the criteria used for evaluation are provided in the Baseline Ecological Appraisal at Appendix 11.1.

Assessment of Impacts and Significance

11.13 The CIEEM publication ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland’ (2016) also sets out a methodology for the assessment of potential effects arising from development. These methods are followed which can be summarised as below.

11.14 Using the agreed parameters of the scheme, likely effects are determined with reference to aspects of the ecological structure and function on which the feature or resource depends. This includes factors such as the available resources, ecological processes, human influences, historical context, ecological relationships, ecological role or function and ecosystem properties. Based on this context, the nature of the effect is characterised and considered under the following parameters:

 Positive or negative – will the activity lead to an adverse, beneficial or neutral effect;  Extent – the size or amount of an impact, the area of habitat or number of individuals affected;

297

 Duration – the time for which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery or replacement, i.e. short-term or long-term;  Reversibility – an effect may be irreversible in that recovery is not possible within a reasonable timescale or there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it, i.e. permanent or temporary;  Timing and frequency – some changes may only cause an impact if they coincide with critical life-stages or seasons, whilst frequent events may cause a greater effect than a single event.

11.15 Based on these parameters, the scale of effect (or magnitude) can be summarised as follows. This is in relation to adverse effects, although a similar scale can be applied to beneficial effects.

Table 11.3: Assessment of scale of effect

Magnitude Effect on the Receptor

A permanent or long-term effect on the receptor, which may result in Substantial severe damage to key characteristics and implications for the integrity of the receptor or its conservation status.

Impacts resulting in partial loss of or damage to a receptor, which could Moderate have implications for the integrity of the receptor or its conservation status.

Short-term or temporary impacts resulting in only minor loss of or damage Slight to a receptor, unlikely to have implications for the integrity of the receptor or its conservation status.

No effect or only a short-term reversible impact with no long-term effect on Negligible the receptor.

11.16 Based on the nature of the effect, an assessment is then made whether the effect on a habitat or species is likely to be ecologically ‘significant’. CIEEM guidance defines a ‘significant effect’ as “an effect that either support or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological features’ or for biodiversity in general”, going onto state that “significant effects encompass impacts on structure and function of defined sites, habitats or ecosystems and the conservation status of habitats and species (including extent, abundance and distribution).”

11.17 Significance is also assessed at an appropriate geographic scale. For example, a significant effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) would be of national significance.

298

Notwithstanding this however, consideration is also given to whether an effect is significant at a scale below the geographic context in which the feature is considered important.

11.18 For some ecological features (notably designations), there may be an existing statement of the conservation status of a feature and objectives and targets against which the effect can be judged. For example, SSSIs are assessed under six condition categories, namely favourable, unfavourable recovering, unfavourable no change, unfavourable declining, part destroyed, and destroyed. An effect that exerts a change between these condition categories would be considered as significant.

11.19 Where no existing statement of conservation status is available, an assessment is made against the existing status and condition of the habitat or species population, as recorded by survey data and background information, taking into account the level of ecological resilience or existing conditions that a habitat or species is currently subject to. An effect resulting in a long- term change to the existing background population trend or status at a given geographical level would be considered as significant. In this regard, a significant beneficial impact could be defined as one that prevents or slows an existing decline in the favourable conservation status of a habitat or population as much as one that permitted a population or habitat area to increase.

11.20 The likelihood or uncertainty of an effect occurring as predicted is also considered. To assist with defining certainty, the following scale is used (with broad confidence levels indicated in percentage terms):

 Certain/near-certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher;  Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%;  Uncertain: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%;  Extremely unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

Limitations of the Assessment

11.21 All of the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent during different seasons. The Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken outside the optimal season, however, numerous subsequent visits to the site were conducted during the optimal season, during which features of botanical interest were noted. In any event, no habitats of particular interest were identified during Phase 1 survey work which would require further botanical survey

299

work. Therefore, the surveys undertaken are considered to allow a robust assessment of the ecological interest of the Site to be made.

11.22 The specific Phase 2 surveys were undertaken at the appropriate times of year and during suitable weather conditions to an appropriate level of survey effort. Any specific limitations are noted in the accompanying Baseline Ecological Appraisal (see Appendix 11.1), although no significant constraints were experienced.

300

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

Policy Background

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 11.4)

11.23 Guidance on National Policy for biodiversity and geological conservation is provided within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2012. The NPPF confirms the Government's commitment to conserving and enhancing the natural and local environment through the planning system, including specific reference to maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity.

11.24 The NPPF requires local authorities to fully consider the effect of planning decisions on biodiversity and geodiversity, and ensure that appropriate weight is attached to statutory nature conservation designations, protected species and biodiversity, and geological interests within the wider environment. It also considers the potential biodiversity and geological conservation gains which can be secured within developments, including the use of planning obligations.

11.25 National policy therefore implicitly recognises the importance of biodiversity and that with sensitive planning and design, development and conservation of the natural heritage can co-exist and benefits can, in certain circumstances, be obtained.

11.26 The draft revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2018. This proposes some minor changes to the policy relating to the natural environment, although the overall principles remain the same, and the proposed amendments are not considered to result in any changes to the evaluation of the Site or assessment of the Proposed Development.

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (Ref. 11.15)

11.27 The National Planning Policy Guidance provides additional detail and guidance on aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework. In respect of the Natural Environment, the NPPG places additional emphasis on biodiversity enhancement and highlights the importance of ecological networks and landscape habitat features.

301

Local Planning Policy

11.28 Epping Forest District Council is currently in the process of preparing a new Local Plan which will update the existing Local Plan (prepared in 1998, with associated 2006 Alterations documents). A draft version of the new Local Plan is available and as such, both of these documents have been reviewed, as detailed below.

Epping Forest District Council: Combined Policies of Epping Forest District Council Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) (Ref. 11.16)

11.29 The current Epping Forest Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) include five policies relating to nature conservation:

11.30 Policy NC1 relates to SPAs, SACs and SSSIs and states “The Council will refuse planning permission for any development or land use change which could directly or indirectly destroy or adversely affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The Council will comply with the U.K.'s international obligations for those SSSIs designated or proposed as Special Protection Areas or Special Areas of Conservation.”

11.31 Policy NC2 relates to County Wildlife Sites, and states “Development or land use change which could directly or indirectly destroy or have an adverse effect upon a County Wildlife Site will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the reasons for the proposal clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic nature conservation value of the site or feature.”

11.32 Policy NC3 builds on this by stating any such damage would need to be mitigated for though “satisfactory arrangements to be made for an alternative habitat of at least equivalent wildlife value.”

11.33 Policy NC4 is related to the protection of established habitats of local value stating “Development proposals will be expected to make adequate provision for the protection, enhancement and suitable management of established habitats of local significance for wildlife. Such provision may be more stringent when there are known to be protected species either on the site or likely to be affected by the development.”

11.34 Lastly, Policy NC5 promotes Nature Conservation Schemes, which have an aim to establish favourable land management at sites throughout the District, including through the creation of new habitats.

302

Epping Forest District Council: Local Plan (Submission Version 2017) (Ref. 11.17)

11.35 The emerging Epping Forest Local Plan (Submission Version 2017) includes a number of draft policies which are considered to be relevant to the proposed development, as summarised below.

11.36 Policy SP7 (the natural environment, landscape character and green and blue infrastructure) states “the Council will protect the natural environment”, opportunities will be sought within proposals to create a “comprehensive network of green and blue corridors and places”, and that the council will expect developments “to contribute towards the delivery of new green and blue infrastructure which develops and enhances a network of multi-functional green and blue assets throughout the District”.

11.37 Policy DM1 (habitat protection and improving biodiversity) states that developments should seek a net gain in biodiversity, including through the “provision of connections between physical and function networks”, must “protect and enhance natural habitats, areas and corridors for biodiversity” and “should not negatively impact upon areas of international or national designation.” It goes onto state that development causing significant detrimental effects on local designations will only be permitted when the benefits outweigh the value of the ecological feature affected, and if there are no alternatives to the proposals. If required, mitigation, compensation or offsetting should be provided. Lastly, this policy states that where any protected or priority species, or priority habitat, will be affected by the proposals, this must be informed by full assessments in order to establish the extent of the impact.

11.38 Policy DM2 (Epping Forest SAC and the Lee Valley SPA) states that all new residential developments “likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other development in these areas, will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects.” This policy goes on further to identify ways to mitigate against potential or identified adverse effects, including through the provision of a “meaningful proportion of Natural Green Space or access to Natural Green Space”.

11.39 Policy DM5 (green and blue infrastructure) is concerned with development design and states that proposals should demonstrate they have been designed to “retain and, where possible, enhance existing green infrastructure, including trees, hedgerows, woods and meadows, green lanes, ponds and watercourses” and to incorporate and enhance green links.

303

National and Local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)

11.40 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan, published in 1994 (Ref. 11.18), was the UK Government’s response to signing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This has now been replaced by the new UK post-2010 Biodiversity Framework which focuses on the 4 individual countries of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

11.41 Within England, the latest biodiversity strategy is entitled, 'Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services', published by Defra on 19 August 2011 with a progress update provided in July 2013 (Ref. 11.19). This provides a comprehensive picture of how we are implementing our international and EU commitments and sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade.

11.42 The approach is informed by the list of species and habitats of ‘Principal Importance’ under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Ref. 11.20) which largely reflects those species and habitats previously listed under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) that occur in England.

11.43 A number of local BAPS have also been produced, identifying priorities and targets for action at a local level. This includes the Essex Biodiversity Action Plan Species and Habitats, produced by the Essex Biodiversity Project (Ref. 11.21).

11.44 Reference to habitats and species listed as Priority Habitats and Species under Section 41 of the NERC Act and local BAPs is made, where relevant, in the following sections of this Chapter.

Key Legislation

11.45 The applicable legislative framework for ecology and nature conservation is summarised as follows:

 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2017 (Ref. 11.22);  Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 11.23);  The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 (Ref. 11.24);  The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 (Ref. 11.25);  Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2017 (Ref. 11.26);

304

 The Hedgerows Regulations, 1997 (Ref. 11.27);  The Protection of Badgers Act, 1992 (Ref. 11.28); and  The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, 1996 (Ref. 11.29).

11.46 Discussion of this legislation is provided in relation to particular ecological features and fauna in the relevant sections of this Chapter and the Baseline Ecological Assessment (see Appendix 11.1).

305

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Ecological Designations

11.47 Ecological designations that occur within the local area are summarised in Table 11.4 below and at Figure 11.1 (Appendix 11). Further detail is provided in Section 3 of the Baseline Ecological Assessment at Appendix 11.1.

Table 11.4: Ecological designations situated within the vicinity of the Site

Distance Level of Name Designation Brief description from value Site

Statutory Designations

International Designations

Supports the Annex I habitat Special Area Atlantic acidophilous beech of 6.0km to Epping Forest forest and important International Conservation SW populations of the Annex II (SAC) species Stag Beetle

Special Supports important Protection 10.8km Lee Valley populations of breeding and International Area to W overwintering bird species. (SPA)/Ramsar

Supports the Annex I habitat Wormley Sub-Atlantic and medio- 13.9km Hoddesdonpark SAC European oak or oak- International to W Woods hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli

National Designations

Local Nature Reserve Wetland meadows supporting Church Lane 480m to (LNR), Local species such as Bee Orchid County Flood Meadow S Wildlife Site and Common Spotted Orchid (LWS)

Weald Wet meadow that supports 1.0km to Common Flood LNR, LWS reptile, amphibian and County S Meadow invertebrate populations

Roughtalleys An area of semi-natural 1.2km to LNR, LWS County Wood ancient woodland S

306

Distance Level of Name Designation Brief description from value Site

Supports ancient wood- pasture and other habitats including ancient semi-natural Site of Special woodland, old grassland Scientific 1.9km to Epping Forest plains and scattered wetland, National Interest SW together with notable (SSSI) assemblages of bryophytes, amphibians, woodland birds and invertebrates

Non-statutory Designations

Church yard consisting of Adjacent St. Andrew’s Local Wildlife Essex BAP habitat species- to S District Church Yard Site (LWS) rich grassland boundary

Tyler’s Green An area of the UK BAP 775m to LWS District Grasslands habitat Lowland meadow E

Reynkyns An area of ancient semi- 775m to LWS District Wood natural woodland E

Species rich grassland Weald Bridge supporting the Essex Red LWS 1km to E District Meadows Data List species Betony Stachys officinalis

A mosaic of grassland, scrub and maturing woodland. The Ongar Radio 1.35km LWS site supports the UK BAP District Station to SE habitat Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland.

Ancient Woodland

11.48 No areas of ancient woodland are present within the site or its immediate surrounds.

Habitats and Ecological Features

11.49 Full descriptions of habitats and ecological features within the Site are given in Section 4 of the Baseline Ecological Appraisal at Appendix 11.1, whilst the location of habitats and ecological features are represented on Figure 11.2 (Appendix 11).

11.50 A summary of the habitats considered to be of ecological importance occurring within and adjacent to the Site (i.e. within the primary zone of influence) is given in Table 11.5 below.

307

Table 11.5: Summary and evaluation of important habitats and ecological features present within and adjacent to the Site

Level of Habitat type Description importance

Two watercourses are present at the Site. Watercourse WC1 flows through the site and was recorded to support a rapid north-south flow over a gravel substrate. The watercourse was recorded to be approximately 10-30cm deep and 1.5m wide with steep banks of earth and gravel, largely vegetated with dense shrubby vegetation and occasional trees. As such, the watercourse itself is largely shaded and was recorded to support little aquatic vegetation. Watercourse WC2 (Cripsey Brook), is located at the northern Watercourses site boundary, and flows west-east, forming a more (and substantial stream with a moderate flow over gravel substrate. associated The channel was recorded to measure approximately 2-3m Local wooded wide with a variable water depth of 10-50cm. The banks were vegetation) also recorded to be variable in character, ranging from steep cliffs to shallow slopes with heavily shaded riparian vegetation. Very little aquatic vegetation was recorded to be present, whilst Common Nettle was recorded to dominate the banks. Watercourse WC2 is associated with a relatively substantial wooded belt, dominated by Oak and Willow. The watercourses at the site and associated wooded vegetation are considered to be of value within a local context, forming a foraging resource and a corridor for movement of wildlife, providing connectivity with the wider surrounds.

19 ponds are present within the Site and range from large waterbodies with established fish communities, supporting a range of emergent and aquatic vegetation to flooded sand traps with little to no associated aquatic vegetation. As such, the ponds as an assemblage represent a spectrum of succession ranging from newly established features with Ponds colonising vegetation to established waterbodies with a good Local diversity of aquatic and emergent vegetation, thereby likely offering a diverse resource for a range of flora and fauna. Furthermore, ponds are listed as a Priority Habitat in England and a number of the ponds are likely to qualify under the corresponding UK BAP priority habitat description. Ponds are also listed as an Essex BAP habitat.

Six hedgerows are present within the Site, of which five are native and considered to be likely to qualify as local and Native national priority habitats, although no hedgerows at the site Local Hedgerows are considered to qualify as ‘important’ under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

308

11.51 Other habitats present within the site include semi-improved grassland, dense wooded vegetation, scattered tree planting, tall ruderal vegetation, scrub, buildings and hardstanding and invasive species. Such habitats are not considered to form habitats of ecological importance and are not subject to specific assessment.

Faunal Use of the Site

11.52 A range of faunal surveys were undertaken during 2016 and 2017 for bats, Badger, Water Vole, breeding and wintering birds, Great Crested Newt and reptiles. In addition, general observations were made of any faunal use of the Site with particular attention paid to the potential presence of protected or notable species.

11.53 Full details of this survey work are included in the Baseline Ecological Appraisal at Appendix 11.1, whilst a summary of faunal species considered to be of ecological importance occurring within the Site and its immediate surrounds (i.e. the primary zone of influence) is set out in Table11.6 below.

Table 11.6: Summary and evaluation of important faunal species present within and adjacent to the site

Faunal Level of Description species importance

No buildings within the Site are considered to provide opportunities for roosting bats, although opportunities for roosting bats are present within offsite buildings. A low- moderate number of trees within the Site have been identified as providing bat roosting potential, largely Bats associated with wooded vegetation, hedgerows and Site (roosting) watercourses, although a small number are present within the grassland. No evidence indicating the likely presence of a substantial bat roost was recorded although it is possible that bats may utilise trees within the site on at least an occasional or temporary basis.

309

Faunal Level of Description species importance

Overall, low to moderate levels of activity were recorded within the Site, with at least seven species (or species groups) recorded during the surveys. Common Pipistrelle and Noctule were most frequently recorded, with sustained foraging activity by a moderate number of bats Bats throughout the Site, particularly along the watercourses (foraging and and hedgerows, and around the driving range. Soprano District commuting) Pipistrelle and Brown Long-eared Bat were recorded fairly frequently, with Soprano Pipistrelle associated with watercourse WC2 in particular. The remaining species were recorded infrequently and in very low numbers, indicating that the Site is used sporadically and is unlikely to be of high importance for these species.

310

Faunal Level of Description species importance

Two Badger setts have been identified within the Site, both of which are considered to comprise subsidiary or outlier setts. Sett S1 was recorded to comprise four inactive entrances, whilst Sett S2 comprises 2 entrances, one of which was active, the other inactive. In terms of Badger foraging habitat, habitats across the Site are likely to Site provide good foraging opportunities for Badger in the form of wooded vegetation, hedgerows and grassland. However, limited evidence of foraging activity was recorded across the site, and such areas may be subject to only relatively low levels of foraging activity.

Likely absent No evidence for the presence of either species was Water Vole / (although recorded associated with the watercourses within and Otter potential habitat bounding the Site. present)

The Site provides potential opportunities for Hedgehog, Other which is listed as a priority species under Section 41 of mammals the NERC Act 2006, albeit this species remains common Site (including and widespread in England, whilst habitats within the site Hedgehog) are unlikely to be of importance in a local context.

The Site offers a range of opportunities for bird species, particularly in the form of wooded habitats, hedgerows and open water, which offer foraging areas and potential nesting areas for a range of bird species. The Site is considered to support a relatively diverse assemblage of breeding birds, with the majority of activity recorded associated with well-established vegetated watercourse corridors, long sward grassland and wooded vegetation throughout the Site. The most notable species recorded Birds Local during the survey included 2-3 breeding pairs of Skylark, 1-2 breeding pairs of Yellowhammer, 5 breeding pairs of Linnet, a breeding pair of Song Thrush and a possible breeding pair of Starling. The Schedule 1 species Fieldfare and Redwing were recorded during the wintering bird surveys, together with moderate numbers of Yellowhammer, whilst a single Kingfisher was noted during other survey work associated with watercourse WC1.

311

Faunal Level of Description species importance

A number of ponds are present at the Site and its immediate surrounds, whilst suitable terrestrial habitat is present at the Site in the form of areas of wooded vegetation and rough grassland. Great Crested Newt was recorded within four ponds at the Site, although these Great form two distinct groups, separated by more than 750m, Local Crested Newt with ponds P7 and P19 in the north, and P14 and P16 in the south. Peak counts of 5 adult newts were recorded at each of these groups, such that the Site is considered to support two discrete small metapopulations of Great Crested Newt.

Other amphibians Other amphibians recorded at the Site include Smooth (including Newt, Common Frog and Common Toad, although these Site Common were also only recorded in low numbers across the Site. Toad)

The Site supports a range of potential habitats for reptiles, however reptiles recorded at the Site were limited to a single adult Grass Snake recorded on one survey visit, Grass Snake located on a bank at the north of the Site. As such it is Site considered that a ‘low’ population of Grass Snake is present at the Site, whilst this species typically ranges over a wide habitat area indicating only occasional use.

No evidence for the presence of any protected, rare or other notable invertebrate species was recorded within the Site during the survey work undertaken, whilst the majority of the Site, dominated by species-poor grassland, Invertebrates supports few micro-habitats that would typically indicate Site elevated potential for invertebrates. However, ponds, watercourses, hedgerows and other wooded vegetation within the Site are likely to provide some opportunities for common and widespread invertebrates.

Schedule 9 Invasive Species

11.54 During the course of the survey work undertaken, Himalayan Balsam was observed in several localities along watercourse WC1, whilst Waterweed Elodea sp. was recorded in pond P4. Both species are listed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) under Schedule 9 Part II which makes it an offence to cause to grow in the wild any plant listed on the schedule.

312

11.55 Consideration is given to Schedule 9 invasive species in the Mitigation Measures section, although given they do not form an important ecological feature they are not subject to specific assessment.

INHERENT DESIGN MITIGATION

11.56 The scheme that is assessed in terms of likely significant effects has been developed following an iterative process of design, with a number of mitigation measures incorporated as part of the proposals as set out within Chapter 5. Particular measures incorporated in relation to ecology include:

 Retention of key habitat areas, namely the watercourses and the majority of ponds and hedgerows within landscape and open space areas;  Retention of watercourse WC2 within the country park and provision of a wide corridor of open space along the length of watercourse WC1, measuring at least 60m in width for the majority of its length;  Provision of a substantial buffer of open space to St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS, measuring at least 40m in width from built development;  Creation of substantial country park within the north of the Site, in addition to other areas of green open space, measuring a total of approximately 24ha in size; and  Provision of connective habitat in the form of corridors of landscape and open space between development areas.

11.57 Further detail on how these embedded measures avoid or mitigate significant effects is given in the following section.

313

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

11.58 This section sets out the potential significant efforts of demolition / construction and completed development phase works on ecological receptors identified as being of ecological importance, as summarised in Table 11.7 below.

11.59 Receptors not considered to be of importance at the local level or above (of site importance only) are scoped out of this assessment, although consideration of mitigation and legislative requirements for protected species, if present, is given at Section 11.6.

Table 11.7: Potential ecological effects and receptors

Potential effects

Demolition and construction Operational phase phase (temporary effects) (permanent effects)

take take take

Receptors - -

c habitats) c noise) hazards pollution / disturbance / (construction) pollution (dust (dust pollution Hydrology and and Hydrology and Hydrology Construction site site Construction Permanent lighting Permanent of aquati of Disturbance (visual, (visual, Disturbance Temporary land Temporary land Permanent generation, pollution pollution generation, Anthropogenic effects effects Anthropogenic Lighting (construction) Lighting

St. Andrew’s Church X X X Yard LWS Other ecological X X designations Habitats (namely watercourses, ponds X X X X X X and native hedgerows)

Foraging and X X X X X X X commuting bats

Birds X X X X X X X X X

Great Crested Newt X X X X X X X X X

11.60 Information relating to the construction and operational phases as presented in Chapter 5 ‘The Proposed Development’ and Chapter 6 ‘Development Programme and Construction’ forms the basis of this assessment. The extent of areas affected by the Proposed Development is therefore based on the Land Use Parameter Plan, which shows built development areas (e.g.

314

residential development) within which habitats are likely to be lost, and Landscape and Ecology Parameter Plan, which shows areas of green infrastructure, within which habitats can be retained. This has been informed further by the Indicative Masterplan (Figure 5.1) which shows the likely extent of development areas, although given the outline nature of the application, the specific detail of individual habitat losses is to be confirmed at the detailed stage.

Construction Phase Effects

Design Solutions and Assumptions

11.61 The potential effects considered within this section are those relating to temporary factors arising from the construction process, such as construction site noise or dust production, and which will cease to apply following completion of the Proposed Development (referred to as ‘Operational Phase’). Thus loss of habitats through permanent land take for development is considered as an ‘Operational Phase’ effect, although the land take actually occurs during the construction phase of the Proposed Development.

Ecological Designations

St. Andrew’s Church Yard Local Wildlife Site (LWS)

11.62 The non-statutory designation St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site and is designated on the basis of species-rich grassland. This designation is fully retained under the proposals, with at least a 40m buffer provided from the built development areas. This will safeguard habitats from direct damage or disturbance to vegetation, however, the designation could be subject to indirect effects, particularly as a result of dust deposition and surface run-off of contaminants or silt. Such effects will be temporary, although could lead to minor degradation of grassland habitats, in the short-term.

11.63 As such, without mitigation, construction effects on St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS are considered to be slight, adverse and medium-term, and could be significant at the district level (although uncertain).

