EIA Scoping Report
Proposed Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort Land West of Church Lane, South of East Winch Road, Ashwicken, Norfolk
July 2020
Prepared By
Project Quality Control Sheet
ORIGINAL Author Checked by Approved by
Signature
Date 19 June 2020 3 July 2020 3 July 2020
Company Aardvark EM Ltd Aardvark EM Ltd Aardvark EM Ltd
Location: Land west of Church Lane, south of East Winch Road, Ashwicken, Norfolk Grid Reference: 569330E, 317751N (centre of the site) Project Manager: Nick Leaney Report Author: Rachel Ness Report Number: 2061-R001 Report Status: Final
Copyright: All copyright in this document is reserved.
Liability: This document contains information and may contain conclusions and recommendations. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information is accurate and that the opinions expressed are sound. However, Aardvark EM Limited cannot be made liable for any errors or omissions or for any losses or consequential losses resulting from decisions based on the information.
Report Written and Produced By Aardvark EM Limited, Higher Ford, Wiveliscombe, Taunton, Somerset, TA4 2RL Telephone: 01984 624989, Facsimile: 01984 623912 Email: [email protected], Web: www.aardvarkem.co.uk
Contents
Summary 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Overview ...... 3 1.2 Purpose of Report ...... 3 1.3 Report Structure ...... 4 2 Description of Proposed Development ...... 5 2.1 Proposed Development ...... 5 2.2 Construction ...... 10 3 Site Description and Characteristics...... 11 3.1 Site Location and Description ...... 11 3.2 The Surrounding Area ...... 11 4 Planning Policy Context ...... 12 4.1 Introduction ...... 12 4.2 National Planning Policy and Guidance ...... 12 4.3 Local Planning Policy and Guidance ...... 14 5 The EIA Process ...... 19 5.1 EIA Regulations ...... 19 5.2 Consultation ...... 19 5.3 Assessment ...... 20 5.4 Mitigation ...... 20 5.5 Monitoring ...... 21 5.6 Cumulative effects ...... 21 5.7 Environmental Statement ...... 22 5.8 Consideration of Alternatives ...... 22 5.9 EIA Scoping Team ...... 22 6 Topics Included in EIA Scope ...... 23 6.1 Introduction ...... 23 6.2 Landscape and Visual ...... 23 6.3 Socio-Economics ...... 26 6.4 Flood Risk ...... 32 6.5 Noise...... 36 6.6 Transport ...... 40 6.7 Summary ...... 47 7 Topics Not Included in the EIA Scope...... 48 7.1 Introduction ...... 48 7.2 Ground Conditions ...... 48 7.3 Heritage ...... 55 7.4 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity ...... 57 7.5 Vibration ...... 61 7.6 Odour ...... 62 7.7 Human Health ...... 62 7.8 Risks of Major Accidents and/or Disasters ...... 62 7.9 Waste...... 63 7.10 Residential Amenity Assessment ...... 64 7.11 Climate Change ...... 64 7.12 Summary ...... 64
Appendix A Site Location Plan and Indicative Masterplan Appendix B LVIA Figures Appendix C LVIA Proposed Viewpoints Appendix D LVIA Methodology Appendix E Biodiversity Reports (Breeding Birds, Wintering Birds and GCN)
Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Summary
This Scoping Report has been prepared to provide an overview of the likely significant environmental effects that have been considered in scoping the EIA for the Proposed Development. It provides information regarding the Proposed Development, sets out the intended EIA scope (summarised below) and explains the methodologies for the assessment of likely significant environmental effects.
EIA Topic Scoped In EIA Topic Scoped Out
Landscape and Visual Ground Conditions
Socio-economics Heritage
Flood Risk – including Flood Risk Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Assessment and resilience to climate change
Noise Vibration
Transport Odour
Cumulative Human Health
Risks of Major Accidents and/or Disasters
Waste
Residential Amenity Assessment
Climate – contribution to greenhouse gases
In addition to the ES the planning application will be accompanied by the following documents: • a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan; • a Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment; • a Desk Based Heritage Impact Assessment; • an Ecological Impact Assessment Report and Biodiversity Net Gain calculation; and • a Travel Plan; • a Planning Statement; • a Business Plan; • the planning application drawings; • a Design and Access Statement; and • a Statement of Community Involvement.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 1 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
The ES will be prepared in compliance with the EIA Regulations, and that: • Describes the Proposed Development; • Outlines the reasonable alternatives considered; • Describes the baseline environment; • Describes the likely significant effects and the methods used to identify significant effects; • Describes the measures to mitigate adverse effects; • Describes any monitoring arrangements; and • Includes a non-technical summary.