Other Ecological Designations

11.64 The next closest designation is Church Lane Flood Meadow LNR and LWS, located approximately 480m to the south of the Site. Church Lane Flood Meadow LNR and LWS is

315

separated from the Site by Vicarage Lane West, arable fields and hedgerows, providing screening for any potential effects from construction activities.

11.65 As such, it is considered that Church Lane Flood Meadow LNR, along with other more distant statutory and non-statutory designations, are highly unlikely to be affected during the construction phase. Effects on other ecological designations are therefore considered to be negligible and non-significant (near certain).

Habitats

11.66 Large parts of the Site will be subject to construction works resulting in the loss of existing habitats. This permanent land-take of habitats (and resultant effects on fauna supported by such habitats) is discussed in the Operational Phase section below. This section relates to effects during the construction phase, which are largely temporary in nature.

11.67 Retained habitats of importance within the Site including hedgerows and woody vegetation may be subject to potential effects such as dust deposition and damage to trees from compaction or other damage from construction machinery or vehicles. Topsoil stripping and movement undertaken for construction could also result in degradation of the ponds and watercourses within and bounding the Site.

11.68 As such, prior to mitigation, construction effects on habitats of importance within the Site are considered to be slight, adverse and medium-term, and could be significant at the local level (although uncertain).

Faunal Species

Foraging and commuting bats

11.69 The Site is considered to be of district level importance for foraging and commuting bats, with low-moderate levels of activity by at least seven species (or species groups) recorded during the surveys.

11.70 Foraging and commuting bats could be affected during the construction phase by lighting of construction areas. However, such effects would only be for the duration of the construction phase, and the requirement for lighting during construction works is expected to be relatively minimal given the general restrictions on working to daylight hours. Further, lighting

316

requirements are likely to be mostly during the winter months when bats are hibernating and less likely to be using these habitats, whilst the main habitats of value to foraging and commuting bats are away from construction areas. Foraging and commuting bats could also be affected by noise disturbance, although this would be mostly during the day when foraging or commuting bats would be absent. Other construction effects such as airbourne pollutants are unlikely to result in a direct effect on foraging or commuting bats.

11.71 Accordingly, prior to mitigation, construction effects on foraging and commuting bats are considered to largely relate to temporary increases in lighting levels, and would be slight, adverse and short-term and non-significant (probable).

Birds

11.72 Potential effects on bird species during the construction phase relate to a direct loss of active nests, resulting in a direct effect on local populations and also constituting an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which affords protection to wild birds and their eggs. In this regard, a number of trees, wooded vegetation and sections of hedgerow are to be removed under the Proposed Development, in addition to semi-improved grassland, which provide opportunities for ground nesting birds, notably Skylark. Construction activities could also result in noise and visual disturbance to nesting birds in close proximity to construction areas, albeit these effects are anticipated to be highly localised.

11.73 Accordingly, prior to mitigation, construction effects on birds are considered to be slight, adverse and short-term, and would be non-significant (probable).

Great Crested Newt

11.74 Survey work undertaken at the Site recorded the presence of two discrete small populations of Great Crested Newt, one associated within ponds within the northernmost part of the site (ponds P7 and P19), and the other within the southernmost part (ponds P14 and P16). Whilst ponds P7 and pond P14 are to be retained under the proposals, pond P16 will be lost to built development, whilst pond P19 will be lost as a result of ground remodelling works associated with the north-east of the Site. This species will also make use of terrestrial habitat within the vicinity of its breeding ponds, with most activity concentrated within 50m of the pond and little activity beyond a distance of 250m. As such, construction works could result in disturbance to breeding and foraging habitat and a risk of injury to any individuals present. Such actions could result in an offence under relevant domestic and European legislation.

317

Waterbodies supporting Great Crested Newts could also be at risk of hydrological changes (e.g. effects on the water table, increased siltation and contamination of surface run-off). Further detail is provided in the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy at Appendix 11.2.

11.75 Accordingly, prior to mitigation, construction effects on Great Crested Newt are considered to be moderate, adverse and short-term, and could be significant at the local level (probable).

Operational Phase Effects

11.76 The potential effects considered within this section are those relating to the ‘operational’ phase of the Proposed Development. This includes the loss of habitats through permanent land take for development, in addition to potential effects resulting from the operation of the development such as recreational pressure, and noise and light disturbance.

Ecological Designations

European Designations

11.77 In regard to European designations, no such designations are located within the immediate vicinity of the Site such that no direct effects (such as noise, lighting etc.) on these designations are anticipated as a result of the development. However, given the scale of the proposals, there is some potential for indirect effects, particularly where there are existing pressures. In this regard, a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) has been produced for Epping Forest District Council’s (EFDC) new Local Plan (2017) (Ref. 11.30). Although the Site is not allocated under the Local Plan, and therefore specific consideration of the development itself has not been considered specifically within the Habitats Regulation Assessment, it does allow for an assessment of likely adverse effects on European designations from the development to be made, as set out below.

11.78 The HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan focuses on Epping Forest SAC, Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar, and Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC, with other European designations scoped out of the assessment due to the distance from the District. Consideration of effects on these ecological designations as a result of the Proposed Development is set out below.

318

Epping Forest SAC

11.79 In regard to Epping Forest SAC, the HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan identifies potential adverse effects as a result of recreational pressure and atmospheric pollution.

11.80 Recreational pressure. Visitor survey research undertaken for the Local Plan HRA in 2016 identified that the majority of visitors to the SAC (i.e. 76% of respondents) originated from within 4km of the designation. It is understood that Natural England has subsequently confirmed that 4km is an appropriate zone to define as the core catchment for visitors to the SAC during discussions with the relevant local planning authorities within the East Herts and West Essex Housing Market Area, as set out in EFDC’s Local Plan HRA. Whilst further visitor surveys are currently being undertaken, the HRA states that “it is considered unlikely that the survey would result in the ‘core catchment’ altering significantly”.

11.81 The Site is located approximately 6km from the SAC, and therefore outside of the core catchment for which residents are likely to make regular visits to the SAC for recreation. In any event, provision of a large country park under the proposals will offset potential increases in recreational activity on the SAC. In this regard, a country park measuring 16.33ha will be brought forward under the proposals which, along with other amenity space within the development, totalling 28.69ha, far exceeds the requirement for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) adopted in relation to other European designations (at a standard of 8ha per 1000 population, this would equate to 13.248ha based on an occupancy rate of 2.4 people per dwelling). In regard to provision of alternative greenspace, EFDC’s Local Plan HRA states that ‘mitigating greenspace, to be most effective, generally needs to be a minimum of 10ha in size not to feel unduly cramped and allow for a circular walk of at least 2.5km which, based on experience elsewhere, is likely to be ample for most people to obtain sufficient enjoyment.’ Given the size of the country park, it is considered that a circular walk of at least 2.5km can be more than accommodated at the Site.

11.82 On this basis, the Proposed Development is considered unlikely to result in an adverse effect on Epping Forest SAC as a result of recreational pressure.

11.83 Air Quality. An assessment of air quality effects on Epping Forest SAC is included in Chapter 8 Air Quality, with receptors E1, E2 and E3 located along the B1393 south of the M25 where it runs adjacent to the SAC. At these receptors, the change in annual mean NOx concentrations arising from the traffic associated with the Proposed Development is predicted to be between 0.01 and 0.07µg/m3 during the completed development year (2033), equating to,

319

at most 0.2% of the critical level of 30µg/m3. This is below the 1% threshold identified by the EA guidance, and accordingly the increase is considered to be insignificant.

11.84 On this basis, operational effects on Epping Forest SAC are considered to be negligible and non-significant (probable).

Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar

11.85 In regard to Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar, the HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan identifies potential adverse effects as a result of recreational pressure, water abstraction and water quality.

11.86 Recreational pressure. The nearest component of Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar to the Site, Rye Meads Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is located a considerable distance from the Proposed Development (approximately 10.8km). Although no visitor data is available for this SPA/Ramsar, at this distance the designation is unlikely to be subject to any regular usage from visitors associated with the Proposed Development, particularly because no dogs are allowed on the site, whilst parking opportunities for visitors arriving by car are restrictive.

11.87 In any event, this component of the SPA/Ramsar was identified in EFDC’s HRA as being well set up to receive visitors, with clearly marked footpaths/boardwalks that are designed to route visitors away from sensitive areas, whilst the habitats present are wet/boggy, which inherently limits off-track recreational activity. More distant components were also noted to have similar restrictions to visitor usage. As such, any low level usage of this, or more distant components of the SPA/Ramsar, resulting from the Proposed Development is considered unlikely to result in a significant adverse effect on the interest species of the designation. In any event, provision of a country park under the proposals will offset potential increases in recreational activity. On this basis, the Proposed Development is considered unlikely to result in an adverse effect on Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar as a result of recreational pressure.

11.88 Water abstraction. As set out in the HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan, almost all settlements within Epping Forest District receive their potable water supply through Affinity Water, which abstracts water from tributaries of Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar site. However, Affinity Water’s current Water Resource Management Plan covers the period up to 2040, and states that an HRA of the WRMP has been undertaken, and that they have been able to demonstrate sufficient alternative supply options to ensure that adverse effects on European sites can be avoided. As such, the Proposed Development is similarly unlikely to result in adverse effects on Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar site through excessive water drawdown.

320

11.89 Water quality. The HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan considers adverse effects on Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar as a result of water quality due to increased discharge from Rye Meads Wastewater Treatment Works associated with development around Harlow. However, foul water from the Proposed Development is unlikely to be treated at this treatment works, and therefore the Proposed Development would not have an adverse effect on Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar as a result of water quality.

11.90 On this basis, operational effects on Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar (and SSSI) are considered to be negligible and non-significant (probable).

Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC

11.91 In regard to Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC, the HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan identifies potential adverse effects as a result of recreational pressure.

11.92 Recreational pressure. As with Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar, this designation is well removed from the Site (approximately 13.9km), and therefore is unlikely to be subject to any regular disturbance from recreational usage resulting from the Proposed Development. The HRA of EFDC’s Local Plan also notes that the designation is well set up to receive visitors, with recreation actively promoted.

11.93 On this basis, operational effects on Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC (and SSSI) are considered to be negligible and non-significant (probable).

St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS

11.94 St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS is located adjacent to the Site boundary. This designation will not be affected by land take associated with the Proposed Development, whilst habitats for which the LWS are designated would not be sensitive to lighting or noise disturbance. In any event, the LWS is subject to an open space buffer at least 40m in width. The LWS does not form a specific area for public recreation, such that it is unlikely to be subject to increased recreational pressure, whilst this would be mitigated in any event by the large scale open space provision within the Site.

11.95 As such, operational effects on St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS are considered to be negligible and non-significant (probable).

321

Other Designations

11.96 Whilst the closest part of Epping Forest SAC is located approximately 6km from the Site, part of Epping Forest SSSI is located approximately 1.9km to the south-west of the Site. However, a review of Natural England’s SSSI Impact Risk Zones (shown on MAGIC) does not flag up any potential risks to the SSSI associated with residential development at the Site location. Furthermore, this part of the SSSI is less likely to attract recreational activity, with no formal car parks present and limited opportunities for informal parking. In any event, open space provision within the site is likely to accommodate the majority of recreational activity arising from the Proposed Development.

11.97 Other designations located within the vicinity of the Site are also considered unlikely to be affected by recreational pressure, given they are unlikely to form a particular destination for residents, whilst the majority of recreational activity will be accommodated by open space provision within the Site. Given their distance from the Site, they would also not be affected by operational effects such as noise or lighting, whilst the air quality assessment of other ecological designations at Chapter 8 indicates these will be subject to insignificant increases in NOx as a result of the Proposed Development.

11.98 As such, operational effects on other ecological designations are therefore considered to be negligible and non-significant (probable).

Habitats and Ecological Features

11.99 An assessment of operational effects on habitats considered to form important ecological features is set out below. This largely relates to permanent habitat loss, together with anthropogenic effects such as damage to vegetation from recreational disturbance and pollution. Potential effects such as noise and lighting and disturbance from areas of built development are considered below in relation to faunal species.

Watercourses (and associated woody vegetation)

11.100 Watercourses WC1 and WC2 are largely retained within open space areas, with WC2 located within the country park whilst WC1 is situated within a corridor of open space at least 60m in width along the majority of its length. As such, the watercourses and associated vegetation will be largely maintained under the Proposed Development. However, road access links are proposed across watercourse WC1, which could present barriers to movement of

322

wildlife and affect flow conditions, whilst there is also potential for changes to the hydrological regime of the watercourses as a result of areas of impermeable surfaces, increasing run-off and sediment input, and the potential for risk of pollution from oil residues and sediments from vehicles and use of household and garden chemicals.

11.101 Some small-scale losses and thinning of vegetation adjacent to the watercourses might also occur as part of road and footpath creation. However, this will likely result in an overall net benefit to the watercourses, opening up the canopy and allowing increased light to the water.

11.102 On this basis, prior to mitigation, operational effects are considered to largely relate to road crossings and potential changes to the hydrological regime and are slight-moderate, adverse and long-term, and could be significant at the local level (although uncertain).

Ponds

11.103 Nineteen ponds are present within the Site. The majority of ponds within the Site are to be accommodated within open space areas, although six will be lost to facilitate the Proposed Development. Of the ponds to be lost, three will be lost to built development (namely P2, P11 and P16). However, these comprise recently established ponds formed by flooded sand traps. The remaining three ponds (namely ponds P17 - P19) are of higher ecological value, but are unable to be retained within the scheme due to a requirement for ground remodelling within the eastern part of the northern parcel.

11.104 The retained ponds could also be adversely affected due to changes to the hydrological regime as a result of areas of impermeable surfaces, increasing run-off and sediment input, and the potential for risk of pollution from oil residues and sediments from vehicles and use of household and garden chemicals.

11.105 On this basis, prior to mitigation, operational effects on the assemblage of ponds are considered to be moderate, adverse and long-term, and could be significant at the local level (probable).

Native hedgerows

11.106 Native hedgerows are largely retained under the Proposed Development, with losses limited to the entirety of hedgerow H4, and partial losses of H1 and H5 to accommodate road junctions and accesses, totalling 360m in length. Such losses comprise only a small proportion

323

of the overall network of hedgerows (approximately 21%), such that operational effects are considered to be slight, adverse and long-term, and non-significant (probable).

Faunal Species

Foraging and commuting bats

11.107 The Site is considered to support low to moderate levels of foraging and commuting bats, with at least seven species (or species groups) recorded during the course of the survey work.

11.108 Whilst large areas of habitat are to be affected by the Proposed Development, this largely comprises species-poor semi-improved grassland which is of relatively low value to foraging and commuting bats, whilst a network or proposed green infrastructure corridors will be retained through and around the built development, and large areas of habitat will be retained within the north of the Site. However, small areas of wooded vegetation, hedgerows and a small number of ponds will be lost to the proposals, resulting in minor losses of suitable foraging and commuting habitat. Furthermore, bat species may be affected by disturbance associated with the Proposed Development, notably as a result of light spill into areas used by foraging and commuting bats.

11.109 With regards to lighting in particular, effects vary between species, with some bat species such as Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle able to cope with relatively high light levels (of up to 14 lux) (Fure, 2006) (Ref. 11.31), whilst species such as Noctule are known to utilise lights as a foraging focus for insects attracted to lights (BCT and ILE, 2009) (Ref. 11.32). However, many bat species (particularly late emerging species such as Brown Long-eared and Myotis bats) will avoid lit areas, and attraction of insects to lit areas can result in adjacent habitats supporting reduced numbers of insects, further impacting on the ability of bats being able to feed.

11.110 Common Pipistrelle and Noctule were most frequently recorded, with sustained foraging activity by a moderate number of bats throughout the Site, particularly along the watercourses and hedgerows, and around the driving range. Given these species are relatively tolerant of lighting, bats are likely to continue to forage and commute across this area using gardens and new green corridors to be established under the proposals.

324

11.111 Soprano Pipistrelle and Brown Long-eared Bat were recorded fairly frequently within the Site, particularly within the north. The parts of the site favoured by these species will form the Country Park and therefore will not be subject to development works, although individual Brown Long-eared bats elsewhere within the Site may be affected by habitat losses and increased lighting associated with the Proposed Development, resulting in minor declines in activity by this species. Other light sensitive species such as Myotis sp. and Barbastelle were recorded only very occasionally during surveys, such that the Proposed Development is unlikely to result in any significant effect on local populations of these species.

11.112 Bats may also be at risk of traffic collisions where roads are located across commuting routes, although given that roads are likely to be subject to speed restrictions due to the urban setting and are unlikely to be subject to high levels of use at night, the risk of traffic collisions is relatively minimal.

11.113 Overall therefore, largely as a result of habitat losses and increased light levels in the southern part of the Site, effects on foraging and commuting bats from the completed development prior to mitigation are considered to be slight-moderate, adverse and long-term, and could be significant at the district level (uncertain).

Birds

11.114 The Proposed Development will entail the permanent loss of species-poor semi- improved grassland and rough vegetation within areas subject to built development, resulting in a reduction of nesting habitat for ground nesting birds, notably Skylark, which was recorded breeding within the Site, together with a seed resource for wintering birds such as Yellowhammer. Loss of wooded vegetation, hedgerows, scrub and trees will also result in a reduction in nesting habitat for a range of other bird species. However, large areas of suitable bird habitat will be maintained within the country park and other areas of open space. A discussion of likely effects associated with habitat losses on Red and Amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) recorded within the site is set out below at Table 11.8:

325

Table 11.8: Assessment of effects on Red and Amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern recorded within the Site. No. of territories BOCC within/adjacent to Bird species Assessment of effects Listing main area proposed for built development Moderate adverse – all territories 2-3, in long sward associated with built development area Skylark Red grassland in northern likely to be lost, although potential and southern parcels habitat retained within country park. 0-1, associated with Starling Red offsite business units Neutral - recorded to be associated with offsite business units or area 1, associated with identified for country park. May benefit wooded vegetation Song Thrush Red from increased nesting opportunities within the north-west of associated with new buildings and new site habitat opportunities associated with House 0-1, associated with Red gardens and green corridors. Sparrow offsite business units 5, associated with Minor adverse – suitable nesting Linnet Red wooded vegetation habitat largely retained in the form of hedgerows and scrub, although loss of 1-2, associated with Yellowhammer Red grassland may reduce foraging wooded vegetation opportunities for these species. 1-2, associated with Mallard Amber Minor adverse/neutral – small loss of waterbodies nesting opportunities associated with 1, associated with ponds, although opportunities Reed Bunting Amber watercourse vegetation associated within new pond creation. 1, associated with Stock Dove Amber scrub habitat in north- Minor adverse – not recorded from east of the site area proposed for built development, but may be adversely affected due to 0-1, in long sward ground remodelling works in north- Meadow Pipit Amber grassland in the north east of the site. of the site 4, associated with Minor adverse/neutral - associated Dunnock Amber wooded vegetation with hedgerow and wooded habitats which are largely retained under the 3, all associated with proposals, may benefit from new Bullfinch Amber boundary vegetation habitat opportunities associated with gardens and green corridors. None, although 17 Minor adverse – likely to experience Fieldfare Red birds recorded during some losses of foraging habitat within winter survey built development area Lapwing Red

Redwing Red Neutral – only recorded as flyovers or None – recorded as occasional foraging within the site so Yellow Wagtail Red foraging individuals or unlikely to be affected by built Snipe Amber flyovers only development Common Tern Amber Swift Amber

326

11.115 Other bird species recorded within the Site, such as Canada Goose and Greylag Goose, may also experience reductions in suitable habitat, although common garden species such as Blue Tit, Robin, Blackbird and Chaffinch will likely benefit from new habitats provided by gardens as they establish, and supplementary feeding by residents.

11.116 In addition to the habitat changes discussed above, birds may also be affected by cat predation, disturbance associated with recreational use and residential areas, and increased risk of road traffic accidents (albeit this is less likely given the low traffic speeds which will be in place). Some bird species may also be affected by lightspill from roads and areas of built development.

11.117 Overall, it is likely that the majority of bird species will experience some increase in habitat opportunities due to creation of new buildings, gardens and other open space areas, although species typically associated with farmland, notably Skylark, Linnet and Yellowhammer may suffer minor population declines.

11.118 Accordingly, prior to mitigation, effects on farmland birds (Skylark, Linnet and Yellowhammer) from the completed development are considered to be slight, adverse and long-term. However, given the abundance of suitable farmland habitat in the surrounding area, it is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any measurable declines in the local populations of these species. As such, effects are considered to be non-significant (probable).

11.119 Effects on other bird species from the completed development are considered to be negligible and non-significant (probable).

Great Crested Newt

11.120 Survey work recorded the presence of small populations of Great Crested Newt within ponds P7 and P19 within the north of the Site, and ponds P14 and P16 within the south, and as such the potential for the Development to affect this European Protected Species needs to be fully considered. A detailed assessment of the Development, based on the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, evaluating the likely impact of the completed Development on Great Crested Newt habitats and any effect on population viability is provided in the indicative Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy at Appendix 11.2.

327

11.121 In summary, prior to mitigation, operational effects including loss of ponds P16 and P19 and associated terrestrial habitat, are considered to be moderate, adverse and long-term, and could be significant at the local level (probable).

328

MITIGATION MEASURES

Construction Phase

11.122 A number of potentially significant effects have been identified in relation to the construction phase, namely in regard to St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS, habitats of ecological value, and Great Crested Newt. Measures required to mitigate for such effects are detailed below, together with other measures to mitigate for non-significant effects and ensure legislative requirements are met. These relate to measures to be adopted as part of construction activities; measures relating to long-term habitat losses to be incorporated as part of the detailed design are set out under mitigation relating to the operational phase.

General construction safeguards

11.123 A number of potentially significant effects on St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS and other retained habitats of ecological value during the construction phase have been identified, largely as a result of encroachment into buffers, dust deposition and surface run-off of contaminants or silt. As such, it is proposed that standard mitigation measures are put in place during the construction phase, to include the following:

 Prior to works commencing, a full site investigation will be undertaken to identify any potential sources of contamination and advise on appropriate safeguards to be implemented during construction works;  Erection of tree protection fencing around retained wooded vegetation, hedgerows and trees in accordance with BS5837:2012;  Dampening down of potential sources of dust;  Storage of chemicals and hazardous materials in line with best practice guidelines, ensuring that they are secure, well away from the site boundaries and cannot be accessed or knocked over by roaming animals;  Fires should only be lit in secure compounds and not allowed to remain lit during the night; and  Implementation of engineering safeguards as part of construction works to control surface water run-off and avoid contamination of watercourses. This could include measures such as the use of a temporary silt trap in order to form an intercept for silt and other potential pollutants.

329

11.124 Furthermore, a number of general safeguarding measures will be implemented in relation to faunal species:

 All contractors will be briefed as to the possible presence of protected and notable faunal species within the Site, with particular reference to the implications of legislation and licensing;  Any trenches or deep pits within the Site that are to be left open overnight will be provided with a means of escape should a Badger or other mammal enter. This could simply be in the form of a roughened plank of wood placed in the trench as a ramp to the surface. This is particularly important if the trench fills with water;  Any trenches/pits will be inspected each morning to ensure no animals have become trapped overnight;  The storage of topsoil or other ‘soft’ building materials in the Site will be given careful consideration. Badgers will readily adopt such mounds as setts. So as to avoid the adoption of any mounds, these will be kept to a minimum and will be subject to inspections by site contractors with consideration given to temporarily fencing any such mounds to exclude Badgers;  The storage of any chemicals at the Site will be contained in such a way that they cannot be accessed or knocked over by any roaming animals;  Fires will only be lit in secure compounds and not allowed to remain lit during the night;  Food and litter will not to be left within the working area overnight;  To minimise adverse effects as a result of lighting during the construction phase, temporary lighting will be minimised, wherever practical. Where required for health and safety, security or other reasons, it will be positioned so as to minimise light spill on to the watercourse corridors, hedgerows and other boundary features; and  Disturbance from noise will be minimised by the adoption of good working practice.

11.125 It is proposed that the measures referred to in paragraphs above are detailed in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) produced at an appropriate stage prior to works commencing. This could secured by a planning condition.

330

Roosting bats

11.126 No evidence of roosting activity was recorded within the Site during the survey work, although a number of trees with bat roosting potential are located within development areas. Where possible, such features will be accommodated within the detailed layout such that roosting opportunities can be maintained at the Site in the long-term.

11.127 Where identified roosting features cannot be retained, detailed surveys will be undertaken at the appropriate stage prior to works to confirm presence/absence of roosting bats and inform implementation of appropriate safeguarding measures (such as pre-inspection checks, soft-felling of trees or soft-stripping of features of bat roosting potential within the pill boxes). Should any roosts be identified at this time, a European Protected Species licence may need to be sought from Natural England.

Badger

Two Badger setts have been identified within the Site. Given their location within open green space along watercourse WC1, it is possible to fully retain these setts within the Proposed Development. However, given Badgers are a highly mobile species which readily move and reuse setts, such that there is potential for the status of setts to change or new setts be dug, a check survey will be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction works within any area of the Site to record current Badger activity and confirm any mitigation or licensing requirements.

Birds

11.128 To avoid an offence under the WCA, the potential loss of active nests during construction will be avoided by either undertaking clearance of potential bird nesting habitat outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) or, if necessary, preceding any clearance with an inspection by a suitably qualified ecologist. Any nests identified will be cordoned off and protected until they cease to be active. Disturbance from noise will be minimised by the adoption of good working practice, such as restricted hours of working and noise-reducing construction measures.

331

Great Crested Newts

11.129 Construction effects have been identified in relation to Great Crested Newt prior to mitigation. Having given due regard to the relevant legislative protection afforded to Great Crested Newts, and having reviewed appropriate statutory guidance material, it is considered that a licensed approach is necessary which will provide the highest legislative safeguard for the proposed activities at the Site.

11.130 As part of this licence, in order to maintain the favourable conservation status of Great Crested Newts within the local area, a suite of mitigation measures will be put in place under the Development to ensure that Great Crested Newt are safeguarded during the construction period. In accordance with best practice guidelines, this will include reasonable steps to minimise any potential impact on Great Crested Newts pre-construction. Further details in this regard are provided in the indicative Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy at Appendix 11.2.

Reptiles

11.131 Where construction works will result in the loss of habitat recorded to support reptiles, notably within longer sward grassland, measures will be implemented to avoid killing or injury of reptile species. Given the low numbers of reptiles recorded (comprising a single Grass Snake), displacement of reptiles through gradual removal of habitats followed by destructive searches will be undertaken. This will involve a pre-works contractor briefing and cutting of vegetation using hand tools under weather conditions suitable for reptiles to be active, in a two-stage process (i.e. to around 15 cm, then to ground level) to encourage reptiles to disperse towards retained habitats.

Schedule 9 exotic invasive species

11.132 An update survey in regard to invasive species will be undertaken prior to works commencing. Where works are proposed within areas supporting invasive species (i.e. Himalayan Balsam, known to be present in several locations along watercourse WC1) a control strategy will be prepared before any works commence in the vicinity of the affected area so as to ensure the species is not spread during the construction phase. This is likely to involve treatment of any stands before any works commence, and works to be carried out under a specific method statement to avoid any contamination during works.

332

Operational Phase

11.133 Potentially significant effects have been identified in relation to watercourses and ponds, foraging and commuting bats and Great Crested Newt during the operational phase. Measures required to mitigate for these effects are detailed below, together with other measures to mitigate for non-significant effects and ensure legislative requirements are met. These include measures to be implemented as part of the detailed design, together with ongoing management or monitoring activities to be implemented during the operational phase.

Design of the built development

11.134 A number of measures will be implemented as part of the detailed design of the built development to minimise adverse effects on habitats during the operational phase. This will include:

 Where practical, the detailed layout of housing areas adjacent to retained habitats will be designed so that houses face out onto open space areas, providing visual surveillance and avoiding gardens backing onto habitats, preventing issues such as informal garden extensions and fly tipping. This will be further reinforced by provision of a hard edge to the built development where practical, in the form of roads or footpaths;  A SUDS scheme will be implemented to manage run-off from built development areas, comprising a network of swales, soakaways, infiltration trenches and balancing ponds. Further detail is provided at Chapter 12. The use of SUDS features will help to reduce the potential effect of point source pollution incidents from garden chemicals and/or domestic chemicals. Pollution control measures such as filter drains or petrol / water interceptors will also be used to minimise the risk of polluted surface water runoff entering local watercourses. Attenuation areas are also proposed to control surface water runoff rates to the required greenfield rate and to attenuate pollutants prior to discharge into the wider surface water network;  Where the watercourse corridors are affected by roads, consideration will be given to design of crossing points to maintain ecological connectivity and allow continued movement of wildlife. As a minimum, this should comprise culverts which are designed to maintain the natural river bed level, slope and width, with consideration given to the provision of fish resting places and mammal ledges;

333

 To maintain connectivity across the Site for ground-based fauna such as Hedgehogs, other small mammals, amphibians and reptiles, boundary treatment solutions such as fence cut-outs, missing bricks at wall bases, or landscaped boundaries (e.g. hedgerows) will be employed within areas of built development.

Sensitive lighting design

11.135 To minimise effects on foraging and commuting bats (and other nocturnal species) as a result of lightspill, a lighting design for the Proposed Development will be prepared at the detailed design stage incorporating measures to reduce the effects of lighting on bats. This will be reviewed by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure that effects on sensitive habitats are avoided. Measures which will be incorporated into the lighting design include:

 No lighting to be used within the country park area, whilst the lighting design should avoid lightspill into the area, with the use of screening vegetation as required;  Avoidance of lighting where practical within green infrastructure areas, particularly along boundary habitats and watercourse corridors;  Where lighting is required, consideration will be given to the use of low-level bollard lighting, solar studs or handrail lighting, avoiding upward lightspill into tree canopies. Otherwise, directional lighting should be implemented, with the use of louvres, shields or hoods as required to avoid lightspill away from features to be lit;  Where road crossings are proposed through green infrastructure areas, consideration will be given to spacing of lighting columns or other lighting control measures to maintain a central dark or low light area;  Low pressure sodium lights will be used where appropriate, as these have a lower attraction to insects; and  In addition, the location and orientation of buildings, the proposed landscape treatment and the retention and enhancement of the existing vegetation within the Site will further act as secondary mitigation to screen and soften the effects of installed artificial light sources. Where necessary, further shrub and tree planting will be provided to create screening against lighting from roads and residential areas.

334

Great Crested Newt

11.136 Effects have been identified on Great Crested Newt prior to mitigation, largely in relation to loss to two breeding ponds and terrestrial habitat, such that implementation of mitigation will be required, to be carried out under licence from Natural England. Details of the proposed mitigation are set out in the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy at Appendix 11.2, together with consideration of the three derogation tests under Regulation 3(4) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in relation to EPS, given that when determining a planning application for a development which has an impact on European Protected Species (EPS), the LPA must take into account the derogation tests at the planning stage.

11.137 In this instance a mitigation strategy is available which seeks to fully retain the Great Crested Newt population within the Site, as well as bringing forward substantial habitat enhancements. In summary, this will involve:

1) Enhancement of two receptor areas, including creation of four dedicated Great Crested Newt ponds and provision of hibernacula and refugia; 2) Erection of newt exclusion fencing around habitats subject to construction works and undertaking of translocation exercises; and 3) Site-wide habitat creation and enhancement works, including additional waterbodies.

11.138 In conclusion, the proposed mitigation and enhancements will create new areas of substantially improved aquatic breeding habitats as well as high quality terrestrial habitats, which will represent a positive enhancement over the existing situation. Notably, creation of new waterbodies (four of which will form dedicated Great Crested Newt ponds) and enhancement of terrestrial habitat is considered to more than offset the loss of two breeding pond and low quality terrestrial habitat under the proposals. These measures will also benefit any population of Great Crested Newts that may be present within the wider area.

RESIDUAL EFFECTS

11.139 Following implementation of the mitigation measures set out above, all construction and operation effects are considered to be reduced to non-significant levels. As such, there is no identified requirement for compensation measures.

335

ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

11.140 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages new developments to maximise the opportunities for biodiversity through incorporation of enhancement measures. The proposals present the opportunity to deliver ecological enhancements at the Site for the benefit of local biodiversity, thereby making a positive contribution towards the broad objectives of national conservation priorities and the Essex BAP. Such measures will also help to offset non-significant habitat losses and other effects of the Proposed Development, helping to achieve an overall net gain in biodiversity. The enhancements summarised below are considered appropriate given the context of the Site and the scale and nature of the proposals.

11.141 It is proposed that such measures are detailed in an Ecological Enhancement and Management Plan to be produced at the detailed stage and secured by planning condition.

Habitat creation and management

County Park and other green open space

11.142 A country park (measuring approximately 16.33ha) is to be provided within the northern parcel of the Site, forming a dedicated area for informal public recreation and new habitat creation, whilst additional open space areas will be provided between and around built development areas, forming a network of green infrastructure within the Site totalling approximately 28.69ha. Within these areas, it is proposed that a range of habitats are created:

 Substantial native tree and shrub planting will be provided within areas of open space across the Site, forming new blocks of woodland and shrubs, scattered wooded vegetation and treelines. This will benefit woodland species such as Song Thrush and Brown Long-eared bat;

 Tree and shrub planting will also be provided within built development areas. Although a proportion of this is likely to include ornamental species or cultivars, species of wildlife benefit will be chosen where appropriate, providing additional resources for wildlife such as fruits or nectar;

 Scrub habitat will be established along hedgerows and within grassland areas creating scrub mosaics and forming valuable ecotone habitats for a range of wildlife, including amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and invertebrates;

336

 The majority of the country park and other open grassland areas will be established as wildflower grassland, subject to a varied management regime to provide a range of sward types. Most areas will be managed as hay meadow, subject to cutting 2-3 times a year to promote a flower rich sward, whilst areas of rough, tussocky grassland will be established along woodland and hedgerow margins. As such, grassland areas will provide a rich habitat resource for invertebrate species, in turn providing increased foraging opportunities for wildlife including birds and bats;

 New lengths of hedgerow planting will be provided along the boundaries of green space areas and around areas of built development. Existing hedgerows will also be subject to supplementary planting where necessary to fill gaps and strengthen the integrity of the hedgerow;

 A SUDS scheme is to be implemented as part of the Proposed Development. In addition to the downstream water quality benefits this will provide in terms of attenuating surface run-off and capture of sediments and nutrients, a variety of wetland habitats will be provided by the drainage and attenuation areas including swales and balancing ponds. Although these features will be designed and managed with flood control in mind, they will be designed to be of benefit to biodiversity where possible, incorporating measures such as shallow, sinuous margins, areas of permanent water and planting with native vegetation. Such measures will benefit a range of wetland species including birds and aquatic invertebrates, and will provide ‘stepping-stones’ through the development and contribute to the potential breeding resource for Great Crested Newts within the Site.

Watercourse corridor

11.143 Two watercourses are present within/bounding the Site. These will be retained within the scheme, whilst a number of opportunities for enhancements to these features are available, to include:

 Treatment of invasive Himalayan Balsam, which currently dominates some sections along the watercourses, shading out native vegetation;  Selective thinning or coppicing of bankside trees in some sections to open up light levels and promote growth of emergent and marginal vegetation;  Management of bankside vegetation along the watercourse to be of varying width, such that some areas allow for informal public access to the watercourse’s

337

edge, while dense woodland is maintained in other areas, deterring access to the watercourse (’ecological quiet zones’);  Creation of low-lying areas, scrapes and ponds adjacent to the watercourse to provide associated wetland habitat; and  Management of existing tree and shrub planting, and establishment of wildflower grassland to provide a diverse mosaic of habitats in association with the watercourse corridor.

Faunal Enhancements

11.144 The above habitat creation and enhancement measures will provide benefits to a range of fauna. In addition, to provide specific nesting and roosting opportunities for a range of faunal species, and compensate for the loss of bird nesting habitat under the Proposed Development, it is proposed that faunal habitat features are provided in association with new buildings and open space areas:

 Bat boxes will be provided on new buildings and retained trees within the Site. Box specifications will be selected to be long lasting and provide benefits to Priority Species recorded in the local area, such as Brown Long-eared Bat, Soprano Pipistrelle and Noctule;  Nesting opportunities for birds will be provided in the form of nest boxes installed on new buildings and retained trees. Box specifications will be selected to benefit the UK Priority Species Starling and House Sparrow, and the Amber List species Swift.  Provision of habitat piles and dedicated hibernacula will provide shelter for reptile and amphibian species;  Enhancements for invertebrates will be provided by creating habitat piles, using arisings from site clearance works and management.

338

SUMMARY

11.145 Ecological surveys of the Site have been undertaken, including a desk study, an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and a range of Phase 2 faunal surveys.

11.146 A number of ecological designations were identified by the desk study. These include St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS, located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site, whilst the nearest statutory designation is Church Lane Flood Meadow LNR (and LWS) located approximately 480m to the south of the Site.

11.147 The Site itself is dominated by species-poor semi-improved grassland, not considered to be of ecological importance, together with other habitats including young wooded vegetation, tall ruderal vegetation, scrub, buildings and hardstanding. Habitats which are considered to be of importance at the local level or above comprise watercourses (and associated wooded vegetation), ponds and hedgerows. Surveys of protected species have found that the Site is of local importance for foraging and commuting bats, birds and Great Crested Newts, whilst Badger, Grass Snake and other common mammal, amphibian and invertebrate species are also supported by the site.

11.148 A range of potential effects have been identified on habitats and fauna within and surrounding the Site, with potentially significant effects identified in relation to St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS, habitats of ecological importance, foraging and commuting bats and Great Crested Newt. Mitigation measures are therefore proposed, including construction safeguards, a translocation exercise and new habitat creation in regard to Great Crested Newt, detailed design of housing layout, implementation of a SUDS scheme and lighting design. Such measures are considered to avoid, minimise or offset any significant adverse effects resulting from the Proposed Development. Furthermore, a range of additional enhancement measures have been identified to provide gains in biodiversity across the Site, including habitat creation and enhancement and provision of new nesting and shelter opportunities for faunal species.

11.149 The Proposed Development and mitigation scheme have also been designed to achieve compliance with relevant legislation and planning policy. Measures are proposed to avoid killing or injury of protected species such as bats, birds, Great Crested Newt and reptiles (protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) and opportunities for enhancements to biodiversity are also proposed, in accordance with NPPF, the NERC Act 2006 and local policy. Proposed enhancements will also deliver significant benefits in terms of green infrastructure, providing an extensive network of green links and corridors through and around the Site.

339

11.150 Following mitigation, it is considered that the Proposed Development would result in an overall gain in the existing ecological interest supported by the Site, with significant benefits in respect of habitats, birds, Great Crested Newt and other fauna.

11.151 A summary table of the effects of the Proposed Development is provided below at Table 11.9.

Table 11.9: Ecology and Nature Conservation Summary Table

Nature of Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Potential Effect (Permanent Significance (Compensation / Effects or Enhancement)* Temporary)

Construction Phase

Ecological Designations

St. Andrew’s Construction safeguards including Church Yard LWS Slight, Significant dampening down of Non- adverse and adverse at Dust deposition; dust, careful storage of significant medium- district level contaminated materials and (probable) surface water run- term (uncertain) engineering safeguards off to control drainage

Other ecological Non- Non- significant significant designations Negligible No mitigation required (near (near No likely effects certain) certain)

Habitats and Ecological Features

Watercourse (and associated woody Construction vegetation); ponds; safeguards including native hedgerows Slight, Significant tree protection fencing, Non- adverse and adverse at dampening down of Encroachment into significant medium- local level dust, careful storage of habitats; dust (probable) deposition; term (uncertain) materials and contaminated engineering safeguards surface water run- to control drainage off

Faunal Species

340

Nature of Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Potential Effect (Permanent Significance (Compensation / Effects or Enhancement)* Temporary)

Foraging and Slight, Non- Non- commuting bats Controls on temporary adverse and significant significant lighting Disturbance from short-term (probable) (probable) lighting

Clearance of potential Birds bird nesting habitat Slight, Non- outside of breeding Non- Loss of active adverse and significant season (or following significant nests; noise and short-term (probable) nesting bird check); (probable) visual disturbance controls on temporary lighting and noise

Great Crested Newt Implementation of Significant Risk of injury and Moderate, translocation exercise Non- adverse at disturbance from adverse and prior to significant local level construction short-term commencement of (probable) activities; effects on (probable) construction works water quality of associated ponds

Operation Phase

Ecological

Designations

Non- European Non- significant designations Negligible significant No mitigation required (near (probable) No likely effects certain)

Non- St. Andrew’s Non- significant Church Yard LWS Negligible significant No mitigation required (near (probable) No likely effects certain)

Non- Non- Other designations significant significant Negligible No mitigation required No likely effects (near (near certain) certain)

Habitats and Ecological Features

341

Nature of Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Potential Effect (Permanent Significance (Compensation / Effects or Enhancement)* Temporary)

Watercourse (and associated woody vegetation) Culverts to be designed Slight- Significant in accordance with Non- Creation of road moderate, adverse at good practice; significant crossings; potential adverse and local level implementation of (probable) changes to long-term (uncertain) hydrological regime SUDS scheme and risk of pollution events

Enhancements to Significant watercourse including positive at control of non-native the local species, scrub control to level increase light levels (probable) reaching water etc.

Ponds Significant Loss of ponds; Moderate, New pond creation; Non- adverse at potential changes adverse and implementation of significant local level to hydrological long-term SUDS scheme (probable) regime and risk of (probable) pollution events

Native hedgerows Slight, Non- Non- adverse and significant No mitigation required significant Loss of hedgerow long-term (probable) (probable)

New habitat creation, Significant including wildflower Other habitats - - positive grassland, tree planting, (probable) ponds and hedgerows

Faunal Species

Bats – foraging and commuting Slight- Significant Implementation of Non- moderate, adverse at sensitive lighting Loss of habitat; significant adverse and district level design to minimise disturbance from (probable) lighting; road traffic long-term (uncertain) lightspill collisions

Non- New habitat creation to significant provide additional positive foraging resource (probable)

342

Nature of Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Potential Effect (Permanent Significance (Compensation / Effects or Enhancement)* Temporary)

Birds – farmland species (Skylark, Linnet and Yellowhammer) Minor loss of habitat; Slight, Non- Non- anthropogenic adverse and significant No mitigation required significant disturbance long-term (probable) (probable) (notably from recreation, light, road traffic collisions and cat predation)

Birds – other Loss of habitat, although establishment of new habitats within gardens and amenity spaces Non- Non- and supplementary significant Negligible No mitigation required significant feeding from (near (probable) residents; certain) anthropogenic disturbance (notably from recreation, light, road traffic collisions and cat predation)

New habitat creation and Significant additional nesting positive opportunities (probable)

Great Crested Newt Creation of dedicated Loss of breeding Significant Great Crested Newt Moderate, Significant ponds and adverse at ponds and habitat adverse and positive terrestrial habitat; local level creation; long-term (probable) potential changes (probable) implementation of to hydrological SUDS scheme regime and risk of pollution events

343

Nature of Effect Mitigation Measures Residual Potential Effect (Permanent Significance (Compensation / Effects or Enhancement)* Temporary)

Other fauna New habitat creation to Significant (including reptiles, - - provide additional habitat positive other mammals, resource (probable) invertebrates) * Mitigation measures shown in bold are required to avoid potential significant effects. Other measures listed comprise additional mitigation measures to minimise non-significant effects or for legislative requirements. Additional measures shown in italics and shaded grey relate to enhancement measures. A separate assessment of residual effects is given for such measures.

344

REFERENCES

Ref. 11.1: JNCC (2010); ‘Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit.’ JNCC. Ref. 11.2: English Nature (2004); ‘Bat Mitigation Guidelines’, English Nature. Ref. 11.3: Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) (2012); ‘Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines’, BCT. Ref. 11.4: Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) (2016); ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists – Good Practice Guidelines’, BCT. Ref. 11.5: Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jefferies, D. (1989); ‘Occasional Publication No.9 – Surveying Badgers’, Mammal Society. Ref. 11.6: British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Common Bird Census methodology. Available from: http://www.bto.org/birdtrends2010/cbc.htm Ref. 11.7: Scottish Natural Heritage (2005) ‘Survey Methods for use in assessing the impacts of Onshore Windfarms on Bird Communities’ Ref. 11.8: Natural England (undated); ‘Standing Advice Species Sheet: Great Crested Newts’ Ref. 11.9: English Nature (2001); ‘Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines’. Ref 11.10: Biggs J., Ewald N., Valentini A., Gaboriaud C., Griffiths R.A., Foster J., Wilkinson J., Arnett A., Williams P. and Dunn F. (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.

Ref. 11.11: Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (1998); ‘Herpetofauna Workers Manual’, Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). Ref. 11.12: Foster, J. (1999); ‘Advice Sheet 10: Reptile Survey’, Froglife. Ref. 11.13: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2016); ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland’, CIEEM. Ref. 11.14: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012); ‘National Planning Policy Framework‘, Department for Communities and Local Government. Ref. 11.15: CLG (March 2014) National Planning Policy Guidance Ref. 11.16: Epping Forest District Council (2008); ‘Combined Policies of Epping Forest District Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006)’. Ref. 11.17: Epping Forest District Council (2017); ‘Epping Forest District Draft Local Plan Submission Version’. Ref. 11.18: UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Available online at: http://tna.europarchive.org/20110303145238/http:/www.ukbap.org.uk/default.aspx

345

Ref. 11.19: DEFRA (2011); 'Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England's wildlife and ecosystem services', DEFRA. Ref. 11.20: The Stationery Office (2006); ‘Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.21: Essex Biodiversity Action Plan. Available online at: http://www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/biodiversity-action-plan Ref. 11.22: The Stationery Office (2017); ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.23: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1981); ‘Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981’, HMSO. Ref. 11.24: The Stationery Office (2006) ‘Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.25: The Stationery Office (2000); ‘The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.26: The Stationery Office (2017); ‘The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.27: The Stationery Office (1997); ‘The Hedgerows Regulations 1997’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.28: The Stationery Office (1992); ‘Protection of Badgers Act 1992’, The Stationery Office. Ref. 11.29: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1981); ‘Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996’, HMSO. Ref. 11.30: AECOM (December 2017); ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment of Epping Forest District Council Regulation 19 Local Plan’, Epping Forest District Council. Ref. 11.31: Fure, A. (2006); ‘Bats and lighting’, The London Naturalist, 85, 1-20. Ref. 11.32: BCT and Institution of Lighting Engineers (2009); ‘Bats and Lighting in the UK’, BCT and Institution of Lighting Engineers.

346

12 WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY AND FLOOD RISK

INTRODUCTION

12.1 This chapter presents an assessment of the Proposed Development and the potential effects and mitigation measures required relating to water quality, hydrology and flood risk.

12.2 Consideration will be made to all of the aforementioned aspects in both the short and medium term (i.e. during the phased construction process) and the long term (i.e. operational / occupied site).

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Overall Methodology

12.3 A number of sources have been utilised to assess the site in the pre- and post- development phases, as well as the construction phase. The methodology of this assessment will be to break down the Proposed Development into the different phases of the development, as put forward by BDB Design LLP in drawing 2860-008-RevF, with the possible effects being considered for anticipated composition of the site at that given time.

12.4 The significance of the effects was determined and assessed utilising available guidance and relevant legislation with consideration to the likelihood of both occurrence and effect of potential impacts. Further reference and expertise was drawn from reports produced by various parties, as required, to aid and inform the assessment. The general criteria to be used is outlined in the tables below.

347

Table 12.1 – Sensitivity of Receptors

Sensitivity Typical Descriptor

Very High Very high importance and rarity, international scale and very limited potential for substitution

High High importance and rarity, national scale and very 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

Table 12.2 – Magnitude Assessment Criteria

Magnitude of Impact Typical Descriptor

Major Change resulting in a high degree of deterioration or improvement.

Moderate Change resulting in a material deterioration or improvement.

Minor Change resulting in a low degree of deterioration or improvement.

Negligible Change resulting in a negligible degree of deterioration or improvement.

Neutral No change

348

Table 12.3– Description of Significance of Effects

Significance Category Typical Descriptor

Major A magnitude of change that materially affects a receptor in a situation where there is little or no scope to accommodate change.

Moderate A magnitude of change that materially affects a receptor that may have the ability to accommodate change.

Minor A magnitude of change that has a limited effect on a receptor that has the ability to accommodate change.

Negligible A magnitude of change that has little effect on a receptor that has the ability to accommodate change.