The next steps in the EIA process are: • Receipt of the formal Scoping Opinion from KLWNBC; • Ongoing consultation with key consultees such as the highway authorities and other Council departments; • Community consultation prior to finalising the design of the Proposed Development; • Preparation of the ES and other assessment reports accompanying the planning application; and • Submission of the planning application and accompanying ES and other documentation.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 2 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
Norfolk Farm Leisure Limited intend to apply for planning permission to construct and operate a Wellness Resort on ~80ha of land (including Ashwicken Lake) at the former Wicken Quarry on land west of Church Lane, south of East Winch Road, Ashwicken, Norfolk. The nearest postcode is PE32 1LZ (“the Site”). The Wellness Resort would comprise a leisure facility of c. 125 -150 floating and lakeside holiday lodges, a clubhouse on the water and associated boat house and c. 25 treehouses accommodation. It would include related ancillary development including access roads, car parking, drainage swales, renewable energy generation, staff accommodation, security and outdoor leisure facilities e.g. tennis, archery etc and landscaping. Taken together these are the “Proposed Development”. The Proposed Development, laid out around Ashwicken Lake, a former sand extraction pit, would be a unique eco-resort centred on waterside living, water-based recreation and wellness. It is being designed as an exemplar destination where outstanding architectural elements will combine with an enhanced natural landscape to offer a high-quality holiday experience as well as a leisure facility for local people. The Proposed Development offers the potential to improve the local economy of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and Norfolk more broadly, by providing a new and different form of eco-focused holiday accommodation offering employment and the injection of consumer expenditure into the area.
1.2 Purpose of Report
From an analysis of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the “EIA Regulations”) it is noted that the Proposed Development exceeds the 0.5ha area threshold set for holiday villages outside urban areas and associated developments as set out in Schedule 2 part 12. (c) of the EIA Regulations. As such it triggers the need to consider whether it is EIA development with reference to the criteria set out in Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations. It is considered that the location, scale and nature of the Proposed Development, notwithstanding the criteria in Schedule 3, may have the potential to give rise to significant effects on the environment. Accordingly, the Proposed Development is considered to be an EIA development for the purposes of the EIA Regulations. The planning application therefore will be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES), prepared in accordance with the EIA Regulations. Additional impact and mitigation focused reports will also be provided, including for those topics scoped out of the ES. This Scoping Report has been prepared on behalf of Norfolk Farm Leisure Limited to assist King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council in preparing a Scoping Opinion under the EIA Regulations, setting out the scope of the information that should be contained in the ES. It outlines
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 3 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 the initial consideration of likely significant environmental effects which the EIA would need to examine and the preliminary scope of the information which would be provided in the ES. The environmental topics which are proposed to be included in the EIA scope, and those which are not, are presented in Chapters 6 and 7 respectively. The aim of the EIA is to ensure that the Proposed Development has due regard for the environment, minimises adverse environmental effects and takes advantage of opportunities for environmental enhancement. This Scoping Report provides information to consultees regarding the Proposed Development pursuant to the EIA Regulations, and constitutes a formal request for a Scoping Opinion under Regulation 15 (1) of the EIA Regulations.
1.3 Report Structure
This Scoping Report continues as follows:
• Chapter 2 Description of Proposed Development • Chapter 3 The Site and Surrounding Area • Chapter 4 Regulatory and Policy Background • Chapter 5 The EIA Process • Chapter 6 Proposed Scope of the EIA • Chapter 7 Topics Included in the EIA Scope • Chapter 8 Topics Not Included in the EIA Scope • Chapter 9 Summary and Next Steps • Appendices
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 4 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
2 Description of Proposed Development
2.1 Proposed Development
The Wellness Resort would comprise an eco- leisure facility development including c 125-150 floating and land holiday lodges, a clubhouse on the water and associated boat house, and c. 50 treehouses accommodation, together with related ancillary development including access roads, car parking, outside recreational facilities, renewable and low carbon energy generating facilities and landscaping. Located within the administrative jurisdiction of the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, the Site is a restored former gravel extraction workings located between the villages of Ashwicken, Leziate and East Winch. The Site is located some 9.6km to the east of King’s Lynn which is well connected by road to the south via the A10 to Ely and Cambridge (M11), to the East to Norwich via the A47 and to the East Midlands via the A17. The nearest postcode is PE32 1LZ, and the National Grid Reference of the approximate centre of the Site is 569330E, 317751N. A Site Location Plan is shown at Figure 2.1 below and provided at Appendix A.