Neutral A magnitude of change that results in an impact of neutral significance due to the change being entirely compatible with the receptor.

Table 12.4– Overall Assessment of Significance/Risk of Effects

Sensitivity Magnitude of Impact

Neutral Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Very High Neutral Slight Moderate or Large or very Very large large large

High Neutral Slight Slight or Moderate or Large or very moderate large large

Medium Neutral Neutral or Slight Moderate Moderate or slight large

Low Neutral Neutral or Neutral or Slight Slight or slight slight moderate

Negligible Neutral Slight Neutral or Neutral or Slight slight slight

12.5 Effects have been assessed in terms of their nature, as outlined below:

 Adverse – detrimental or negative effect to an assessed receptor;

 Neutral – no significant effect to an assessed receptor; and

 Beneficial – advantageous or positive effects to an assessed receptor

349

Water Quality

12.6 The assessment of water quality was undertaken utilising readily available data from the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA, produced by Ardent Consulting Engineers (hereafter referred to as “Ardent”); Ref. 12.1) and contained within Appendix 12.1. Geotechnical Study (undertaken and reported by ESI in June 2017; Ref. 12.2) and publicly available British Geological Survey (BGS) data. In addition, relevant consultation undertaken with Essex County Council were reviewed and assessed for best practice methods alongside referencing and reviewing relevant legislation and guidance produced on behalf of the government. Pre-application advice undertaken with the Environment Agency (EA) was also employed in the assessment of water quality to both groundwater and watercourses/bodies. The methodology and criteria to determine the effect of the Proposed Development was as that outlined in Tables 12.1 to 12.4.

Hydrology

12.7 The hydrological nature of the site was assessed through a desktop study and modelling exercise as reported within the FRA. Consultation with, and use of, EA river data and mapping, which takes into account Water Framework Directives (WFD), was utilised to inform this study; inclusive of watercourse location and quality; alongside the regulations set by other relevant legislation. The existing and proposed impermeable and permeable areas across the site were assessed in collaboration with the topographical survey and Thames Water pre-application advice used to review both the falls across the site and the location of sewers in the vicinity. The ultimate effect on the drainage strategy and hydrology of the site were assessed using the methodology and criteria outlined in Tables 12.1 to 12.4.

Flood Risk

12.8 The assessment of flood risk primarily utilised the FRA, produced by Ardent, and associated information. This information was used in collaboration with relevant third party information to assess the risk of flooding, in accordance with relevant National Planning Policy Framework, from all sources (i.e. fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, sewers and artificial sources). Furthermore, consideration was made to the proposed phasing of the development and the effect on the risk of flooding during the construction phase. The methodology and criteria to determine the effect of the Proposed Development to flood risk was as that outlined in Tables 12.1 to 12.4.

350

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework

12.9 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; Ref 12.3) was enacted on 27 March 2012; paragraph 100 to 108 inclusive, establishes the national planning policy approach to flood risk management. A revision to the NPPF was issued as draft in March 2018 with the aim of a final revised Framework being published in the summer. The Technical Guide to the NPPF has been superseded by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in March 2014.

12.10 The main focus of the policy is to direct development towards areas of the lowest practicable flood risk and to ensure that all development is safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The main considerations are:

 Applying the Sequential Test, and if necessary, apply the Exception Test;

 Safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management;

 Using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding; and,

 Where climate change is expected to increase flood risk so that some existing development may not be sustainable in the long-term, seeking opportunities to facilitate the relocation of development, including housing, to more sustainable locations.

12.11 Whilst this will be outlined throughout this chapter, reference should be made to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) produced by Ardent in December 2017.

Flood and Water Management Act, 2010

12.12 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Ref. 12.4) defines clearer roles and responsibilities for the implementation of sustainable drainage (SuDS) in developments, by requiring drainage systems to be approved against a set of draft national standards.

12.13 In December 2014 the government set out changes to the planning system that apply for major development from 06 April 2015 via changes to the Town and Country Planning Act.

351

This change confirmed that in considering planning applications, local planning authorities (LPA) should consult the relevant Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) on the management of surface water; satisfy themselves that the proposed minimum standards of operation are appropriate and ensure through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations that there are clear arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development.

12.14 This means that Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) will not be enacted at this point in time and that Lead Local Flood Authorities (established at the county or unitary local authority level) will not be required to establish SuDS Approving Bodies (SABs) as previously envisaged by the FWMA.

12.15 In March 2015, the Government confirmed that as of the 15 April 2015, Lead Local Flood Authority will become a statutory consultee on surface water and SuDS proposals.

The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017

12.16 The incorporation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD; Ref 12.5) into UK Law has had wide reaching consequences to the management of waterbody quality, with the below regulations being relevant to the Proposed Development;

These Regulations —

(a) may be cited as the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 and come into force on 10th April 2017;

(b) extend to England and Wales;

Where.

2.(1) In these Regulations —

“the Agency” means the Environment Agency;

“the appropriate agency”, except as provided for by regulation 9(8), means—

352

(a) in relation to a river basin district that is wholly in England, the Agency;

4.(1) The areas shown on the official map are identified as river basin districts for the purposes of these Regulations.

(2) In this regulation, “the official map” means the map of river basin districts produced by the Agency and published on its website.

12.17 The WFD Regulations Part 5 (13) outlines the environmental objectives to be adhered too with the regulations relevant to the Proposed Development presented below.

13.(1) The environmental objectives referred to in regulation 12 are, subject to regulations 14 to 19, the following objectives for the relevant type of water body or area.

(2) For surface water bodies, the objectives are to—

(a) prevent deterioration of the status of each body of surface water;

(b) protect, enhance and restore each body of surface water (other than an artificial or heavily modified water body) with the aim of achieving good ecological status and (subject to paragraph (3)) good surface water chemical status, if not already achieved, by 22nd December 2021;

(c) protect and enhance each artificial or heavily modified water body with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and (subject to paragraph (3)) good surface water chemical status, if not already achieved, by 22nd December 2021;

(d) aim progressively to reduce pollution from priority substances and aim to cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.

15.(1) The appropriate agency may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified if it considers that—

(a) the changes to the hydromorphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on—

353

(i) the wider environment,

(ii) navigation, including port facilities, or recreation,

(iii) activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking water supply, power generation or irrigation,

(iv) water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or

(v) other sustainable human development activities which the appropriate agency considers are of equal importance to the matters in paragraphs (i) to (iv), and

(b) the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost, reasonably be achieved by other means which are a significantly better environmental option.

(2) Designations under this regulation, and an explanation for them, must be included in the relevant river basin management plan, and reviewed (and where necessary revised) when that plan is updated under Part 6.

18.—(1) A temporary deterioration in the status of a body of water is not a breach of the environmental objectives set for it under regulation 12 if—

(a) it is the result of—

(i) circumstances of natural cause or force majeure which are exceptional or could not reasonably have been foreseen, in particular extreme floods or prolonged droughts, or

(ii) circumstances due to accidents which could not reasonably have been foreseen, and

(b) all the conditions in paragraphs (2) to (4) are or will be met.

(2) The condition is that all practicable steps are taken—

354

(a) to prevent further deterioration in the status of the affected body of water, and

(b) so as not to compromise the achievement of the environmental objectives for any body of water not affected by the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (1)(a).

(3) The condition is that the river basin management plan sets out the conditions under which circumstances are exceptional or could not reasonably have been foreseen including the adoption of the appropriate indicators.

(4) The condition is that the measures to be taken under such exceptional circumstances are included in the programme of measures to be applied to the body of water and will not compromise the recovery of the quality of that body of water once the circumstances are over.

19.(1) A failure to achieve good groundwater status, good ecological status or (where relevant) good ecological potential, or to prevent deterioration in the status of a body of surface water or groundwater, is not a breach of the environmental objectives set for it under regulation 12 if—

(a) the failure is the result of new modifications to the physical characteristics of the body of surface water or alterations to the level of the body of groundwater, and

(b) all the conditions in paragraphs (3) to (5) are or will be met.

(2) A failure to prevent deterioration from high status to good status of a body of surface water is not a breach of the environmental objectives set for it under regulation 12 if—

(a) the failure is the result of new sustainable development activities, and

(b) all the conditions in paragraphs (3) to (5) are or will be met.

(3) The condition is that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body of water.

355

(4) The condition is that one or both of the following is the case—

(a) the reasons for the modifications or alterations, or for the sustainable development activities, are of overriding public interest;

(b) the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the environmental objectives are outweighed by the benefits of the new modifications or alterations, or of the sustainable development activities, to human health, to the maintenance of human safety, or (in the case of modifications or alterations) to sustainable development.

(5) The condition is that the beneficial objectives served by the modifications or alterations, or by the sustainable development activities, cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost, be achieved by other means which are a significantly better option.

(6) Where paragraph (1) or (2) applies, the reasons for the modifications or alterations, or for the sustainable development activities, must be set out and explained in the river basin management plan, and the environmental objectives must be reviewed every six years.

The Environment Protection Act, 1990

12.18 In terms of groundwater condition and water quality, the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 (amended 2012) Part 2A (Ref. 12.6) is referred too. Schedule 22 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (Ref. 12.7) also aims to provide more detail groundwater activities, specifically with regards to hazardous contaminants which could affect the groundwater.

12.19 The EPA focuses on the definition of contaminated land and the considerations that have to be established and followed to determine the effect. The most relevant areas to the Proposed Development were extracted from Part 2A, section 78A which outlines the definitions of contaminated lands:

(2) “Contaminated land” is any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that —

356

(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused;

and, in determining whether any land appears to be such land, a local authority shall, subject to subsection (5) below, act in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 78YA below with respect to the manner in which that determination is to be made.

(5) The questions —

(a) what pollution of the water environment is to be regarded as “significant”,

(b) whether the possibility of significant pollution of the water environment being caused is “significant”,

12.20 The Environment Protection Act 1990 also discusses the assessment and mitigation requirements for works potentially affecting the land and water courses;

(7) “Remediation” means—

(a) the doing of anything for the purpose of assessing the condition of—

(i) the contaminated land in question;

(ii) any controlled waters affected by that land; or

(iii) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land;

(8) Controlled waters are “affected by” contaminated land if (and only if) it appears to the enforcing authority that the contaminated land in question is, for the purposes of subsection (2) above, in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that pollution of those waters is being, or is likely to be caused.

(9) The following expressions have the meaning respectively assigned to them—

“the appropriate Agency” means—

(a) in relation to England, the Environment Agency

357

78YA Supplementary provisions with respect to guidance by the Secretary of State.

(1) Any power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under this Part shall only be exercisable after consultation with the appropriate Agency and such other bodies or persons as the may consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.

Epping Forest District Draft Local Plan (2016)

12.21 The Epping Forest Draft Local Plan (Ref. 12.8) is one of the main documents in the Council's Local Development Framework (LDF). This draft is not a finalised document, however it represents to council’s preferred approach for the district’s needs up until the year 2033.

12.22 Its role is to provide a delivery strategy to deal with particular challenges and issues that have been identified as being of local importance. The Core Strategy co-ordinates the delivery of development and accompanying infrastructure.

12.23 As well as setting out the council’s vision and objectives for the district’s development up until 2033, this document sets out the following draft policies:

 Draft policies to ensure the development delivers high quality, sustainable homes, maintain high quality built and natural environment;

 Draft policies to build a strong, competitive economy and the future distributions for new employment land space;

 Draft policies to maintain and enhance the vibrancy and vitality of our town centres; and

 Draft policies to support a sustainable transport and road infrastructure network

BASELINE CONDITIONS site Overview

12.24 The site is currently a large Greenfield site used as a golf course which is positively drained due to the topography of the area and discharges to the adjacent watercourses. There are a number of existing ponds on the site, it is not known at this stage if these form part of the

358

golf course drainage system or if they are water features/hazards associated with the golf course, or a combination of the both.

12.25 The site is bounded to the North by the Cripsey Brook, and to the East by an unnamed tributary of the Cripsey Brook. The Cripsey Brook forms part of the Upper Catchment of the River Roding. The North Weald Brook bisects the site from South to North before connecting into the Cripsey Brook to the North of the site boundary. Both the Cripsey and North Weald Brook are designated main rivers and therefore the Environment Agency (EA) has permissive powers over these watercourses.

Water Quality

12.26 The online mapping tool produced by the Environment Agency (Ref. 12.9) provides information on the water quality of main rivers throughout the UK, alongside the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination, in accordance with WFD Regulations. There is no information available on the water quality of the existing ponds within the EA data.

12.27 The EA information outlines the baseline water quality condition of the site whilst the site Investigation carried out and reported by ESI Consulting in June 2017 provides further information specific to the site area.

12.28 The EA online maps identify that the site is located within a low groundwater vulnerability zone, although these have predominantly been superseded by the Aquifer maps; these maps indicate that the site is located within a Secondary (Undifferentiated) superficial deposit aquifer. This is defined as being an area unable to be classified as a Secondary A or B aquifer and is thus unlikely to have a great yield of permeability. This would limit the potential for groundwater quality deterioration. This is in accordance with additional data available via the Defra maps (Ref. 12.10) which does not identify the site as being within an area subject to any groundwater quality issues, or potential issues, of note.

12.29 This information is also in correlation with the borehole data and infiltration testing undertaken as part of the site Investigation report, as well as the British Geological Survey (BGS) data (Ref 12.11), which determined that the superficial deposits were Glacial Till (Lowestoft Formation), a predominantly cohesive material. Furthermore it has been noted within a research study for different areas within the UK (Ref 12.12) available on government websites that “…the effectiveness of superﬁcial clay in providing a barrier to inﬁltration and hence groundwater

359

pollution” was a feature of Glacial Till. Whilst this study was for East Anglia, it is reasonable to assume similar characteristics will be seen in Glacial Till in different regions.

12.30 In terms of surface water quality, the existing site is subject to a number of priority areas with regards to potential contamination as identified on both the Defra and EA online maps. The majority of the information is in relation to agricultural works and is focussed at farmers, although consideration should be given to the information. A summary of the zones and priority areas that the site is located within is provided below;

 (High Priority) Nitrate Vulnerability Zone

 (High Priority) Phosphate Vulnerability Zone

 (High Priority) Sediment Zone

 Countryside Stewardship Priority Area

 Significant pollution event (2002) in the North Weald Brook

 Medium sized surface water abstraction zone from Cripsey Brook for use in agricultural irrigation

12.31 In accordance with the information above, the historic water quality within Main Rivers is presented on the EA Online Tool. Within this, information for the Cripsey Brook is presented between the years 1990 and 2009 which shows a general trend of improvement in the chemical and biological nature of the river. However it was still considered to have a very high level of nitrates and phosphates. Although the North Weald Brook is not reported on, it is assumed that similar quality levels would have been recorded.

12.32 It is also worth noting that the site is not considered to be within a “WFD: Cleaning Waters for All” priority area, identified on the Defra maps.

12.33 For the purpose of comparison in later sections, the baseline water quality of the existing site should be considered as Neutral.

Hydrology

360

12.34 As noted previously, the existing site is a large Greenfield area used as a golf course. The area is positively drained due to the topography of the site and discharges into the existing adjacent watercourses. Additionally, the site is located on a Secondary (Undifferentiated) superficial deposit aquifer which indicates that groundwater flow as a contributor to the base river flow is not likely to be a significant factor in the hydrological supply to the watercourses.

12.35 As part of the FRA, a baseline calculation was undertaken to establish the hydrology of the flows currently discharging into the existing watercourses. This involved dividing the site into 13No, catchments based on the proposed Masterplan impermeable areas (i.e. Greenfield areas proposed to be retained were excluded from the calculations). This concluded that the areas subject to alteration with the Proposed Development amounted to 40.6 ha and had a Greenfield runoff rate, calculated as part of the FRA using the Modified Rational Method, of 98 l/s.

12.36 In addition to the above calculations, the EA River modelling data was obtained for the area which would take into account the calculated Greenfield runoff within the catchment descriptors. This model was used as a baseline for determining the hydrological nature of the watercourse although the outputs were used to asses flood risk with consideration to new climate change allowances; this is detailed further in the following sections of this chapter.

12.37 For the purpose of comparison in later sections, the baseline hydrological nature of the existing site should be considered as Neutral.

361

Flood Risk

Sources of Flooding

12.38 The NPPF requires flood risk from the following sources to be assessed, each of which are assessed separately below:

 Fluvial sources (river flooding);

 Tidal sources (flooding from the sea);

 Pluvial sources (flooding resulting from overland flows);

 Groundwater sources;

 Sewer flooding; and

 Artificial sources, canals, reservoirs etc.

12.39 The information identified within the Flood Risk Assessment has been utilised to populate this section of the chapter, and therefore should be read in conjunction with the FRA.

Fluvial/Tidal Flooding

12.40 The site is primarily located within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) which comprises of land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding. There is a small proportion of the site, adjacent to the existing watercourses, to the north and south of the site, which is located within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk), 3a (high risk) and 3b (functional floodplain). Pre-application advice from the Environment Agency indicated that, in accordance with national framework, development should be located within the lowest risk area (i.e. Flood Zone 1) and where this wasn’t possible be subject to the Sequential and Exception Tests, as required.

12.41 According to the 2015 Epping Forest SFRA (Ref 12.13), there has been no reported fluvial flooding incidents within the site. The nearest fluvial flooding incidents to the site were reported approximately 700m south of the site.

12.42 The baseline risk to fluvial/tidal flooding is considered Neutral.

362

Pluvial Flooding

12.43 The current EA Risk of Flooding from Surface Water Map indicates that the majority of the site is at ”Very Low” risk of flooding (chance of flooding less than a 1 in 1000 (0.1%)) from Surface Water. There are however sections of the site, particularly near the southern boundary and in the vicinity of the rivers running through the site and along the northern boundary, that are subject to “Medium” or “High” risk of flooding from surface water.

12.44 According to the Epping Forest Level 1 SFRA part of the site is located within a flood risk assessment zone, which is defined as “catchments of ordinary watercourse identified as key areas where surface water runoff is contributing to Main Rivers or areas of known historic flooding… particular attention should be applied to surface water management, with the aim of reducing the cumulative impact of development throughout the district. In these zones, Epping Forest District Council have set stringent requirements in excess of those set out in national policy framework.

12.45 Further analysis of Epping Forest SFRA indicates that there has been a surface water flooding incident close to the site, although the extent and nature of the flooding is not specific. There are also a number surface water flooding incidents reported to the south of the site, corresponding with the line of the North Weald Basset Drain.

12.46 The baseline risk to pluvial flooding is considered Neutral.

Groundwater Flooding

12.47 The Environment Agency’s groundwater map shows that the site is not located within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) and is located within a Secondary (Undifferentiated) superficial aquifer zone. This indicates underlying impermeable soils which have been identified previously.

12.48 The readily available BGS borehole data identifies four boreholes located within close proximity to the site, along the A414. A review of this information indicates that the ground water level lies at least 6-10m below ground level (Borehole references: TL40NE108, TL40NE110, TL40NE111, TL40NE112).

12.49 Trial pits were dug on site up to a depth of 2.5m as part of the intrusive site Investigation and infiltration testing; groundwater was not encountered and infiltration deemed unfeasible

363

indicating highly impermeable soils and therefore acting as a restrictive barrier to any potential rising groundwater.

12.50 Furthermore, there are no known records of groundwater flooding incidents within the site or close vicinity.

12.51 The baseline risk to groundwater flooding is considered Neutral.

Sewer Flooding

12.52 The Thames Water and Anglian asset maps (Ref. 12.14) were requested as part of the overall utilities survey request. Upon receipt of this information it was apparent that there are no sewers located within, or in the vicinity of the site.

12.53 According to the Epping Forest Level 1 SFRA the site is located within a postcode area where there have been 11-20No. sewer flooding events. Although it is not clearly identified where these events occurred, the appreciation that there are no sewers located within the vicinity of site give a clear indication that there cannot be a history of sewer flooding in the site proximity.

12.54 The baseline risk to sewer flooding is considered Neutral.

Artificial Sources Flooding

12.55 The EA risk of flooding from reservoir map shows that the site is not located within close enough proximity to any reservoirs to be within the maximum extent of flooding. Furthermore, there are no water mains or canals located within the site. There are however a number of ponds although the nature and compositions of these is currently unknown. The site is not considered to be at risk of flooding from artificial sources.

12.56 The baseline risk to artificial flooding is considered Neutral.

364

Table 12.5– Summary of Baseline Risk to Receptors

Receptor Risk Justification

Water Quality Neutral Contamination levels known and recorded with no adverse effects from the existing site

Hydrology Neutral site discharges at Greenfield Runoff

Fluvial / Tidal Neutral Main rivers located near and in the site, unaffected in this state

Pluvial Neutral site subject to pluvial flooding although no risk to property or humans

Groundwater Neutral Low groundwater table and impermeable soils Flood Risk Sewers Neutral No sewers within the vicinity of the site

Artificial Sources Neutral No artificial sources within the vicinity of the site

365

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

Construction Phase

12.57 The construction process has not been finalised at the time of writing although it is understood that it will be conducted in four distinct phases, as outlined in BDB Design LLP in drawing 2860-008-RevF.

12.58 This document will be considered and referenced during this section of the chapter with the following assumptions;

 The succeeding phase of construction will not commence until the preceding phase is completed;

 Access to all phase areas will be from the existing A414 (although exact location not defined) and through preceded completed phases as necessary (i.e. temporary hardstanding areas will be installed); and

 Occupation and operation of the site will not commence until all construction phases are completed.

12.59 As such, the risks associated with the completed construction phases are outlined within the “Operational Phase” to which reference should be made. All construction risk noted below is considered applicable to all phases unless a specific phase of works is identified.

Water Quality

12.60 A review of the construction phases shows that similar features will be constructed during each individual stage. These are identified below;

 Residential / Care Homes / Schools (i.e. foundations)

 Associated access roads and hardstanding areas

 Installation of SuDS (i.e. permeable paving, detention basins, below ground tanks)

 Installation of drainage pipes and network

366

12.61 Whilst the primary concern of water quality is, as noted previously, surface water quality, during the construction period there is the potential for groundwater to be encountered and therefore contaminated; the construction process requires excavations for installation of a number of features (i.e. drainage, SuDS, foundations etc.). At the time of writing, the required excavation depth is not known. Therefore, as a worst case scenario it is to be assumed that excavations will be deep enough to provide a pollutant linkage to groundwater.

12.62 The use of contaminative materials (as defined in Ref 12.15), such as cement, could potentially cause contamination to groundwater and surface water. The foundation type has not been confirmed at the time of writing but the process to be used could potentially cause a pathway to the pollution of groundwater. If piled foundations are favoured for the development it is possible that, if driven piles, a pathway could be opened to the groundwater and cause contamination.

12.63 Surface water is primarily affected by the runoff generated across the site. Due to the large area of the site it is likely that the construction process will take a significant amount of time (circa 10 years) and therefore large rainfall events are likely to occur and thus cause increased runoff into the surrounding watercourses. Coupling this occurrence with the installation of temporary hardstanding areas, and the potential contamination from oil leaks, off- site contaminants and chemical materials (i.e. cement), it is possible that the runoff will become contaminated and, as a result, contaminate the receiving watercourses (or existing waterbodies) at an increased rate.

12.64 The unmitigated construction risk to water quality is considered Moderate Adverse.

Hydrology

12.65 The installation of temporary hardstanding areas during the construction process is likely to increase the runoff from the surrounding areas to a rate higher than Greenfield, prior to the installation of any formal drainage. This has the potential to increase the rates entering the watercourse and thus increase the flows and change the hydrology to an unexamined scenario. Furthermore, this would impact upon the flood risk potential, as examined in the following section of this chapter.

12.66 Despite excavations the groundwater recharge to the watercourse is likely to be unaffected by the proposed construction work.

367

12.67 The unmitigated construction risk to hydrology is considered Minor Adverse.

Flood Risk

Fluvial/Tidal Flooding

12.68 It is currently understood that, in the absence of a detailed construction methodology, any enhancements to the existing watercourses would occur at the final stage and therefore only be applicable in the operational phase.

12.69 However, as alluded to in the Hydrology section above there is an increased potential during the construction phase for increased runoff rates from unattenuated temporary and permanent hardstanding areas. Unrestricted, increased flows into the watercourse could potentially cause peak flow rates and flooding potential to intensify and cause an increased potential for flooding to the site. Although a consideration, this should be considered an unlikely scenario.