Figure 2.1: Site Location
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 5 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
2.2 The Design Approach
Proposed at the heart of Ashwicken Lake would be the UK’s first clubhouse on the water, encircled with luxury holiday accommodation which is all located on or near the water’s edge and each with a mooring. The Indicative Site Layout (see Appendix A) arranges the waterside and floating lodges in clusters, interspersed with new planting, trees, follies (such as viewing platform, art sculptures and bird hide) and water taxi jetties to create differing character areas and spaces within the resort.
Figure 2.2: Indicative Masterplan
The design approach has been conceived as sequence of landscape elements that lead the guests to different parts of the resort. On the arrival of guests past the secure site entrance, the design promotes low car usage and vehicles are left at the entrance car park. Planted rain gardens and swales within the parking areas promoting biodiversity and nature lead guests to the clubhouse on the water. Guests would cross a land-bridge connecting the uniquely designed clubhouse on the water to the shore. The clubhouse would consist of a spa, café /restaurant, multifunctional space and lakeside pool facilities. These facilities would be available to the local community in addition to staying guests of the resort. The clubhouse is to be designed to the sustainability standard of BREEAM – “Very Good”. The clubhouse design will be distinctive, exceptional and will provide high quality internal spaces and alfresco waterside dining.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 6 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Static lodges are proposed along the lake’s southern shore, and floating lodges around the north eastern shore. Treehouses will provide additional accommodation and will be located on the lakeside edge of the woodland in the northern area of the Site. Figure 2.3 below shows an indicative design of the waterside lodges. The rental lodges and clubhouse will employ a fabric first approach to construction and to a BREEAM “very good” standard. The larger private villas will be constructed to a low energy standard.
Figure 2.3: Indicative Design of Floating Lodges
The Proposed Development would specialise in water-based pursuits. This would include rowing, kayaking, stand-up paddle boarding (SUP), opportunities for open water swimming and scuba diving. A boathouse is proposed to be located on the southern lake shore and would provide a boat store, changing facilities and wetsuit rental/storage space and bicycle hire. Outdoor land- based pursuits such as tennis; ball games, children’s play area and archery are located in a high- quality landscape on the southern peninsula of the lake. The Site would promote sustainable transport as guests will be encouraged to walk, cycle, use electric buggies and sail. A water taxi service would also be offered to enable guests to travel from their lodges to the clubhouse facilities.
2.3 Access and Parking
Access into the Site for guests, staff and deliveries would be via an existing track (upgraded) located on the Site’s eastern boundary off Church Lane. Guests would park temporarily to check- in prior to driving to their accommodation to drop off belongings and then returning to an assigned car parking space in one of the long stay car parks on Site.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 7 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
The indicative design currently provides a short stay car park close to the clubhouse and two long stay car parks with c. 260 spaces, 6% of which would be for people with disabilities. The long stay parking is proposed to be located in the Site’s south eastern corner and also halfway along the eastern boundary. To exit the Site guests would collect their cars from the long stay carparks and drive north along the Site’s eastern boundary to exit via an existing track (upgraded) onto East Winch Road to the north. Up to ten staff car parking spaces are proposed just north of the proposed access, and staff accommodation would be located in the south west area of the Site.
2.4 Physical Site Constraints
No development or construction will take place within the 6.1m easement either side of the gas pipeline that is located along the southern Site boundary, and the design also allows for a 30m buffer zone from the middle of the 123kV overhead electricity cables to the proposed lodges. This is greater than the standard 132kV overhead line UK easement.