12.70 The unmitigated construction risk to fluvial/tidal flood risk is considered Minor Adverse.

Pluvial Flooding

12.71 The introduction of temporary hardstanding areas during the construction process reduces the amount of Greenfield/ permeable area. As a result, there is likely to be an increased susceptibility to surface water flooding due to low spots and depressions within the hardstanding areas and less water draining to ground. Whilst this has a minor adverse effect on the site it is not considered a significant risk.

12.72 The unmitigated construction risk to pluvial flood risk is considered Minor Adverse.

Groundwater Flooding

12.73 Groundwater flooding occurs when the level of the groundwater exceeds the height of the surface level. As noted through review of the BGS data and the site Investigation report, the groundwater level is approximately 6mBGL. During the construction process excavations are required (for foundations, drains, SuDS features etc.) although the depth is unknown at the time of writing.

368

12.74 If it is assumed, as a worst cases scenario, that excavation extrude into the groundwater level, then there will be potential for flooding from groundwater sources. Whilst this is damaging to the construction process, the onset of groundwater flooding could have serious implications to human life and should be mitigated, as discussed in the following sections of this chapter.

12.75 The unmitigated construction risk to groundwater flood risk is considered Minor Adverse.

Sewer Flooding

12.76 The construction process involves the installation of a drawing network to cater for the Proposed Development. As the detailed construction methodology is not known at the time of writing, it is unclear as to when the drains will be installed. For the purpose of this chapter, it is considered that these will not be functioning until the operational phase. Furthermore, it is assumed that any temporary drainage network for the construction site will be informal and located above ground. Therefore there are no sewers and/or drains within the site in the same manner as discussed in the baseline section.

12.77 The unmitigated construction risk to sewer flood risk is considered Neutral.

Artificial Sources Flooding

12.78 It is proposed to construct a number of detention basins within a proposed Green Corridor of the site. These are designed to attenuate surface water runoff for the 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change storm event. For the purpose of this assessment, it is considered that these basins will not be functioning until the operational phase. Therefore the only artificial sources of flooding on site are the existing ponds discussed in the baseline section.

12.79 It is possible with the installation of the temporary hardstanding that the increased runoff could enter these ponds and thus increase the possibility of flooding from these sources.

12.80 The unmitigated construction risk to artificial sources flood risk is considered Minor Adverse.

369

Operational Phase

12.81 As discussed earlier, the operational phase is being considered as the point in time when the all construction phases are complete. In this instance, the associated risks from the construction phase are not considered to occur in the operational phase unless specifically noted in the following sections.

12.82 The operational phase is being assessed based on the site layout being as shown in BDB Design LLP drawing 2860-002-RevH “Indicative Masterplan”.

12.83 A review of the Masterplan identifies that many of the unmitigated construction issues are also applicable within the operational phase. The key elements associated with the operational phase are the mitigation measures, which will be discussed in detail in the Enhancement, Mitigation and Residual Effects section of this chapter under the sub-heading Operational Phase Mitigation.

Table 12.6– Comparison of Baseline and Unmitigated Risk

Receptor Baseline Unmitigated Risk Justification Risk

Water Quality Neutral Moderate Adverse Potential contamination to runoff from construction processes

Hydrology Neutral Minor Adverse Potential increase in runoff above Greenfield rate

Fluvial / Tidal Neutral Minor Adverse Increased runoff due to increase in hardstanding areas

Pluvial Neutral Minor Adverse Increased hardstanding areas

Groundwater Neutral Minor Adverse Potential for excavations deeper than groundwater level Flood Risk Sewers Neutral Neutral No sewers within the site boundary or vicinity

Artificial Neutral Minor Adverse Potential for construction runoff to enter existing Sources ponds

370

ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

12.84 Due to the nature of the lack of significant effect on the water resources receptors, there is understood to be no cumulative effect of the Proposed Development in relation to other proposed or ongoing developments when considering water quality, hydrology or flood risk.

ENHANCEMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Construction Phase Mitigation

12.85 The mitigation methods outlined in the below sections are written with reference to the relevant areas of Identification and Evaluation of Key Effects section.

Water Quality

12.86 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is a Moderate Adverse effect on water quality in the unmitigated construction phase. There are however several best practice construction methods which can be implemented to mitigate the risk from the potential sources of contamination.

12.87 Whilst it was noted in the earlier sections of the report that there is a potential contamination pathway presented through driven piling, this is based on a worst case scenario. Consideration should be given to all methods of foundation with relevance given to the potential for contamination of groundwater. Bored piles, for example, are preferred as they are not as susceptible to contamination pathway linkage. Whilst the risk of contamination is minor and has only been considered in the worst case, good practice methods of construction choice and application should negate the potential contamination pathways to groundwater,

12.88 Contamination to surface waterbodies was noted as potentially occurring from three primary sources, exacerbated during heavy rainfall events and the installation of increased hardstanding (both temporary and permanent);

 Construction traffic bringing contaminants from off-site;

 Oil spills from plant; and

 Chemical material stored on site causing contamination.

371

12.89 Construction traffic will be regularly travelling to and from site and is therefore susceptible to bringing contaminants within the wheel tracks. In order to mitigate this, designated areas, with localised drainage and treatment areas (inclusive of features such as catchpits and silt traps), should be provided for wheel washing with washing plant also stored in a designated area; ideally these areas would be surrounded be a bund adequate in size to prevent any contaminated runoff leaving the designated area.

12.90 Many pieces of plant are susceptible to oil spills/leaks, particularly when standing. In order to mitigate this potential contamination source, where standing vehicles are known to leak oils drip trays should be provided to collect the leakage for appropriate and safe disposal. Ina addition to this, the plant susceptible to oil leaks should be kept on site within a designated area with the focus on preventing any runoff from this area.

12.91 Similarly, the storage of many contaminative chemical materials should be located in a specially designated area of the site which should be bunded and have locked access. This will prevent any contamination to the surrounding areas from spillage and any unauthorised access which could lead to a potential contamination event.

12.92 The drainage strategy identifies the use of several SuDS features which aim to remove pollutants from the surface water runoff prior to discharge to the surrounding watercourses. For the purpose of this chapter, it is assuming that the drainage strategy will not be functioning until the operational stage. It may therefore be prudent and necessary to install a temporary drainage network during construction, incorporating temporary SuDS and drainage features designed to remove the potential for deterioration to the water quality of the surrounding area. However, due to the proposed designated areas for chemicals and standing vehicles it may be considered necessary to install oil separators to prevent contamination from this source. This should be discussed, as necessary, with the Lead Local Flood Authority (Epping Forest District Council) and Environment Agency.

12.93 Prevention of contamination through these appropriately implemented measures will be in accordance with WFD and EPA regulations and directives. The mitigated construction risk to water quality is considered Neutral.

372

Hydrology

12.94 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is considered to be a Minor Adverse effect on hydrology in the unmitigated construction phase. There are however several best practice construction methods which can be implemented to mitigate the risk from the potential sources of contamination. In order to identify appropriate mitigation measures to manage any adverse effects on hydrology, the development site is considered in terms of the catchment areas presented in the FRA prepared by Ardent. In this case, the phased construction process currently being adopted is adaptable to the construction of individual catchments. As presented within the FRA, the temporary scenario should be designed accordingly by the contractor to ensure flows are no greater than the Greenfield runoff rate in order to negate any effect on the existing site hydrology.

12.95 This can be achieved through the construction and use of temporary flow restrictors and attenuation areas (inclusive of any additional features required for water quality) designed for the area subject to current construction processes. Adequately designed, this will ensure that the runoff never exceeds Greenfield rates and therefore the hydrology of the site remains unaltered from the baseline scenario. It should be noted that this methodology require adequate maintenance procedures and best practice construction methods to minimise debris build up and blockages.

12.96 The mitigated construction risk to hydrology is considered Neutral.

Flood Risk

Fluvial/Tidal Flooding

12.97 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is considered to be a Minor Adverse effect on fluvial/tidal flood risk in the unmitigated construction phase. There are however several best practice construction methods which can be implemented to mitigate the risk.

12.98 Pre-application consultation undertaken with the EA (Ref. 12.16) provides advice with regards to maintaining an 8m buffer from Main Rivers. Whilst this is predominantly for the maintenance of flood defences it is a good barometer as an exclusion zone for construction plant and personnel to minimise the risk of harm or damage.

373

12.99 Furthermore, it would be good practice to ensure all essential plant and materials are stored at levels above the 1 in 100 year + 35% climate change event as noted within the FRA. This minimises the risk of flooding to the equipment during the construction process.

12.100 As discussed in the Hydrology section above, the use of temporary flow restrictors and attenuation areas (inclusive of any additional features required for water quality) designed for the area subject to current construction processes. Adequately designed, this will ensure that the runoff never exceeds Greenfield rates and therefore the river flows, and thus the potential for fluvial flooding, of the site remains unaltered from the baseline scenario

12.101 The mitigated construction risk to fluvial/tidal flood risk is considered Neutral.

Pluvial Flooding

12.102 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is a Minor Adverse effect on pluvial flood risk in the unmitigated construction phase. There are however several best practice construction methods which can be implemented to mitigate the risk.

12.103 Whilst the increase in hardstanding makes the site more susceptible to surface water flooding, mitigation measures of setting up a temporary drainage network, including temporary flood storage areas, would manage much of the risk if adequately designed.

12.104 Additionally, any hardstanding areas should incorporate gentle slopes towards collection points which would be located at the lowest point. This would reduce the potential for standing water and ensure site accessibility. Mitigation measures such as wheel washing should also be incorporated to lessen any potential for temporary drainage measure to become blocked or silted up.

12.105 The mitigated construction risk to pluvial flood risk is considered Neutral.

Groundwater Flooding

12.106 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is a Minor Adverse effect on groundwater flooding in the unmitigated construction phase. There are however several best practice construction methods which can be implemented to mitigate the risk.

374

12.107 The lack of a detailed construction methodology at the time of writing meant that a worst case assumption was made with regards to the potential for groundwater flooding. A consideration of deep excavations was made which extended below the groundwater level and thus caused groundwater flooding. However, the construction methodology should follow best practice guidance and minimise excavation depths where possible, thus reducing the potential for flooding.

12.108 Where it is considered absolutely necessary to excavate to sufficient depth of groundwater, dual pumping provisions should be installed within the excavation to ensure the area is kept dry. The pump should discharge the water to a safe, permeable area on the site. As a matter of best practice, where groundwater is encountered, levels should be taken periodically and a risk assessment prepared detailing procedure for work in these area and evacuation in the event of pump failure.

12.109 The mitigated construction risk to groundwater flood risk is considered Neutral.

Sewer Flooding

12.110 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is a Neutral effect on sewer flooding in the unmitigated construction phase. As such, there are no mitigation requirements for this aspect during this stage of the works.

12.111 The mitigated construction risk to sewer flood risk is considered Neutral.

Artificial Sources Flooding

12.112 As described in the relevant aforementioned section there is a Minor Adverse effect on artificial sources flooding in the unmitigated construction phase. There are however several best practice construction methods which can be implemented to mitigate the risk.

12.113 Whilst the ponds are susceptible to surface water flows entering them, measures taken by the contractor such as creating a localised drainage network for the temporary hardstanding will minimise the runoff entering the features. Furthermore, a temporary levels strategy with the existing ponds at high level, where feasible, will negate any potential for the runoff and negate any adverse effect of flooding in the process.

12.114 The mitigated construction risk to artificial sources flood risk is considered Neutral.

375

Operational Phase Mitigation

Water Quality

12.115 In the operational phase of the development the site, groundwater risk will have reverted back to the baseline and is therefore not considered as part of the operational phase as it will be approximately 6-10mBGL as noted previously in the report.

12.116 However, as there is an increase in hardstanding area across the site there is the potential for deterioration and contamination of surface water, particularly since these hardstanding areas are proposed to be discharged to the existing watercourse.

12.117 However, the drainage strategy presented within the FRA identifies a number of SuDS features which are designed to remove pollutants as outlined in the CIRIA SuDS Manual (Ref. 12.17). A summary of the proposed features designed to remove pollutants is provided below;

 Permeable paving in parking courts;

 Detention basins through the proposed Green Corridor of the site;

 Below ground attenuation tanks with associated upstream catchpit manhole; and

 Downstream defender manholes

12.118 Permeable paving drainage has been shown, in multiple research projects, to have decreased the concentrations of a number of surface water contaminants when compared to conventional paving. Such contaminants include heavy metals, oils, grease, sediment and some nutrients. It is proposed that permeable paving will be utilised at the upstream end of a treatment train on car park courts. This should remove any pollutants, such as oil, that may have entered the runoff from standing vehicles.

12.119 Detention basins are also proposed throughout a Green Corridor within the site, as outlined in the drainage design. Detention basins have been shown to assist in retaining runoff from sites and reducing contaminants through the gravitational settling of particle pollutants and filtration into the underlying soil. The detention basins proposed on the site discharge into the watercourse through a Downstream Defender (discussed below) which therefore provides sufficient pollutant control, particularly when used in collaboration with permeable paving.

376

12.120 Attenuation tanks do not provide any form of treatment on their own but can be used in a SuDS treatment train with other features. In the instance where an attenuation tank is proposed, it is found downstream of a number of proposed areas of permeable paving and upstream of a Downstream Defender and into a pond which, in turn, discharges into the watercourse.

12.121 A Downstream Defender (Ref. 12.18) is an advanced hydrodynamic vortex separator produced by Hydro-International. The product removes sediments, oil and debris from the runoff prior to discharge. In the instances across the site, this is the final feature upstream if the existing watercourse and therefore provides an additional measure on the SuDS treatment train.

12.122 The manner of the drainage design, with numerous features within a treatment train, will provide sufficient removal of sediments and pollutants that the proposed operational risk to water quality can be considered Minor Beneficial.

Hydrology

12.123 The implementation of SuDS features aims to mimic Greenfield rates prior to discharging into the watercourse. As described earlier in the chapter, a baseline calculation was undertaken dividing the site into 13No. catchments based on the proposed Masterplan impermeable areas (i.e. Greenfield areas proposed to be retained were excluded from the calculations); the Greenfield runoff rate was calculated to be 98 l/s. It was proposed that the 13No. catchment areas would be restricted to ensure that the individual runoff rates were maintained for each, ensuring the proposed discharge rate would be equal to the Greenfield rates.

12.124 In order to mimic the Greenfield rates, the proposed site was considered in the same manner with 13No. catchment areas designed based on the proposed hardstanding area, inclusive of a 10% uplift for urban creep. Using these hardstanding areas, the drainage and SuDS features were designed to accommodate the 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change storm event whilst maintaining the discharge rate to 98 l/s using flow control devices (with equivalent existing and proposed discharge rates for the different catchments).

12.125 The FRA outlines the strategy in more detail and confirms adequate design leading to the conclusion that the proposed operational risk to hydrology is Neutral compared to the baseline scenario.

Flood Risk

377

Fluvial/Tidal Flooding

12.126 The site is still primarily located within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) with a small proportion of the site, adjacent to the existing watercourses, located within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk), 3a (high risk) and 3b (functional floodplain). Pre-application advice from the Environment Agency indicated that, in accordance with national framework, development should be located within the lowest risk area (i.e. Flood Zone 1), with an 8m buffer zone from the river to any development to allow maintenance works to be undertaken. It also stated that any development with Flood Zone 3b would be objected.

12.127 In order to comply with this advice, a modelling exercise was undertaken as part of the FRA incorporating new climate change allowances. In collaboration with the drainage design all development was steered into Flood Zone 1 and outside the flood envelope for the 1 in 100 year + 35% climate change flood event. Additionally, finished floor levels of development across the site were set to a minimum of 300mm above the associated predicted maximum water levels in the area for the same storm event. This ensured that no floodplain compensation would need to be provided, in accordance with EA guidelines and advice, and all development was adequately far from potential flood zones.

12.128 Due to the additional modelling the flood envelopes and levels for larger storm events are now known and it is therefore possible to steer development further away from these areas; a measure that has been taken for the Proposed Development. This additional information, whilst not reducing the flooding extents from the rivers, does provide greater information and can therefore guide development into safer areas, creating a beneficial effect for the development site as a whole, when compared to the baseline.

12.129 The operational risk to fluvial/tidal flooding is considered Minor Beneficial.

Pluvial Flooding

12.130 The current EA Risk of Flooding from Surface Water Map shows that the majority of the site is at ”Very Low” risk of flooding (chance of flooding less than a 1 in 1000 (0.1%)) from Surface Water. There are however sections of the site, particularly near the southern boundary and in the vicinity of the rivers running through the site and along the northern boundary, that are subject to “Medium” or “High” risk of flooding from surface water.

378

12.131 As a Green Corridor is being maintained within these areas it is likely that some pluvial flooding will still occur within the areas close to the vicinity of the rivers. However, the introduction of impermeable areas, with appropriate levels strategies, and a formal drainage network (including SuDS features) may divert some of the contributing areas runoff into the below ground drainage network. Any reduction in contributing areas to the existing pluvial flood outline will have a beneficial effect to the site by potentially reducing the impact and size of the areas susceptible to “Medium” or “High” flood risk.

12.132 The operational risk to pluvial flooding is considered Minor Beneficial.

Groundwater Flooding

12.133 The post-development, operational phase does not have any impact or effect on the groundwater regime or contributing factors. As such, there is no change considered when compared to the baseline scenario.

12.134 The operational risk to groundwater flooding is considered Neutral.

Sewer Flooding

12.135 A localised drainage network has been provided for the operational phase of the site where there was previously no formal drainage network. As such, there is now the possibility that sewer surcharge could occur within the site boundary, having an adverse effect in comparison to the baseline.

12.136 However, the drainage strategy described in the FRA demonstrates that the drainage network is suitable for the management of runoff, causing no flood risk from any surcharging sewer, for up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change storm event. As such, despite the introduction of a formal sewer network, there should be no increased risk compared to the baseline due to a sufficient design.

12.137 The operational risk to sewer flooding is considered Neutral.

379

Artificial Sources Flooding

12.138 The proposed drainage network introduces additional artificial sources in the form of detention basins located within a Green Corridor adjacent to the existing North Weald Brook. These basins have been designed as a SuDS feature to attenuate runoff for the 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change storm event and, as such, are not considered a flood risk in the operational phase.

12.139 It is also proposed to utilise the existing ponds within the drainage design. Whilst the composition and nature of these features are not fully know, there should be adequate capacity within the remainder of the drainage network due to the allowance of 10% urban creep. If further storage is required from the existing ponds, however, appropriate works, following best practice guidance, will be carried out to ensure the required provisions are met.

12.140 Considering the design criteria of the proposed detention basins, and overall drainage network, it is deemed acceptable to conclude there is no significant change to flood risk from artificial sources when compared to the baseline scenario.

12.141 The operational risk to artificial sources flooding is considered Neutral.

380

Table 12.7– Comparison of Baseline and Mitigated Risk

Receptor Baseline Operational Justification Risk Mitigated Risk

Water Quality Neutral Minor Beneficial Use of SuDS features in a treatment train discharge should reduce potential contaminants from the baseline

Hydrology Neutral Neutral Runoff rates restricted to Greenfield rates, as per baseline with Urban Creep accounted for

Fluvial / Tidal Neutral Minor Beneficial Developments outside the floodplain for the 1 in 100 year + 35% climate change event

Pluvial Neutral Minor Beneficial Use of SuDS features provides attenuation for surface water runoff

Groundwater Neutral Neutral No impact on groundwater

Sewers Neutral Neutral Sewers designed as part of a drainage network Flood Risk designed to accommodate 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change

Artificial Neutral Neutral Artificial detention basins designed as SuDS Sources feature for to accommodate 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change

site Enhancement

12.142 The Proposed Development involves the conversation of a Greenfield area into a hybrid, mixed use development over a large area; this involves the conversion of permeable areas into impermeable areas. However, the proposed use of SuDS features ensures that the site continues to behave as a Greenfield site in terms of surface water runoff and contamination even in the developed state.

12.143 Furthermore, the Proposed Development is in coordination with the Epping Forest Draft Local Plan in terms of the overarching policies, delivering sustainable homes and employment land space whilst also maintaining a large area of green space. In particular the water quality, hydrology and flood risk strategy encapsulates the following policies:

 DM 15: Managing and Reducing Flood Risk

 DM 16: Sustainable Drainage Systems

 DM 17: Protecting and Enhancing Watercourses and Flood Defences

381

12.144 In addition, the Water Framework Directive Regulation 13(2b) states the need for all agencies, local councils and developments to;

protect, enhance and restore each body of surface water (other than an artificial or heavily modified water body) with the aim of achieving good ecological status and (subject to paragraph (3)) good surface water chemical status, if not already achieved, by 22nd December 2021;

12.145 It is understood that the North Weald Brook will be subject to improvement and enhancement works which will improve the ecological status of the river. This will therefore be in collaboration with the contaminant removal through extensive SuDS use which should also improve the chemical status of the Main River.

Residual Effects

12.146 Despite all of the proposed enhancement works, SuDS implementation and flow restrictions there will still be some remaining residual effects that could affect the site. These are primarily linked to the maintenance of SuDS features to ensure adequate operation.

12.147 All SuDS feature are subject to a unique maintenance schedule as described in the CIRIA SuDS Manual. The maintenance company employed to manage the development should make reference to the requirements set out within the manual.

12.148 If appropriate maintenance measures are not implemented it is possible that contaminants will not be sufficiently removed thus causing a potential adverse effect to water quality in comparison to the baseline. Similarly runoff flows and volumes storage may be inhibited which can cause an adverse effect with regards to flood risk, notably from pluvial sources as runoff from hardstanding areas will not be conveyed to the network. Additionally, blockages within the drainage network will cause an adverse effect through localised sewer flooding if not properly maintained and kept clear.

12.149 Flow control devices are designed for a particular head height and flow rate which may be surpassed during an exceedance event (any storm greater than the 1 in 100 + 40% climate change, in this instance). An exceedance event of this nature would cause an adverse effect on all receptors discussed within this chapter as the network designed to provide control would be overcome. In the event of an exceedance storm, it is imperative that all flood waters are

382

maintained within the site boundary and, if levels allow, directed to an area away from more vulnerable development such as the care home and residential units.

12.150 Whilst this is an unlikely occurrence, it adds weight to the requirement for good maintenance of the drainage network to ensure that the maximum capacity is available within the system to minimise the adverse impact across the site.

383

SUMMARY

12.151 This chapter presented an assessment of the Proposed Development and the effect, and mitigation measures required, on water quality, the hydrological nature and the flood risk to the site.

12.152 Consideration was be made to all of the aforementioned aspects in both the short and medium term (i.e. during the phased construction process) and the long term (i.e. operational / occupied site). The methodology of the assessment was to break down the Proposed Development into the different phases of the development with the possible effects being considered for anticipated composition of the site at that given time.

12.153 The significance of the effects was determined and assessed utilising available guidance and relevant legislation with consideration to the likelihood of both occurrence and effect of potential impacts. Effects were assessed in terms of their nature, as outlined below:

 Adverse – detrimental or negative effect to an assessed receptor;

 Neutral – no significant effect to an assessed receptor; and

 Beneficial – advantageous or positive effects to an assessed receptor

12.154 Consideration was also made with regards to the magnitude of the effect, assessed as being minor, moderate or major.

12.155 The site was initially assessed as per the existing scenario; referred to as “baseline”. For the ease of comparison, all receptor risks and effects were considered neutral in this scenario. This baseline state was then used for comparison when assessing the effects of the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development.

12.156 The construction process was assessed in both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios. In the unmitigated construction case, there were several aspects where the effect on the site, when compared to the baseline, was considered minor adverse.

12.157 However, mitigation measures were proposed, such as the installation of a temporary localised drainage network and flood storage areas to accommodate any additional flooding caused by the additional temporary hardstanding. Mitigation such as those proposed, when

384

coupled with best practice construction methods, were assessed to be sufficient to reduce the effects of the construction process back to a baseline level of neutral.

12.158 The operational phase of the development was considered as the time when all construction works had been completed and the entire site was occupied. In the assessment of operational risk, only the mitigated effect was considered as the unmitigated risks would essentially mirror the unmitigated construction phase.

12.159 The fundamental mitigation measure provided in the operation stage is the installation of a proposed drainage network, inclusive of a number of SuDS features often designed in a treatment train. The design of this drainage network caters for the 1 in 100 year + 40% climate change storm event and is therefore significant in maintaining and improving many aspects across the site within the Proposed Development. It was concluded that the Proposed Development would not have an adverse effect on the site and would, due to the incorporation of SuDS amongst other aspects, provide a minor beneficial effect with works in line with WFD Regulations.

12.160 Despite the benefits across the site, there were remaining residual effects in the form of exceedance events which would overwhelm the proposed system and cause detrimental effects to the site and surrounding area. To minimise the impact of these events, it is considered imperative that a full maintenance schedule is implemented for the drainage features.

12.161 Please refer to Table 12.8 below for a summary of the risk associated with the different phases of the Proposed Development for the three receptors considered within this chapter; water quality, hydrology and flood risk.

385

Table 12.8: Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk Summary Table

Nature of Effect Mitigation/ Potential Effect (Permanent or Significance Residual Effects Enhancement Measures Temporary) Contamination to Temporary Moderate Use of temporary measures N/A Groundwater Adverse such as silt traps and drip trays and localise levels strategy. Designated areas for wheel wash activity and storage of chemical substances. Contamination to Temporary Minor Adverse Use of temporary measures Lack of maintenance to silt Surface Water such as silt traps and drip traps / bunds etc. could cause trays and localise levels contaminants to seep through strategy. Designated bunds into surface water. areas for wheel wash activity and storage of chemical substances. Contamination to Permanent Minor Use of SuDS treatment train SuDS not maintained and Surface Water Beneficial to sufficiently remove operational functionality sediment and contaminants. impaired Increase in runoff Temporary Neutral Temporary flow restrictors Flow restrictor failure rates and volumes and flood storage areas. culminating in unrestricted runoff from new/temporary hardstanding areas. Increase in runoff Permanent Neutral SuDS and flow restrictor SuDS and flow restrictor not rates and volumes maintain discharge rate at maintained and operational Greenfield, inclusive of a 10% functionality impaired. uplift for Urban Creep. Exceedance events could overwhelm the features and cause runoff greater than Greenfield rates Increase in Fluvial Temporary Minor Adverse Buffer zone maintained and Exceedance events will Flood Risk flows restricted temporarily to cause greater flooding maintain hydrological status extents. Increase in Fluvial Permanent Minor Green Corridor and Exceedance events will Flood Risk Beneficial improvements to River. cause greater flooding Developments outside flood extents. zone for 1 in 100 yea + 35% storm event and FFL placed above predicted flood levels. Increase in Pluvial Temporary Minor Adverse Temporary drainage network, Exceedance events and lack Flood Risk levels strategy and flood of capacity within the storage areas. temporary drainage network could cause the system to be overwhelmed and have lack of storage. Increase in Pluvial Permanent Minor SuDS features and drainage SuDS and flow restrictor not Flood Risk Beneficial network designed for 1 in 100 maintained and operational year + 40% climate change functionality impaired. event, inclusive of a 10% for Exceedance events could Urban Creep. overwhelm the features causing flooding.

386

Nature of Effect Mitigation/ Potential Effect (Permanent or Significance Residual Effects Enhancement Measures Temporary) Increase in Temporary Minor Adverse Dual Pump provisions and Pump failure leading to Groundwater emergency plan in place. excavation filling with water Flood Risk Increase in Permanent Neutral None required. N/A Groundwater Flood Risk Increase in Sewer Temporary Neutral None required. N/A Flood Risk Increase in Sewer Permanent Neutral Drainage network designed Exceedance events may Flood Risk to accommodate 1 in 100 yea overwhelm the system and + 40% climate change event. cause sewer surcharge. Lack of maintenance could lead to blockages and loss of capacity in the network. Increase in Temporary Minor Adverse Temporary drainage network Exceedance events will Artificial Sources and levels strategy. cause greater flooding Flood Risk extents. Increase in Permanent Neutral Artificial sources designed as Exceedance events could Artificial Sources part of the drainage network overwhelm the features Flood Risk to accommodate 1 in 100 causing flooding. year + 40% climate change storm event/

387

REFERENCES

Ref 12.1: Ardent Consulting Engineers (December 2017), “North Weald Golf Course: Flood Risk Assessment”, Ardent Consulting Engineers

Ref 12.2: James Mortimer (June 2017), “North Weald Golf Course: Summary of Ground Conditions”, Ref. 65856L2, ESI Consulting

Ref 12.3: National Planning Policy Framework Technical Guidance, Flood Risk and Coastal Change [online] Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change [Accessed 19.02.2018]

Ref 12.4: Flood and Water Management Act (2010), Part 1 Regulations 4, 4A and 5 and Part 2

Ref 12.5: The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations (2017), Part 2 and Part 5

Ref 12.6: Environmental Protection Act (1990), Part 2A Regulation 78A and 78YA

Ref 12.7: Environmental Permit Regulations (2016) Chapter 3 Schedule 22

Ref 12.8: The Planning Policy Team (2016), “Epping Forest District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation”, Epping Forest District Council

Ref 12. 90: Environment Agency, Online Mapping Tools [online] Available at http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/holding/wiyby.aspx and https://flood-warning- information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map [Accessed 19.02.2018]

Ref 12.10: Defra/Natural England, “Magic Map” [online] Available at http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx [Accessed 20.02.2018]

Ref 12.11: British Geological Survey, Geological Maps and Borehole Scans [online] Available at http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [Accessed 20.02.2018]

Ref 12.12: Klinck, Hopson, Morigi et al. (1997), “The Hydrogeological Classification of Superficial Clay, The Hydrogeology Characterisation of Glacial Till in East Anglia” Environment Agency

Ref 12.13: URS/AECOM (August 2015), Epping Forest Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Epping Forest District Council

Ref 12.14: Thames Water Asset Maps (May 2017), Ref. ALS/ALS Standard/2017_3568003

Ref 12.15: UK Government Guidance, Contaminated Land [online] Available at https://www.gov.uk/contaminated-land [Accessed 20.02.2018]

388

Ref 12.16: Thomas Campbell (2016), “Pre-application enquiry for proposed mixed use development comprising circa 700 homes on land at North Weald golf course”, Ref. NE/2016/126206/01-L01, Environment Agency

Ref 12.17: Woods Ballard, Wilson, Udale-Clark et al (2015), C753 The SuDS Manual, CIRIA

Ref 12.18: Hydro International, “Downstream Defender”, [online] Available at https://www.hydro- int.com/en/products/downstream-defender [Accessed 22.02.2018]

389

13 SOILS, GEOLOGY AND CONTAMINATED LAND

INTRODUCTION

13.1 This Chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in terms of Ground Conditions and Contamination and is supported by Appendix 13.1.

13.2 The Chapter describes: the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions currently existing at the Site and in the surrounding area; the likely significant environmental effects; the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed, and; the cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Development in combination with other developments within 500m of the Site.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

13.3 The scope of works for this assessment contains the following elements to assess the presence of contamination and its potential to cause significant harm to the receptors identified in accordance with DEFRA Contaminated Land Report (CLR) 11, British Standard (BS) 10175:2011 (+A1:2013), BS 5930:2015 and BS EN 1997 (Eurocode 7):

a Assessment of the potential for contaminated soil and / or groundwater (sources); b Assessment of potential migration pathways within the saturated and unsaturated zones beneath the Site (pathways); and c Potential effect of contaminated land on groundwater, end users, and other sensitive receptors (receptors).

13.4 Mitigation measures will also be set out to counter any adverse effects of the development if required and may include:

a Significant engineering works (remediation) in order to support the Proposed Development. This will be subject to validation and sign off; and, b Safe handling and treatment or disposal of contaminated soils during the construction phase.

390

Desk Based Research, Site Walkover Survey and Site Investigations

13.5 Ref 13.1 (see Appendix 13.1) presents a combined Phase 1 ground conditions desk study and Phase 2 geo-environmental assessment of the Site. The report includes full factual records of intrusive works with detailed engineering logs and records of chemical and geotechnical laboratory testing to establish baseline conditions that prevail beneath the Site. In addition, the report includes an assessment of the chemical data considering the proposed residential land-use scenario. A preliminary discussion of geotechnical engineering is also presented.

13.6 The intrusive Site investigation (locations shown in Figure 13.1) was coordinated by ESI between 22nd and 24th May 2017 including:

a 31 No. machine excavated trial pits (TP101-TP131) b 12 No. window sample boreholes (WS101-WS112) c 4 No. soakaway tests (SA1-SA4) d 6 No. land gas and groundwater monitoring well installations

13.7 All strata were logged in accordance with BS5930:2015 and in-situ testing and sampling was undertaken. Follow up monitoring including groundwater level data and ground gas concentrations were collected from all installed locations across three visits dated 7th, 9th and 12th June 2017.

Consultations

13.8 In undertaking the assessment, consideration has been given to the Scoping Opinion dated 5th February 2018, received from Epping Forest District Council as follows with respect to Soils, Geology, Contaminated Land:

Over 500,000 tonnes of additional subsoil and “inert” wastes were imported onto this site during the previous decade (EPF/1996/04, EPF/0308/07 & EPF/0958/08). Planning Conditions requiring the testing of imported soils were not complied with and the quality of soils is currently unknown. There is therefore the potential for the imported waste soils to be unsuitable for use, which could either result in a requirement to provide a separation barrier and raise site levels by up to a further 1.3m causing changes to the topography, or for up to 1.3m of waste soils to be removed from site requiring waste disposal, and to be replaced by up to 1.3m of clean validated which may use natural soil resources which are non-renewable.

391

The submitted Scoping Report dated December 2017 proposes investigating risks from land contamination to site workers and controlled waters during development works (and also risks to proposed site users) and has identified that remedial works may be required and that a remediation strategy and earthworks strategy may be required. However, no mention has been made with respect to potential changes in topography, waste disposal or use of natural soil resources during remedial works and a full land contamination investigation, assessment and if appropriate Detailed Remediation Scheme will be required in order to address these potential issues.

Due to the above, risks to proposed site users, fauna & flora, buildings and services will need to submitted in support of any planning application that may be made and as the proposed development is located on a Land Raise Site with potential high remediation costs, the cost feasibility of carrying out required remedial works will need to be supplied.

Site

13.9 The entirety of the Site (approximately 70 Ha) is a former golf course, and is split in two areas by the A414. Details are as follows:

a The northern area comprises approximately half of the Site, made up of golfing greens, sand dunes and water hazards. The northern half does not contain any significant structures. b The southern half contains a group of buildings in the north-west associated with the club house, including a driving range, a children’s nursery and 5-a-side football pitches plus the golfing greens, sand bunkers and water hazards.

13.10 The southern boundary of the Site is located approximately 1.1km north of North Weald Bassett, with Harlow approximately 6km to the north-west. The Site is situated in a predominantly agricultural area.

Prediction Methodology

13.11 The Environment Act 1995 (Section 57) makes provisions for a risk-based framework for the identification and assessment of land quality and for the management and redevelopment of contaminated land within the UK. The provisions of the Act came into effect in England and

392

Wales in July 2001 and are aimed at ensuring that actions taken with respect to land quality and contaminated land are directed by a technically well-founded assessment of risk.

13.12 The baseline assessment undertaken with respect to land quality herein is governed by the aim and prescriptions of the Environment Act 1995 and associated legislation, policy and guidance laid out in previously.

13.13 The process of risk assessment is an evaluation of the probability of harm, and comprises the identification of sources of contamination, receptors that may be affected by the contamination and pathways by which the receptors may be harmed.

13.14 Sensitivity of receptors has been determined on the basis of the categories described in Table 13.1. Where receptors have a statutory or non-statutory designation, then this has been used to define that receptor’s sensitivity. Where this is not the case, professional judgement has been used to define sensitivity.

Table 13.1: Sensitivity Classification

Classification Definition Very high The receptor has no ability to absorb change without completely altering its current character, is or very high environmental value and of international importance. High The receptor has little ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering its present character, is of high environmental value, or is of national importance. Moderate The receptor has moderate capacity to absorb change without significantly altering its present character, has some environmental value, or is of regional importance. Low The receptor has high capacity to absorb change without significantly altering its present character, has low environmental value, or is of local importance. Negligible The receptor is unlikely to be impacted by change or has negligible environmental value.

13.15 The magnitude of change has been assessed using the categories outlined in Table 13.2. Professional judgement has been used to define this categorisation.

393

Table 13.2: Magnitude Classification

Classification Definition Major There would be fundamental changes to the ground conditions or hydrogeology causing significant and long term effect on a receptor. (e.g. major contamination of controlled waters, prolonged and significant alteration to baseflow to controlled waters). Moderate There would be material but non-fundamental changes to the ground conditions or hydrogeology causing effect on a receptor. (e.g. contamination of controlled waters, alteration to baseflow to controlled waters). Minor There would be detectable but non-material changes to the ground conditions or hydrogeology causing minor and transient effect on a receptor (e.g. temporary minor derogation of baseflow to controlled waters). Negligible Some detectable change to ground conditions or hydrogeology will occur, but will have negligible effect on receptors. No change No change is anticipated to occur to ground conditions or hydrogeology.

13.16 The predicted significance of the effects was determined through a standard method of assessment based on professional judgement, considering both sensitivity and magnitude of change as detailed in Table 13.3 below. Major and moderate effects are considered significant in the context of the EIA Regulations.

Table 13.3: Significance Criteria

Magnitude Sensitivity Very high High Moderate Low Negligible Major Major Moderate / Moderate Minor / Minor major moderate Moderate Moderate / Moderate Minor / Minor Negligible / major moderate minor Minor Moderate Minor / Minor Negligible / Negligible moderate minor Negligible Minor / Minor Negligible / Negligible Negligible moderate minor No Change Minor Negligible / Negligible Negligible Negligible minor

394

Limitations and Assumptions

13.17 In undertaking this assessment, the following assumptions have been made with respect to the land quality baseline assessment:

13.18 The work undertaken to provide the basis of this Chapter comprised a study of available documented information from a variety of sources and discussions with relevant authorities and other interested parties.

13.19 For the purposes of the Assessment of Effects during construction it has been assumed that all the contaminants that could potentially be present on the Site are present. The effects detailed are based on the most significant effects that these contaminants can have on the receptor and represent a ‘worst case scenario’ for the Site.

13.20 For the purposes of the Assessment of Effects post construction it has been assumed that remediation has been carried out on the Site prior to completion of the development that leaves the ground and groundwater at an acceptable environmental standard.

13.21 The assessment of land quality is in part dependent upon the sensitivity of the human health receptors, which in turn is controlled by the type of land-use on the Site. This assessment has been based upon a post development residential land use.

395

Figure 13.1: Ground Investigation Plan

396

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

13.22 The Ground Conditions and Contamination assessment has been undertaken within the context of relevant planning policies, guidance documents and legislative instruments. These are summarised below.

Legislation

13.23 This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the legislation relevant to the control of pollution and the investigation, assessment and remediation of land quality and groundwater quality in the United Kingdom. This includes:

a Control of Pollution Act 1974 (Ref. 13.2); b EC Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) (Ref. 13.3); c EC Fisheries Directive (2006/44/EC) (Ref. 13.4); d Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Ref. 13.5) e Land Drainage Act 1994 (Ref 13.6); f Environment Act 1995 (Ref 13.7); g Groundwater Regulations 2009 (Ref. 13.8); h UK Water Quality (Water Supply) Regulations 2010 (Ref. 13.9); i Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (Ref. 13.10); and, j Draft Floods and Water Bill 2009 (Ref 13.11).

National Planning Policy

13.24 Chapter 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF makes reference to land quality. This assessment takes into account the requirements of the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 109 – 111 and paragraphs 120 – 122 and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance Notes, including:

a Land affected by contamination ID33; b Brownfield land, soils and agricultural land ID8; c Water supply, wastewater and water quality ID34; and d Hazardous Substances ID39.

397

Local Policy

13.25 The Epping Forest District Council Local Plan (submission version dated December 2017) refers to contamination in Policy DM21 – Local Environmental Impacts, Pollution and Land Contamination. Policy DM21 of the plan states that the council “will expect the remediation of contaminated land through development. Potential contamination risks will need to be properly considered and adequately mitigated before development proceeds”. To deliver this the Council “will require development proposals on contaminated land” as follows:

a to be informed by a desktop study and preliminary risk assessment, including an assessment of the site’s history, potential contamination sources, pathways and receptors; b where necessary to undertake a site investigation and detailed risk assessment in line with current best practice guidance, including where appropriate physical investigations, chemical testing and assessments of ground gas risks and risks to groundwater; c where necessary to provide a remediation strategy that sets out how any identified risks from the assessments above are going to be addressed. If remediation measures are not suitable then planning permission will be refused; d where necessary to provide a long term maintenance and monitoring regime for the mitigation of any ongoing risk and identify the person/s responsible for the regime; e where necessary to provide a validation report once remediation has taken place, including evidence that demonstrates that risks from contamination have been controlled effectively; and f to ensure that all above assessments and investigations are carried out by a competent person.

Guidance

13.26 The Environment Agency has produced a range of UK-wide Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs). Each PPG is targeted at a particular industrial sector or activity and aims to provide advice on legal responsibilities and good environmental practice. This assessment is cognisant of those PPGs that are relevant to the Proposed Development.

13.27 There are a series of British Standards, Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) guidance documents and Environment Agency guidance documents covering the investigation and assessment of land quality, including:

398

a BS5930:2015: Code of practice for ground investigations (Ref. 13.12); b BS10175: 2013 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice (Ref. 13.13); c BS8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings (Ref.13.14); d Environment Agency. 2010, GPLC1 Guiding Principles for Land Contamination (Ref. 13.15); e Environment Agency 2000. R&D Publication 95. Guidance on the assessment and monitoring of natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater (Ref. 13.16); f Environment Agency. 2008 R&D Publication 66. Guidance for the safe development of housing on land affected by contamination (Ref. 13.17); g Environment Agency. 2013 Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3) Version 1.1 (Ref. 13.18); h Report C532 – Control of Water from Construction Sites (Ref. 13.19); i Report C692 – Environmental Good Practice on Site. 3rd Ed. 2010 (Ref. 13.20); j CIRIA C750 – Groundwater Control: Design and Practice; k CIRIA C552 – Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A Guide to Good Practice (Ref. 13.21); and, l CIRIA C665 – Assessing risk posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings (Ref. 13.22).

BASELINE CONDITIONS

13.28 An assessment of the baseline conditions was conducted by ESI in 2017 and reported within their Ground Investigation & Geo-environmental Assessment (Ref 13.1 and Appendix 13.1). The following text represents a summary of the salient findings of this document.

Geology

13.29 BGS mapping indicates that superficial deposits on Site predominantly comprise the Lowestoft Formation (Diamicton, or Glacial Till). Head Deposits are noted to be present surrounding surface water streams. The superficial deposits on Site are underlain by the London Clay Formation.

13.30 The geological succession identified through the ground investigation on the Site is summarised in Table 13.4 below. Site investigation locations are shown in Figure 13.1. BGS mapping indicated that the Site was underlain by the London Clay Formation. However, this

399

deposit was not identified on Site as part of the intrusive investigation, with no holes progressing to sufficient depth. Head Deposits were also noted to be present in the centre of the Site but this was also not encountered or not discernible from the Lowestoft Formation.

Table 13.4: Summary of On-Site Ground Conditions

Strata type Depth range Description (average thickness) Topsoil GL – 0.70m Present across much of the Site and consisting of grass bgl covered brown sandy and gravelly clay. Gravels were of (0.34m) various lithologies and abundant rootlets were observed. Made GL – 3.50m Made Ground was encountered at ground level across the Ground bgl Site but typically concentrated in artificial bunds formed as part of the golf course landscaping. The thickness of Made (0.90m) Ground was not proven at all locations where it was encountered. The maximum depth of encountered Made Ground was 3.50m bgl in WS102.

The Made Ground generally comprised brown sandy clay with localised granular material. Anthropogenic material included red brick, glass, metal and fragments of coal waste/ possible Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA). The coal waste was particularly noticeable in bund areas to the south of the Site. Slight hydrocarbon odours were noted in 7No. locations within the Made Ground. Lowestoft 0.15 – 4.45m The Lowestoft Formation was identified in all locations where Formation bgl the maximum depth of the Made Ground was proven. The unit generally consisted of firm to stiff, light brown clay with (0.97m) varying sand and gravel content. Gravel content consisted of chalk and flint.

Hydrology

13.31 There are several standing surface water features on Site which are water hazards associated with the golf course. It is considered likely that these are man-made.

400

13.32 There are also surface water courses along the northern Site boundary (Cripsey Brook), and a tributary to Cripsey Brook flowing through the centre of the Site bisecting the Site east and west.

13.33 There are 6 No. licensed surface water abstractions located on Site, with an additional 2 No. located within 250 m of the Site boundary. All of the water abstractions are for spray irrigation for the golf course.

Hydrogeology

13.34 The superficial deposits on Site are classified by the Environment Agency as Secondary Aquifers (undifferentiated). The London Clay Formation is classified as unproductive strata. According to the EA, the Site is not within a Source Protection Zone. There are no licensed groundwater abstractions located within 1km of the Site boundary.

13.35 During the investigation, groundwater was encountered as seepages within isolated granular material at 5 No. locations (TP101, TP102, TP103, TP109 & TP129). A moderate seepage was observed at TP102 at 1.9m bgl in the encountered granular material.

13.36 Groundwater levels in each of the borehole installations were recorded during the 3No. post investigation monitoring rounds. Groundwater was only recorded in WS106 during each monitoring round at a depth range of between 3.21 and 3.26m bgl. All other wells remained dry.

Historic Potentially Contaminative Site Use

13.37 The Site was developed as a golf course between c.1999 and the present day and was previously agricultural land. Immediately off-site to the west, North Weald Airfield is present. The airfield was constructed during the first world war and used through the first and second world wars by the Royal Air Force, including use during the Battle of Britain. The airfield is thought to have also been used by the British Army and Royal Navy post WWII but for unknown purposes. The airfield is now used for general aviation purposes and occasionally for air shows.

13.38 The nearest historic landfill site is located c.450m south-east and is said to have received commercial and domestic waste types.

13.39 There are a total of 2 No. areas of potentially infilled land (water) within 500m of the Site, the nearest of which is 380m south-east.

401

13.40 According to the BGS, the Site is in a lower probability radon area, as less than 1% of homes are above the action level.

Contamination

13.41 Made Ground was observed to be present in various locations across the Site but there were no visual observations of gross contamination (i.e. free-phase oils, liquids, sludges etc). Olfactory evidence of hydrocarbons was noted at TP101, TP104. TP122, TP127, WS106, WS109 and WS112. In each case a slight hydrocarbon odour was noted within the Made Ground. However, Photo Ionisation Detector results at each of the locations did not indicate the presence of significant volatile vapours with a maximum concentration of less than 8ppm.

13.42 A suspected singular tile fragment of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) was identified in WS111. Each of the soil samples were screened in the laboratory for the presence of asbestos prior to testing. No asbestos was detected as part of the screening process.

13.43 Following subsequent laboratory analysis, arsenic, lead, mercury, vanadium and benzo(a)pyrene were locally elevated within the shallow soils when compared to relevant screening criteria. These were considered to form three isolated ‘hotspots’, indicating a potential risk to future users and / or the wider environment which will need to be considered as part of the Proposed Development and suitable mitigation measures implemented if necessary.

13.44 Groundwater was only encountered in a small number of locations with return monitoring only recorded water in WS106. As a result, and based on the lack of an identified source, the risk to controlled waters is considered to be low.

13.45 The preliminary assessment undertaken in ESI (2017) adopted peak measured gas concentrations and peak flow rates recorded across three monitoring rounds. The assessment, adopting worst case conditions, indicates that gas protection measures commensurate with CIRIA Characteristic Situation 2 (low risk), would be required across the Site. This was based on the maximum carbon dioxide value of 6.6%.

Conceptual Site Model

13.46 The Conceptual Site Model for the Site considers all of the available information and uses this to identify potential sources of contamination. Feasible pathways for any contamination to interact with potential receptors are looked at in turn, based on the type and persistence of the identified source and stage of development. The derivation of a Conceptual

402

Site Model underpins the qualitative risk assessment of ground contamination risks associated with the Site. This assessment was undertaken in accordance with the guidance laid out in CIRIA C552.