2.5 Flood Risk Strategy
The key potential flood risks for the Site and the surrounding area are surface water and fluvial flooding from the ditches that enter the eastern side of the Site, and the lake itself. The main aims of the flood risk strategy are to ensure that all the buildings will be safe from potential floodwater, there will be safe access to and around the Site during periods of flooding and that there will be no increase in the flood risk experienced by anyone in the area. If possible the level of flood risk will be reduced. Whilst the existing Environment Agency flood mapping is out of date it is recognised that there is a risk of some flooding in the low-lying central section of Church Lane. However, the local topography indicates that this is not actually a significant risk to the existing Site or to the Proposed Development. The Environment Agency is being consulted now regarding potential options for reducing the flood risk experienced in Church Lane, which will benefit the local community. There is limited variation in the water level in the lake – which discharges to the Middleton Stop Drain. We are not proposing anything to vary this. The proposals for the site layout and for the access arrangements are taking into account all of the flood risk issues. The minimum finished floor levels are to be set to be well above the maximum lake level, and out of any local flooding associated with the ditches.
2.6 Surface Water Drainage Strategy
There will be an increase in the impermeable area at the Site as a result of the Proposed Development, and a surface water strategy is required to ensure that an increase in the amount of or the speed of runoff will not have adverse effects. It is proposed that for lodges on the lake the rainfall will be discharged directly into the lake – as existing. This will result in no change. For properties on the land it is intended to discharge surface
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 8 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 water runoff into local soakaways. The suitability of this will be confirmed through infiltration testing, to be carried out in due course. If this is not possible then runoff will be discharged into other forms of SuDS attenuation – probably local storage areas / wetlands, prior to discharge to the local ditches or the lake. It is anticipated that permeable paving will be used in the proposed parking areas.
2.7 Wastewater Drainage Strategy
It is anticipated that the wastewater generated by the Proposed Development will be collected and treated at a package treatment works, located in the south-west part of the Site. This will discharge treated effluent to the adjacent Middleton Stop Drain. Appropriate licences will be obtained from the Environment Agency and from the King’s Lynn Drainage Board. A series of small underground pumping stations will be required around the Site to receive local wastewater discharges and to transfer the wastewater to the proposed treatment plant.
2.8 The Principal and Ancillary Elements
The principal elements of the Proposed Development comprise: • Holiday lets: up to 17 two-story private houses available for private sale; • Static or floating homes: up to c. 125 -135 single-story accommodation units; • Tree houses: up to 25 single-story accommodation units; • A Clubhouse on the water, containing a swimming pool, spa, reception, multifunctional restaurant space and boat taxi station; • A pontoon, with space for up to five water taxis; and • A boathouse.
To support the above would be the following proposed ancillary development: • Two upgraded access roads; • Car parking (for staff and guests) and electric vehicle charging points; • Bicycle rental kiosk and parking; • Recreational facilities such as tennis courts, a children’s play area and archery area; • Hard and soft landscaping including pathways, wayfinding signs; follies and lighting; • Drainage, including SUDs; • Sewage Treatment Plant; • Renewable and low carbon energy generation infrastructure; • Site security measures including fencing and gated access points; • Retention of existing earth bund to east of the Wellness Resort facility for noise mitigation purposes.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 9 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
2.9 Construction
A construction period of 18 months is anticipated for the Proposed Development, with the majority of buildings being prefabricated off-site. This will significantly reduce the potential impacts arising from noise and construction related traffic, and the quantum of waste arising from the construction process. It is anticipated that no material excavated on Site during the course of the construction will be exported of site for disposal/recycling. All such material will be utilised on Site to assist landscaping and spatial segregation. The existing earth bund located to the east of the Wellness Resort facility will be retained and will assist with mitigating noise and visual impacts associated with the construction phase. At this stage it is anticipated that all construction compounds and laydown areas will be accommodated within the Indicative Application Boundary (see Appendix B). The internal road network in the eastern section of the Site will be established first and construction laydown areas located in areas proposed as future car parks. A slipway that will also be used for future boat use will be constructed at the south-east corner of the lake. The prefabricated floating lodges will be launched from that slipway. The Applicant will only consider tenders from contractors who are affiliated to the “Considerate Constructors Scheme”. The Considerate Constructors Scheme is a not-for-profit, independent organisation founded to raise standards in the construction industry. Further details of the construction phasing and proposed construction methods are currently being developed. It is envisaged that a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be prepared during the course of the assessment work and submitted with the planning application. This would set out the principles, controls and management measures which would be implemented during construction to manage potential significant impacts. The principles set out in the draft CTMP would be taken into account as part of the EIA.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 10 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
3 Site Description and Characteristics
3.1 Site Location and Description
The Site is located some 9.6km to the east of King’s Lynn which is well connected by road to the south via the A10 to Ely and Cambridge (M11), to the East to Norwich via the A47 and to the East Midlands via the A17. The nearest postcode is PE32 1LZ, and the National Grid Reference of the approximate centre of the Site is 569330E, 317751N. The Site is predominantly grassland surrounding a large lake which occupies most of the area, with mature woodland to the south west and north and new tree planting to the north west. The Site’s elevation rises from the lake edge to the Site boundary generally between 9m and 10m aOD and falls again at the boundary drainage ditches. Two ponds are also present in the south west of the Site. The lake has been formed following sand quarrying and restored to its current condition. 132kV overhead electricity cables and pylons runs across the Site from the eastern boundary to its southwest corner A gas pipeline is located along the southern boundary of the Site. The pipe historically ran through the centre of the Site but was re-routed in the 1990’s as the land was utilised for mineral extraction. The pipe passes by existing housing at a distance of 18-40m.