13.47 As a result of this assessment, a risk rating has been assigned to each plausible pollutant linkage (source-pathway-receptor linkage) as a representation of the potential risks posed to current and future receptors by the ground conditions present on the Site.

Sources

13.48 No sources of gross contamination have been identified within the soils on Site. It remains possible that localised areas/ pockets of contamination may yet exist between exploratory positions in other areas of the Site. The following summarises the identified potentially contaminative uses from the historical use of the Site:

a Imported/ reworked material forming on Site mounds and bunds (Made Ground); b Potential for localised asbestos within Made Ground; c General Made Ground and associated contaminants including leachable constituents; and, d Generation of ground gas within the Made Ground.

Pathways

13.49 The following pathways have been identified as potentially at play on and beneath the Site:

a Direct contact with sub-surface materials (dermal soil/ groundwater contact, soil/ food ingestion and dust ingestion/ inhalation); b Exposure to and inhalation of fibres associated with potential asbestos containing material; c Accumulation of ground gas and/ or volatile vapours within excavations, future buildings or ancillary structures such as manholes and cabinets; d Inhalation of volatile vapours indoors and to a lesser degree, outdoors; e Ingress into potable supply pipes; f Leaching of contaminants and horizontal or vertical migration through permeable sub-surface materials and/ or via preferential pathways to surface water bodies or groundwater;

403

g Lateral and vertical migration of groundwater through permeable sub-surface materials and/or via preferential pathways to surface water bodies or groundwater; and, h The migration of gaseous phase contaminants through permeable soils and/or along future preferential pathways (water supply pipes, services, drainage runs etc).

Receptors

13.50 Based on the prevailing conceptual site model, the following receptors have been considered further:

a Future users of the Site (residential); b Site construction workers during development and engineering works; c Surface water bodies; d Groundwater (Secondary Aquifers); e Neighbouring sites and associated user/ occupants; and, f In ground concrete and potable water supply

13.51 The sensitivity of the identified receptors is summarised in Table 13.5.

Table 13.5: Summary of Receptor Sensitivity

Receptor Receptor(s) Sensitivity Justification type Human Construction Moderate The shorter length of time construction Health workers workers will be on-Site compared to future occupants would make them less sensitive receptors. They are considered to be of Moderate sensitivity, comparable with future commercial occupants. Future Site High The length of time that future residential occupants occupants will be located on the Site means (residential) that they will be subject to long periods of exposure to possible contamination. Therefore, they are considered to have a high sensitivity. Third party High Users of neighbouring properties are occupants / considered to have a high sensitivity. neighbours Groundwater Superficial Low Although classified as a Secondary Aquifer, deposits no significant groundwater was encountered (Secondary and therefore it is considered to have limited Aquifer) resource potential.

404

London Clay Low The definition of the London Clay Formation Formation as unproductive strata is indicative of the very (Unproductive low amount of water contained within it. Thus Strata) it will not be sensitive to contamination migrating via groundwater. Units Low The sensitivity reflects the protection afforded underlying by the overlying significant thickness of the London London Clay Formation; the Site is not Clay located within a SPZ and there are no Formation groundwater abstractions within the Site’s vicinity. Surface Cripsey High Cripsey Brook is located along the northern water Brook Site boundary with a tributary running through the Site itself. Buildings Potable water High The water supply may be sensitive to soluble and services supply contaminants, those which attack the infrastructure or contaminant particles that can be held in suspension and therefore ingested by the Site users. In-ground High Properties may be affected by contaminants concrete that aggressively attack buried concrete including foundations.

405

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

13.52 The key effects are summarised in Table 13.6 for both the construction phase and post development. This assessment is based on the risk assessment presented in Table 8.21 of ESI (2017). Only those source-pathway-receptor linkages with a risk greater than low have been brought forward for further consideration here.

13.53 There is considered to be only a low risk to surface water and groundwater with this risk classification reflecting the low permeability of sub-surface soils, lack of identified groundwater and lack of identified sources at the Site. Therefore, the only receptors requiring further consideration are construction workers, site users (residential) and users of neighbouring sites.

13.54 The potential for sulphate attack on buried concrete has been assessed in accordance with BRE Special Digest 1, Edition 3, 2005 and indicates that concrete within Made Ground soils should be designed to DS3 AC-2s, and concrete within natural soils designed to DS1 AC-1s.

Likely Changes During Site Preparation and Construction phase

13.55 The conceptual Site Model outlined above considers all of the available information and uses this to identify potential sources of contamination. Construction activities which have the potential to generate source pathways include:

a ground excavations; b leakages and spillages; and c surface water runoff.

13.56 The Applicant will compile a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This document sets out the requirements of Contractors working on the Proposed Development to take appropriate measures in identifying, assessing and controlling potential environmental effects associated with construction processes. This document will be designed to provide for the protection of construction workers, third party occupants and neighbours and the wider environment during the construction process. The measures set out in the CEMP have been assumed as embedded mitigation within the assessment of significant effects during the construction phase.

13.57 Based on the available information from the exploratory holes advanced to date, significant sources of contamination have not been identified on-Site. However, laboratory analysis has shown, arsenic, lead, mercury, vanadium and benzo(a)pyrene were locally

406

elevated within the shallow soils when compared to relevant screening criteria. These were considered to form three isolated ‘hotspots’, indicating a potential risk to construction workers and future site users and / or the wider environment. Should further potential areas of contamination be encountered during construction these will be delineated, assessed and appropriately dealt with to prevent potential future risks to receptors. Options include introduction of 600mm of “clean” topsoil/ subsoil capping sourced from elsewhere on Site, or relocation of soils to areas where net import is required elsewhere in less sensitive areas of the site (e.g. below roads, public open space, commercial properties).

13.58 Appropriate risk management is required to protect ground workers during construction from the risk of the presence of asbestos. This will include a suitable safe system of work including PPE/ RPE and good Site management practices.

13.59 Based on current data, all new structures require gas protection measures to CIRIA C665 CS2 as a minimum. Further gas monitoring is recommended based on which the risk assessment would be refined.

407

Table 13.6: Residual Ground Conditions and Contamination Effects

Stage Source Pathway Receptor Receptor Magnitude Significance Risk Management / Remediation Sensitivity of Effect of Effect Construction Potential Disturbance Moderate Major Moderate Probability considers lack of asbestos of soil and Adverse positive asbestos ID during fibres within inhalation of screening. However, appropriate Made Ground resulting risk management is required to soils dust protect ground workers during construction. Suitable safe system of work required, including PPE/ RPE and good Site management practices General made Direct Construction Moderate Minor Minor Adverse Appropriate risk management is ground and contact workers required to protect ground workers associated (dermal soil during construction. Suitable safe contaminants contact, soil system of work required, including including bund ingestion suitable PPE and good Site material and dust management Made ground ingestion / Moderate Minor Minor Adverse in the vicinity inhalation) of WS111, WS106 and TP101 Potential Disturbance Users of High Moderate Moderate Good Site management practices asbestos of soil and neighbouring Adverse should be adopted during the fibres within inhalation of sites development phase (if appropriate made ground resulting or necessary). soils dust Post Potential Disturbance High Moderate Moderate Reactive risk management (e.g. development asbestos of soil and Adverse watching brief) recommended fibres within inhalation of Site users during earthworks to identify and made ground resulting (residential) deal with any as-yet un- soils dust encountered significant presence of ACM

408

Stage Source Pathway Receptor Receptor Magnitude Significance Risk Management / Remediation Sensitivity of Effect of Effect Made ground Direct High Minor Minor/Moderate The concentrations recorded within in the vicinity contact Adverse these three localised areas exceed of WS111, (dermal soil the relevant GACs. These areas WS106 and contact, soil should be investigated, assessed TP101 ingestion and materials suitably dealt with as and dust part of the earthworks phase of ingestion / development. Options for such inhalation) include introduction of 600mm of “clean” topsoil/ subsoil capping sourced from elsewhere on site, or relocation of soils to areas where net import is required elsewhere in less sensitive areas of the site (e.g. below roads, public open space, commercial properties. Generation of Lateral / High Minor Minor/Moderate Based on current data, all new ground gases vertical Adverse structures require gas protection of Site migration of measures to CIRIA C665 CS2 as a (predominantly ground minimum. Further gas monitoring is carbon gases and recommended in order to confirm dioxide) inhalation / findings. asphyxiation

409

ENHANCEMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Site preparation and construction phase

13.60 No additional mitigation measures are proposed during the site preparation and construction phase. The site investigation, assessment and, if necessary remediation as defined in the embedded mitigation, will have an overall beneficial effect on the Site’s interaction with the wider environment and future site users. This work will feed through to the design process, with any required measures being incorporated. This would include, for example, land- gas protection measures within structures, or piling risk assessments etc.

Post development stage

13.61 No additional mitigation measures are proposed over and above those outlined within the embedded mitigation.

Residual Effects

13.62 No residual effects have been identified.

410

SUMMARY

13.63 Made Ground soils were encountered across the Site, predominantly in landscaped bunds and mounds constructed as part of the golf course development.

13.64 Asbestos containing materials were not detected within the soil samples, however a suspected asbestos fragment of asbestos containing material was encountered in WS111.

13.65 Basic land gas protection measures are likely to be required for new structures on the Site commensurate with CIRIA665 Characteristic Situation 2 or NHBC Amber 1. Further gas monitoring is recommended based on which the risk assessment would be refined.

13.66 The majority of the Site was assessed to comprise soils that are suitable for use in a residential scenario with gardens.

13.67 Three localised areas were identified where the presence of heavy metals in the soil results in a significance of effect to future residential users being minor/moderate adverse. The soils in this area should be further investigated, assessed and if necessary addressed.

13.68 The significance of effect to construction workers from the localised areas of heavy metals in the soil was assessed as being minor adverse with appropriate risk management required to protect ground workers during construction in the form of a safe system of work.

13.69 Table 13.7 provides a summary of the potential effects requiring further investigation and/or appropriate mitigation measures. Assuming these are undertaken, no significant adverse residual impacts have been identified.

411

Table 13.7: Soils, Geology & Contaminated Land Summary Table

Nature of Effect Mitigation/ Residual Potential Effect (Permanent Significance Enhancement Measures Effects or Temporary) Construction phase - Appropriate risk management is Disturbance of soil and required to protect ground workers inhalation of resulting Moderate during construction. Suitable safe dust containing Permanent y Negligible Adverse system of work required, including asbestos fibres by suitable PPE and good Site construction works and management. neighbouring receptors Construction phase - Appropriate risk management is Contact with required to protect ground workers construction workers Minor during construction. Suitable safe Temporary Negligible (dermal soil contact, soil Adverse system of work required, including ingestion and dust suitable PPE and good Site ingestion / inhalation) management. Post development Reactive risk management (e.g. stage - Disturbance of watching brief) recommended during soil and inhalation of Moderate earthworks to identify and deal with Permanent Negligible resulting dust Adverse any as-yet un-encountered significant containing asbestos presence of ACM to remove the fibres by residents source. The elevated contaminant concentrations recorded within the three localised areas should be investigated, assessed and materials Post development suitably dealt with as part of the stage - Contact with earthworks phase of development. Minor/ residents. Eg. gardens Options include introduction of 600mm Permanent Moderate Negligible (dermal soil contact, soil of “clean” topsoil/ subsoil capping Adverse ingestion and dust sourced from elsewhere on site, or ingestion / inhalation) relocation of soils to areas where net import is required elsewhere in less sensitive areas of the site (e.g. below roads, public open space, commercial properties). Based on current data, all new Post development structures require gas protection stage - Generation of Minor/ measures to CIRIA C665 CS2 as a ground gases of Site Permanent Moderate Negligible minimum. Further gas monitoring is (predominantly carbon Adverse recommended in order to confirm dioxide) findings.

412

REFERENCES

Ref 13.1: ESI Ltd (2017); North Weald Golf Course: Ground investigation and geo- environmental assessment', Report reference 65856R1. Ref 13.2: Control of Pollution Act (1974). Ref 13.3: European Parliament, Council of the European Union (May 1976) Council Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community. Ref 13.4: European Parliament, Council of the European Union (October 2006) Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life.

Ref 13.5: Environmental Protection Act (1990).

Ref 13.6: Land Drainage Act (1994).

Ref 13.7: Environment Act (1995).

Ref 13.8: The Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations (2009).

Ref 13.9: The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations (2010).

Ref 13.10: European Parliament, Council of the European Union (October 2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

Ref 13.11: DEFRA (April 2009) Draft Flood and Water Management Bill.

Ref 13.12: BSI (July 2015) BS5930:2015: Code of practice for ground investigations.

Ref 13.13: BSI (October 2013) BS10175: 2013 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice.

Ref 13.14: BSI (June 2015) BS8485:2015 Code of practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings.

Ref 13.15: Environment Agency (March 2010) GPLC1 Guiding Principles for Land Contamination.

Ref 13.16: Environment Agency (2000) R&D Publication 95. Guidance on the assessment and monitoring of natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater.

Ref 13.17: Environment Agency. (2008) R&D Publication 66. Guidance for the safe development of housing on land affected by contamination.

Ref 13.18: Environment Agency (2013) Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3) Version 1.1.

413

Ref 13.19: CIRIA (2006) Report C532 – Control of water pollution from linear construction projects technical guidance.

Ref. 13.20: CIRIA (2010) Report C692 – Environmental Good Practice on Site. 3rd Ed.

Ref. 13.21: CIRIA (2001) C552 – Contaminated Land Risk Assessment – A Guide to Good Practice.

Ref. 13.22: CIRIA (2007) C665 - Assessing risk posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings.

414

14 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTRODUCTION

14.1 This chapter presents an assessment of the effects of the Proposed Development on archaeology and heritage assets. A heritage asset is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (Annex 2) as ‘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 assets include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing)’.

14.2 Designated heritage assets include world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields and conservation areas. Non-designated heritage assets include sites held on the Essex Historic Environment Record, elements of the historic landscape and sites where there is potential to encounter unrecorded archaeological remains.

14.3 In this regard this chapter specifically assesses the effects on the significance of archaeological remains, the grade II listed Little Weald Hall Farmhouse and associated barn, the grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew, the grade II listed Church Cottage and St. Clements and other listed buildings and a scheduled monument within the wider area.

415

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

14.4 This section describes the methodology used to produce this chapter, which follows guidance provided by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists and Historic England.

Chartered Institute for Field Archaeologists

14.5 The chapter has been produced in accordance with guidelines in the Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment issued by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (Ref 14.1). These guidelines provide national standards for the completion of desk-based assessments. In this regard the assessment comprised consultation of readily available information from documentary, cartographic and aerial photographic sources utilised in the production of a Heritage Assessment produced in February 2018 and which is included as Appendix 14.1. The major repositories of information consulted in the production of the Heritage Assessment were:

 the on-line National Heritage List for England database maintained by Historic England for details of designated heritage assets within 2km of the Site;  the Essex Historic Environment Record (HER) for details of recorded archaeological sites within an approximate distance of 1km of the Site;  Essex Record Office for historic maps;  the Historic England Archive Service for aerial photographic records;  the results of a walkover of the Site and its environs; and  the results of a geotechnical investigation.

Historic England Guidance

14.6 Historic England have produced guidance on how the effects of development on the significance of heritage assets should be assessed. The guidelines include Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (Ref .14.2) which describes the criteria for defining the significance of a heritage asset. In addition there are two Good Practice Advice Notes namely Managing Significance in Decision- Taking in the Historic Environment (Ref 14.3) and The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3, Second Edition (Ref .14.4).

416

Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment

14.7 Historic England define the significance of a heritage asset as a collective term for the sum of all the heritage values attached to a place, be it a building, an archaeological site or a larger historic area such as a village or landscape. The value that can be placed on historic assets can be grouped into four categories as follows:

Evidential value: the potential of a heritage asset to yield evidence about past human activity including through archaeological remains or built fabric.

Historical value: this derives from particular aspects of past ways of life, or an association with notable families, persons, events or movements which can be seen to connect the past with the present.

Aesthetic value: this derives from the sensory and intellectual stimulation people draw from a historic asset. It may include its physical form, and how it lies within its setting and may be the result of design or be unplanned.

Communal value: this derives from the meanings that a historic asset has for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. It may be commemorative or symbolic.

Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment

14.8 This Good Practice Advice Note provides information to assist in the implementation of historic environment policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). It outlines a 6 stage process to the assembly and analysis of relevant information relating to heritage assets which could potentially be affected by development either physically or through development within their setting. This six-stage process has the following objectives:

 to understand the significance of the affected heritage assets;  to understand the impact of the development proposal on that significance;  to avoid, minimise and mitigate the impact in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF;

417

 to look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance;  to justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development objective of conserving significance and the need for change; and  to offset any negative impacts on significance by enhancing others through the recording, disseminating and archiving of important heritage elements.

The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition)

14.9 This Good Practice Advice Note provides guidance on how to assess the effects that a development may have on the setting and significance of heritage assets. This best practice guidance re-iterates the NPPF definition of the setting of a heritage asset as “the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate the significance or may be neutral.”

14.10 On a practical level Historic England identify a staged approach to establishing the effects on the setting and significance of heritage assets as follows:

 Step 1 identifies which heritage assets and their settings are affected.  Step 2 assesses the degree to which these settings make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated.  Step 3 assesses the effect of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on that significance or on the ability to appreciate it.  Step 4 explores ways to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm.  Step 5 makes and documents the decision and monitors the outcomes.

Types of Effects

14.11 There are two potential effects on heritage receptors which can be caused by the Proposed Development as follows:

 construction of the Site could have direct physical effects on buried archaeology through the excavation of building foundations, roads, services and landscaping groundworks. Such effects are permanent and irreversible; and

418

 the operation of the Site could have an effect on the historic landscape and the settings and significance of designated heritage assets. Such effects are usually neutral (i.e. no effect) or negative (i.e. they will have a detrimental effect on the historic landscape and/or the settings and significance of designated heritage assets). Such effects are permanent.

Overall definitions of effects

14.12 For the purposes of this chapter, the effects on both archaeology and the settings and significance of designated heritage assets are evaluated on a five-point scale as shown in Table 14.1 below.

Table 14.1: Effect Scale Definitions

Effect Assessment Definition Neutral No effect on the heritage asset. Unknown Where full evaluation of the effect has not been possible. In the case of archaeology this could mean that an archaeological evaluation in the form of geophysical survey and/or trial trenching has not been carried out. In the case of a designated heritage asset, this could mean that access to the asset, in order to make a thorough assessment of the potential effects on its setting and significance, has not been possible. Minor adverse Where archaeological research has established the (less than substantial) presence of archaeological remains of minor/local importance which could be harmed by the proposed development. Where the proposed development would affect the setting and significance of a designated heritage asset, but the effect is restricted due to the nature of the asset, distance or screening. Moderate adverse Where archaeological research has established the (less than substantial or presence of archaeological remains of substantial) moderate/regional importance which could be harmed by the proposed development. Where the proposed development would have a pronounced effect on the setting and significance of a designated heritage asset, due to the sensitivity of the asset and/or proximity of the Site. Major adverse Where archaeological research has established the (substantial) presence of archaeological remains of major/national importance which could be harmed by the proposed development.

419

Effect Assessment Definition Where the proposed development would have a substantial effect on the setting and significance of a designated heritage asset, due to the particular sensitivity of the asset and/or close physical proximity of the Site. Further consideration is also given to: Group Value Where a series of similar monuments or structures occur in close proximity or are inter-visible (e.g. barrow cemeteries and church towers), their overall significance is increased. Permanent/irreversible Where the effect of the proposed development is direct and irreversible e.g. on archaeology.

420

LEGISLATION, PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework

14.13 Government policy in relation to the historic environment is outlined in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment (Ref .14.5). This provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets, including archaeological remains. Overall, the objectives of Section 12 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the delivery of sustainable development; understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits brought by the conservation of the historic environment; the conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; and recognition of the contribution that heritage assets make to our knowledge and understanding of the past. Within the NPPF the most relevant planning guidance concerning heritage assets is to be found in paragraphs 126-141 and specific paragraphs are summarised below.

14.14 Paragraph 128 addresses planning applications stating that “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 asset’s importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance”.

14.15 Paragraph 129 states that “local planning authorities should 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.”

14.16 Designated heritage assets are addressed in Paragraph 132 which states that “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. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled

421

monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional”.

14.17 Paragraph 133 states that “where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

 the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

 no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

 conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

 the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use”.

14.18 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”.

14.19 Paragraph 135 states that “the effect of an application on the significance of a nondesignated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that effect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”.

14.20 Paragraph 137 states that “local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably”.

14.21 Advice on enhancing and conserving the historic environment is also published in the Planning Practice Guidance (Ref .14.6) which expands on how the historic environment should be assessed within the National Planning Policy Framework. This acknowledges that “the appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of the ‘Core Planning Principles’ that underpin the planning system.” This core principle states that “planning decisions should

422

conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations”.

14.22 The key test in NPPF paragraphs 132-134 is whether a proposed development will result in substantial harm or less than substantial harm. Substantial harm is not defined in the NPPF although paragraph 17 of the Planning Practice Guidance provides guidance and states “what matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed.”

14.23 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a proposed development results in less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm arising should be weighed against the public benefits accruing from the proposed development. Paragraph 20 of the Planning Practice Guidance outlines what is meant by public benefits namely: “public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. 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.”

Epping Forest District Council Planning Policy

14.24 Prior to the future adoption of the Epping Forest District Local Plan, heritage assets are protected by policies in the Combined Policies of Epping Forest District Local Plan (1998) and Alterations (2006) which was published in 2008. Relevant policies are as follows:

423

Policy HC1- scheduled monuments and other archaeological sites

“On sites of known or potential archaeological interest, planning permission will only be granted for development which would not adversely affect nationally important remains, whether scheduled or not, or their settings. The Council will also require: (i) the results of an archaeological evaluation to be submitted as part of any application; (ii) the preservation in situ, and provision for appropriate management, of those remains and their settings considered to be of particular importance; (iii) provision for recording and/or excavation by a competent archaeological organisation prior to the commencement of development, where in situ preservation is not justified.”

Policy HC12- development affecting the setting of listed buildings

“The Council will not grant planning permission for development which could adversely affect the setting of a listed building.”

14.25 The Submission Version 2017 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan contains policies DM 7 and DM 8 which are as follows:

Policy DM 7 Heritage Assets

“Historic Environment

A. The historic environment will be conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to its significance. Development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the character, appearance and function of heritage assets and their settings, and respect the significance of the historic environment.

B. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and works which would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset (whether designated or nondesignated) or its setting, will not be permitted without a clear justification to show that the public benefits of the proposal considerably outweigh any harm to the significance or special interest of the heritage asset in question.

424

Local Heritage Assets

C. Development proposals that affect local heritage assets detailed on the Local List will be expected to demonstrate how they retain the significance, appearance, character and setting of the local heritage asset.

D. There is a general presumption in favour of retaining local listed heritage assets and where this is not possible, recording of the heritage asset should be undertaken and submitted alongside development proposals.”

Policy DM 8 Heritage at Risk

“The Council will expect property owners/partners to work proactively with the authority in bringing forward proposals for the conservation and enhancement of Heritage Assets at Risk or under threat within the District to secure their future and seek a viable use consistent with their heritage value and significance.”

425

BASELINE CONDITIONS

14.26 The baseline conditions are fully described in Appendix 14.1 and these are summarised below.

14.27 A Roman ditch which contained pottery and tile was found within the Site in 1994 during an archaeological watching brief. A large pit, possibly a grubenhauser, containing quantities of grass tempered Saxon pottery was also identified. However, it is clear from a visual inspection of the Site and also from the results of a geotechnical site investigation that the natural landscape has been radically modified by extensive landscaping for the construction of the golf course. This has included the construction of extensive embankments or bunds, probable levelling for fairways and greens and the excavation of ponds and bunkers. This will clearly have had an adverse effect on any unrecorded archaeological remains which may be present within the Site.

14.28 The grade II listed Little Weald Hall Farmhouse, which dates back to the 17th century, is located close to the western boundary of the Site. In addition, the grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew which was built around 1330 is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site as are the grade II listed Church Cottage and St. Clements, both of which date back to the 17th century. The significance of these listed buildings has the potential to be affected by a change to their setting brought about by the Proposed Development.

14.29 In addition several other listed buildings and a scheduled monument are located within 2km of the Site. Again, the significance of these designated heritage assets has the potential to be affected by a change to their setting brought about by the Proposed Development.

426

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF KEY EFFECTS

Archaeology

14.30 Construction groundworks for the Proposed Development have the potential to damage and destroy archaeological remains. The full extent of any surviving archaeological remains is presently unknown although any such remains are likely to have been damaged or destroyed during the construction of the golf course. The predicted effect on the significance of archaeological remains is presently unknown.

Grade II listed Little Weald Hall Farmhouse and associated barn

14.31 The original agricultural setting to the east of the grade II listed Little Weald Hall Farmhouse was changed when the golf course and clubhouse were constructed. This change in setting led to the severance of the historical association of the farmhouse with its fields to the east. The planting of a tall conifer hedge around the eastern boundary of the listed farmhouse also detracts from its aesthetic value and ability to appreciate the farmhouse as a heritage asset. Therefore the existing eastward setting contributes little, if anything, to the significance of the listed farmhouse.

14.32 The Proposed Development will result in the construction of houses which will extend up to the western boundary of the Site and therefore adjacent to the boundary with Little Weald Hall Farmhouse. This will result in another change to the eastward setting of the farmhouse. However, given that the original agricultural setting to the east of the farmhouse was lost when the golf course was constructed and that the existing setting contributes little, if anything, to its value or significance, this further change in setting will not have any effect on the significance of the listed farmhouse. The predicted effect on the significance of Little Weald Hall Farmhouse is therefore predicted to be neutral.

14.33 A barn to the north of Little Weald Hall Farmhouse is likely to have formed the northern part of a three-sided farmyard range observed on the 1838 tithe map and 1896 Ordnance Survey map. The relationship between the farmhouse and barn has since been severed by the later 20th century redevelopment of the farmyard which has seen the demolition of the western and eastern sides of the farmyard range and the construction of a modern shed which lies between the farmhouse and the barn. The golf clubhouse, which is to be retained, has also since been constructed to the east of the barn. The existing setting of the barn therefore contributes little, if anything, towards is significance.

427

14.34 Apart from its potential architectural value, the main value of the barn is its historical association with Little Weald Hall Farmhouse although this has been spatially severed by a modern shed. The original agricultural setting of the barn has also been lost. The barn itself will be completely screened from view of the housing within the Site and the Proposed Development will not change its setting or significance as a heritage asset. The predicted effect on the significance of the barn is therefore predicted to be neutral.

Grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew

14.35 The tower of the grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew can be seen from several vantage points within the golf course south of the A414, especially closer to the southern end of the Site. Therefore, the listed church has a very wide setting in that the tower can be widely seen and appreciated as a spiritual landmark. Such wide ranging views contribute to the historical, aesthetic and communal values of the church. The existing northern setting of the church therefore contributes to its significance as a heritage asset.

14.36 The Proposed Development will result in the construction of houses which will result in a change to the northern setting of the listed church and the loss of existing views of the church from vantage points south of the A414. This change in setting will result in a change to the historical, aesthetic and communal values of the church and harm to its significance as a heritage asset. The predicted effect on the significance of the Church of St. Andrew is therefore predicted to be minor adverse.

Grade II listed Church Cottage and St. Clements

14.37 The grade II listed Church Cottage is located directly to the south of the grade II* listed church and its main heritage attributes consist of the architectural value of the building and its setting adjacent to the church and Vicarage Lane. The Proposed Development will not be visible from the listed building and will have no effect on its associations with the church or how it can be appreciated as part of a historic linear settlement. As the Proposed Development will not affect the existing setting of Church Cottage, it will have no effect on its significance as a heritage asset. The predicted effect on the significance of Church Cottage is therefore predicted to be neutral.

14.38 The grade II listed St. Clements Cottage is located to the east of the grade II* listed church and its main heritage attributes consist of the architectural value of the building and its setting close to the church and Vicarage Lane. The Proposed Development will have no effect

428

on its associations with the church or how it can be appreciated as part of a historic linear settlement and will therefore have no effect on its significance as a heritage asset. The predicted effect on the significance of St. Clements Cottage is therefore predicted to be neutral.

Other listed buildings and scheduled monument

14.39 As outlined in Appendix 14.1 the existing settings of further listed buildings and a scheduled monument within 2km of the Site will be unaffected by the Proposed Development. The predicted effect on the significance of these heritage assets is therefore predicted to be neutral.

ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

14.40 It is reasonably assumed that the determination of planning approval for neighbouring developments will have been made in accordance with national, regional and local planning policy and guidance, within which archaeological assets would be a material consideration. This would have included the provision of appropriate archaeological mitigation measures, including the requirement for an appropriate programme of investigation and recording. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects on below ground archaeology once the relevant schemes are completed and operational as all effects on sub-surface heritage assets would have been mitigated ahead of or during the construction phase.

429

ENHANCEMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

14.41 Because of the known presence of archaeology and in order to assess whether any other archaeological remains have survived the construction of the golf course, it is proposed that a programme of archaeological trial trenching be carried out. It is suggested that this archaeological trial trenching, which can be carried out as a condition of planning consent, be initially focused on the existing fairways.

14.42 Should significant archaeology be identified further archaeological works may be required. It should also be borne in mind that archaeology could be buried under the existing embankments and bunds and, depending on the results of the trial trenching, further archaeological works may be required as these embankments/bunds are removed during the groundworks for the Proposed Development. All archaeological work will be carried out in accordance with a scope of works approved by the archaeological advisors to Epping Forest District Council.

14.43 Although the change to the eastern setting of the grade II listed Little Weald Hall Farmhouse is not considered to be significant, boundary treatment including the planting of trees along the eastern boundary of the listed farmhouse will be carried out thus screening views of the development from the farmhouse.

14.44 In order to mitigate against the change to the northern setting of the grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew, a green buffer is proposed between the northern boundary of the churchyard and the nearest houses. This green buffer will consist of grassland, extensive tree planting and ponds thus preserving as far as is feasible a sense of tranquillity around the churchyard. However, the loss of the existing views of the church tower south of the A414 will result in slight harm to the overall significance of the listed church and, in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 14 the overall effect is considered to be minor adverse (less than substantial).

14.45 Although the Proposed Development will have no effect on the significance of the grade II listed St. Clements, a green buffer of grassland and trees is still proposed between the northern boundary of the property and the nearest houses.

430

SUMMARY

14.46 In summary, archaeological remains in the form of a Roman ditch and possible Anglo- Saxon settlement have previously been identified within the Site. However, the natural landscape has been radically modified by extensive landscaping for the construction of the golf course which will clearly have had an adverse effect on any unrecorded archaeological remains which may be present. Because of the known presence of archaeology and in order to assess whether any other archaeological remains have survived the construction of the golf course, it is proposed that, as a mitigation measure, a programme of archaeological trial trenching be carried out. It is suggested that this archaeological trial trenching, which can be carried out as a condition of planning consent, be initially focused on the existing fairways. Should significant archaeology be identified further archaeological works may be required. It should also be borne in mind that archaeology could be buried under the existing embankments and bunds and, depending on the results of the trial trenching, further archaeological works may be required as these embankments/bunds are removed during the groundworks for the Proposed Development. All archaeological work will be carried out in accordance with a scope of works approved by the archaeological advisors to Epping Forest District Council.

14.47 The tower of the grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew can be seen from several vantage points within the golf course south of the A414 and especially so closer to the southern end of the Site. Therefore, the listed church has a very wide setting in that the tower can be widely seen and appreciated as a spiritual landmark. Such wide ranging views contribute to the historical, aesthetic and communal values of the church as a heritage asset. The Proposed Development will result in the construction of houses which will result in a change to the northern setting of the listed church and the loss of existing views of the church from vantage points south of the A414. This change in setting will result in a change to the historical, aesthetic and communal values of the church as a heritage asset. In order to mitigate against this change in setting a green buffer is proposed between the northern boundary of the churchyard and the nearest houses. However, the loss of the existing views of the church tower will result in slight harm to the overall significance of the listed church and, this harm is predicted to be minor adverse.

14.48 The significance of other listed buildings and a scheduled monument within 2km of the Site, including Little Weald Hall Farmhouse, will be unaffected.

431

Table 14.2: Heritage Summary Table

Nature of Effect Mitigation/ Potential Effect (Permanent or Significance Enhancement Residual Effects Temporary) Measures

Loss of archaeological Permanent Unknown Archaeological None deposits trial trench evaluation. Following the results of the trial trenching a decision will be made on whether further archaeological work is appropriate.

Change to the setting Permanent Minor Adverse Creation of a Minor adverse and significance of the green buffer in the grade II* listed Church of form of grassland St. Andrew and trees between the churchyard and the proposed housing.

432

REFERENCES

Ref 144.1: ‘Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment’. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2017).

Ref .14.2 Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage 2008, (now Historic England).

Ref .14.3: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment. Historic England (2015).

Ref .14.4 The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition). Historic England (2017)

Ref .14.5 National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012).

Ref .14.6 Planning Practice Guidance. Department for Communities and Local Government.

433

15 CONCLUSIONS

15.1 This Chapter contains the conclusions of the Environmental Statement (ES). The ES has examined the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Development during both the construction and operational phases.

15.2 The conclusions from each topic assessed in the ES are provided below.

Development Programme and Construction

15.3 This Chapter identifies that the construction period would be approximately 10 years and the effects of the Proposed Development would be managed through the development of a project and site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP would outline methods for contractor and general public liaison, hours of work, methods to deal with complaints, and outline management practices to control dust, traffic and access, waste, water resources, ecological and archaeological effects, ensuring a high level of control throughout the construction works.

15.4 The procedures within the CEMP would ensure the delivery of a high level of environmental control throughout the construction phase, thereby minimising the potential for adverse effects.

Transport and Access

15.5 This chapter has provided an assessment of the transportation effects of the Proposed Development during the construction phase and the operation of the full Proposed Development.

15.6 The residual significance of the construction phase in relation to non-car accessibility has been assessed as neutral and short term. The residual significance of the construction phase in relation to road safety has been assessed as neutral and short term. The residual significance of the construction phase in relation to junction capacity has been assessed as neutral and short term.

15.7 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the Proposed Development in relation to non-car accessibility has been assessed as neutral and long term.

434

15.8 The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the development in relation to road safety has been assessed and the significance and nature of effect of the development on road safety is neutral and long term. The residual significance and nature effect of operation of the development in relation to junction capacity has been assessed as neutral and long term.

15.9 Overall it is concluded that the Proposed Development is entirely acceptable from a transport perspective.

Air Quality

15.10 An air quality impact assessment has been undertaken to assess both construction and operational effects associated with the Proposed Development.

15.11 An assessment of the potential effects during the construction phase identified that releases of dust and particulate matter are likely to occur during site activities. Through good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, the effect of dust and particulate matter releases may be effectively mitigated and the resultant effects are considered to be negligible.

15.12 Dispersion modelling has been carried out to assess the impact of the operational development on local air quality. The results of the modelling indicate that concentrations of relevant pollutants (NO2, PM10 and PM2.5) will meet the relevant AQS objective levels at nearby sensitive receptors and within the Site itself. The significance of the effects of the emissions arising from the traffic associated with the operation of the Proposed Development is considered to be negligible.

15.13 The results of the modelling also indicate that the significance of the effects of the additional emissions arising from road traffic associated with the operation of the Proposed

Development on airborne NOx at the relevant sensitive ecological habitats is considered to be insignificant.

15.14 It is therefore considered that air quality does not pose any constraints to the development of the Site as proposed.

Noise and Vibration

15.15 This chapter has considered the likely effects of the Proposed Development with respect to noise and vibration. These include the effects of existing conditions on the Proposed

435

Development and the effects of noise and vibration generated by the Proposed Development on surrounding properties, during both construction and operational phases.

15.16 The assessment has been based on a series of environmental noise measurements undertaken at the Site and noise predictions.

15.17 The impact of noise and vibration during construction of the Proposed Development has been predicted and assessed in accordance with BS 5228. Mitigation measures have been recommended, which when implemented are capable of ensuring that the impact of noise and vibration during the construction of the Proposed Development is adequately controlled.

15.18 An assessment has been carried out in accordance with the adopted criteria to determine the suitability of the Site for residential accommodation, school and care facilities. Proposed units located adjacent to the A414 will, in some instances require the appropriate glazing and ventilation specification, in order to achieve the required internal noise levels.

15.19 The impact of development associated traffic has been assessed. It is predicted that on this basis, no significant increase in road traffic noise will be experienced at receptors adjacent to the surrounding roads. Mitigated effects are assessed as Negligible.

Landscape and Visual Amenity

15.20 The scope of the assessment has been agreed with the Local Authority and includes an assessment of the construction stages, completion of the Proposed Development at Year 1 (i.e. first year as fully operational) and also considered the longer-term effects at Year 15. The visual effects of the Proposed Development have been assessed firstly by creating two computer models (one without and one with visual barriers) to define the ‘Study Area’ and identify potential publicly accessible views and then secondly by assessing a number of ‘key’ representative viewpoints determined from the computer model and field surveys.

Effect during construction phase: short to medium term

15.21 An assessment of the potential impacts during the construction phase(s) has been carried out. This has shown that the landscape effects of the Proposed Development would range from moderate / substantial to moderate adverse effects on landscape elements / patterns and character within the Site during construction (due to the loss of some existing hedgerows and trees and loss of the openness of parts of the Site due to the introduction of the Proposed Development) with similar effects occurring within the immediate locality but predicted effects

436

on the wider landscape character will be moderate / slight adverse to negligible but these effects are not considered significant. The likely effects of the works during the construction period on landscape / countryside planning policies in the adopted and emerging Local Plan indicates that will have similar effects.

15.22 The assessment of visual effects concluded that during construction, the majority of visual effects are predicted to be moderate adverse or lesser effects and are not significant. However, 1 receptor (Viewpoint No’s.10) is predicted to experience major substantial visual effects during the construction period, primarily to the close proximity of the users of Public Footpath No.31 to the Proposed Development.

15.23 In addition, a further 5 receptors (Viewpoint No’s. 9, 11, 13, 21 and 22) are predicted to experience substantial visual effects during construction whilst the remainder of receptors are predicted to experience moderate / substantial adverse effects. This is either due to the close proximity of the viewpoints to the Site and construction activities or due to the very high to high sensitivity of the receptor (public footpaths / bridleways including sections of the Stort Valley Way a long distance recreational route) and open nature and extent of the views from these locations where most of the Site is perceived. The magnitude of change, from these locations, would result in the construction activities associated with the Proposed Development forming a noticeable new feature of the views albeit these changes would be temporary and for a relatively short period only.

Effect during operational phase: long term

15.24 During the operational phase of the Proposed Development, moderate adverse effects will occur to the landscape elements within the Site with substantial to moderate / substantial adverse effects to the landscape patterns and character of the Site as expected on completion in Year 1. These landscape effects due to the loss of some existing hedgerows and trees and also the loss of the openness of parts of the Site because of the introduction of the Proposed Development with similar effects occurring within the immediate locality. However, the predicted effects on the wider landscape character will be moderate / slight to slight adverse to neutral effects.

15.25 Similar landscape and visual effects will occur on completion / Year 1 although only 7 receptors would experience moderate / substantial visual effects. This is mainly due to the close proximity of the vantage point to the Site or due to the high sensitivity of the some of the receptors where the introduction of the Proposed Development would result in high to medium magnitude of change and visible or recognisable new element / feature in the views and, at this

437

stage, any mitigation measures will do little to screen or curtail / reduce views or provide an appropriate setting to the Proposed Development.

15.26 The assessment also assessed the cumulative effects of the 2 development proposals in the area surrounding the Site. This indicated that two schemes (the North Weald Bassett Masterplan Area and the North Weald Airfield Masterplan Area – draft Policy P6 of the emerging Epping Forest District Council – Submission Version Local Plan dated December 2017 (Ref 10.9) would result in additional cumulative landscape and visual impacts arising from the Proposed Development.

15.27 Appropriate mitigation measures for the Site have been identified during the construction phase(s) and operational phases. These include the retention of hedgerows, trees and introduction of protection measures, control of mobile cranes, and location of compounds, use of hoarding to reduce views and retaining parts of the Site in open uses and the sensitive design and layout of the Proposed Development, provision of new planting to the sites boundaries, creation of open space (especially on the edges of the development and central parts of the Site following the existing watercourse) and new ecological habitats and enhancements together with the ongoing management of the landscaped open spaces during the operational phase. 53.7% of the Site will be retained as ‘green’ infrastructure.

15.28 The longer-term residual effects, following the establishment and maturing of the landscape proposals, in 15 years’ time, are predicted to be significantly reduced resulting in slight adverse / negligible effects. This is primarily due to the establishment and maturing of landscape planting within the open spaces / linear park / ‘Greenways’ and boundaries to the Site which will screen parts of the Proposed Development whilst controlling views of other parts of the Proposed Development as well as increasing tree cover and habitat diversity within and throughout the Proposed Development. In addition, the retention of the southern, central and northern parts of the Site in open uses, and the maturing of areas of planting within these parts of the Site will also screen some parts of the Proposed Development and create an appropriate transition to areas of open countryside (and Metropolitan Green Belt) to the north of the site.

15.29 In summary, it is acknowledged that there will be some significant adverse landscape and visual effects during construction and on completion on local receptors but the longer term effects of the Proposed Development would not result in any significant adverse effects upon the landscape or on visual amenity in the area surrounding the Site, apart from views from a section of Public Footpath No.31 and No.42 near the Site and in longer views from Public Bridleway No.19 and sections of the Stort Valley Way, and includes proposals aimed at

438

minimising / moderating the landscape and visual effect and assimilating the Proposed Development in to the local area. In relation to the effects of the Proposed Development on character and visual appearance of the wider open countryside these would not be significant or harmful.

Ecology & Nature Conservation

15.30 Ecological surveys of the Site have been undertaken, including a desk study, an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and a range of Phase 2 faunal surveys.

15.31 A number of ecological designations were identified by the desk study. These include St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS, located adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site, whilst the nearest statutory designation is Church Lane Flood Meadow LNR (and LWS) located approximately 480m to the south of the Site.

15.32 The Site itself is dominated by species-poor semi-improved grassland, not considered to be of ecological importance, together with other habitats including young wooded vegetation, tall ruderal vegetation, scrub, buildings and hardstanding. Habitats which are considered to be of importance at the local level or above comprise watercourses (and associated wooded vegetation), ponds and hedgerows. Surveys of protected species have found that the Site is of local importance for foraging and commuting bats, birds and Great Crested Newts, whilst Badger, Grass Snake and other common mammal, amphibian and invertebrate species are also supported by the site.

15.33 A range of potential effects have been identified on habitats and fauna within and surrounding the Site, with potentially significant effects identified in relation to St. Andrew’s Church Yard LWS, habitats of ecological importance, foraging and commuting bats and Great Crested Newt. Mitigation measures are therefore proposed, including construction safeguards, a translocation exercise and new habitat creation in regard to Great Crested Newt, detailed design of housing layout, implementation of a SUDS scheme and lighting design. Such measures are considered to avoid, minimise or offset any significant adverse effects resulting from the Proposed Development. Furthermore, a range of additional enhancement measures have been identified to provide gains in biodiversity across the Site, including habitat creation and enhancement and provision of new nesting and shelter opportunities for faunal species.

15.34 The Proposed Development and mitigation scheme have also been designed to achieve compliance with relevant legislation and planning policy. Measures are proposed to avoid killing

439

or injury of protected species such as bats, birds, Great Crested Newt and reptiles (protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) and opportunities for enhancements to biodiversity are also proposed, in accordance with NPPF, the NERC Act 2006 and local policy. Proposed enhancements will also deliver significant benefits in terms of green infrastructure, providing an extensive network of green links and corridors through and around the Site.

15.35 Following mitigation, it is considered that the Proposed Development would result in an overall gain in the existing ecological interest supported by the Site, with significant benefits in respect of habitats, birds, Great Crested Newt and other fauna.

Water Quality, Hydrology and Flood Risk

15.36 The assessment of risk and effect on the water quality, hydrology and flood risk was undertaken for the site. These effects were considered for the existing site, to provide a baseline scenario for comparative purposes. This scenario was then used to assess the effect of both the construction phase of the development and the operational phase.

15.37 For ease of assessment all baseline effects were considered to be neutral. The construction scenario was considered and compared to this level with the understanding that mitigation measures and best practices would be employed across the Site. Using this knowledge it was assessed that the construction process would have no notable effect on the receptors within the Site and, as such, was considered remain neutral in all cases.

15.38 The operational phase was considered as the time when all construction work had been completed and therefore all mitigation measures had been implemented. The fundamental mitigation measure provided in the operation stage is the installation of a proposed drainage network, inclusive of a number of SuDS features, which were designed to store and slow the runoff from the site for large rainfall events. The overall design of this system, coupled with aspects relating to regulations, enabled a conclusion that the Proposed Development has a minor beneficial effect on the Site in some aspects, whilst maintaining other as per the baseline scenario.

Soils, Geology and Contaminated Land

15.39 Made Ground soils were encountered across the Site, predominantly in landscaped bunds and mounds constructed as part of the golf course development.

440

15.40 Asbestos containing materials were not detected within the soil samples, however a suspected asbestos fragment of asbestos containing material was encountered in WS111.

15.41 Basic land gas protection measures are likely to be required for new structures on the Site commensurate with CIRIA665 Characteristic Situation 2 or NHBC Amber 1. Further gas monitoring is recommended based on which the risk assessment would be refined.

15.42 The majority of the Site was assessed to comprise soils that are suitable for use in a residential scenario with gardens.

15.43 Three localised areas were identified where the presence of heavy metals in the soil results in a significance of effect to future residential users being minor/moderate adverse. The soils in this area should be further investigated, assessed and if necessary addressed.

15.44 The significance of effect to construction workers from the localised areas of heavy metals in the soil was assessed as being minor adverse with appropriate risk management required to protect ground workers during construction in the form of a safe system of work.

15.45 Chapter 13 provides a summary of the potential effects requiring further investigation and/or appropriate mitigation measures. Assuming these are undertaken, no significant adverse residual impacts have been identified.

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

15.46 Archaeological remains in the form of a Roman ditch and possible Anglo-Saxon settlement have previously been identified within the Site. However, the natural landscape has been radically modified by extensive landscaping for the construction of the golf course which will clearly have had an adverse effect on any unrecorded archaeological remains which may be present.

15.47 Because of the known presence of archaeology and in order to assess whether any other archaeological remains have survived the construction of the golf course, it is proposed that, as a mitigation measure, a programme of archaeological trial trenching be carried out. It is suggested that this archaeological trial trenching, which can be carried out as a condition of planning consent, be initially focused on the existing fairways. Should significant archaeology be identified further archaeological works may be required. It should also be borne in mind that archaeology could be buried under the existing embankments and bunds and, depending on

441

the results of the trial trenching, further archaeological works may be required as these embankments/bunds are removed during the groundworks for the Proposed Development. All archaeological work will be carried out in accordance with a scope of works approved by the archaeological advisors to Epping Forest District Council.

15.48 The tower of the grade II* listed Church of St. Andrew can be seen from several vantage points within the golf course south of the A414 and especially so closer to the southern end of the Site. Therefore, the listed church has a very wide setting in that the tower can be widely seen and appreciated as a spiritual landmark. Such wide ranging views contribute to the historical, aesthetic and communal values of the church as a heritage asset. The Proposed Development will result in the construction of houses which will result in a change to the northern setting of the listed church and the loss of existing views of the church from vantage points south of the A414. This change in setting will result in a change to the historical, aesthetic and communal values of the church as a heritage asset. In order to mitigate against this change in setting a green buffer is proposed between the northern boundary of the churchyard and the nearest houses. However, the loss of the existing views of the church tower will result in slight harm to the overall significance of the listed church and, this harm is predicted to be minor adverse.

15.49 The significance of other listed buildings and a scheduled monument within 2km of the Site, including Little Weald Hall Farmhouse, will be unaffected.

442