3.2 The Surrounding Area
The Site is bounded on all edges by mostly open countryside in agricultural use with a small settlement of homes to the north of the Site and poultry houses and piggeries located on the southern edge. Rattlerow Farms Ltd holds and Environmental Permit for the Intensive Pig Farming facility (Permit Ref: GP3131MX) which was granted in January 2008. All surrounding buildings, whether agricultural or residential are low rise. Drainage ditches run around the majority of the Site boundary. A former quarry is adjacent to the Site’s western boundary, and further west again there are active quarrying activities. There are numerous other quarry lakes around the Site and a reservoir to the northwest of the Site.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 11 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
4 Planning Policy Context
4.1 Introduction
The Proposed Development will be progressed taking account of policies at the national and local level set out in this chapter.
4.2 National Planning Policy and Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) • Chapter 2 Achieving Sustainable Development which explains that achieving sustainable development means the planning system has three overarching and interdependent objectives: “an economic objective - to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; a social objective - to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being ; and an environmental objective - to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.” It stipulates when determining planning applications a presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied. • Chapter 6 Building a Strong, Competitive Economy which states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth, taking account both of local business needs and wider opportunities for development (paragraph 80). In particular paragraphs 83 and 84 which sets out the policies to support a prosperous rural economy including sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside. • Chapter 8 Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities which, at paragraph 96 states that access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities. • Chapter 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport which requires appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes are taken up and safe and suitable access is provided to the transport network which, of itself, has the capacity to accommodate the predict traffic volumes (paragraphs 108 to 111).
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 12 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Chapter 12 Achieving Well-Designed Places notes that the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Planning decisions should ensure developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; be sympathetic to local character, establish a strong sense of place and optimise the potential of the site to sustain an appropriate amount of mix of development, including green space (paragraphs 124 to 132). • Chapter 14 Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change which requires the planning system to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. Flood risk should not be increased elsewhere by the consenting of new development, which should also take account of landform, layout, building orientation etc to minimise energy consumption. Renewable and low carbon development should be approved if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (paragraphs 148 to 165). • Chapter 15 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment which requires the protection and enhancement of values landscapes and sites of biodiversity vale; the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity; and preventing new development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from unacceptable levels water or noise pollution or land instability. • Chapter 16 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment requires great weight to be given to the protection of a designated heritage asset (the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be) with any harm to those assets being clearly and convincingly justified. For Grade II listed buildings substantial harm should be exceptional and, for those assets of highest significant e.g. scheduled monuments and grade I and II* listed building, should be wholly exceptional. Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, the NPPF requires that this harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (paragraphs 184 - 202).
Planning Practice Guidance 2016 (last updated October 2019) • Climate Change • Design: process and tools (National Design Guide) • Environmental Impact Assessment • Flood Risk and Coastal Change • Healthy and Safe Communities • Land Stability • Light Pollution • Natural Environment • Noise • Renewable and Low Carbon Energy • Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 13 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
4.3 Local Planning Policy and Guidance
The Site is unallocated in the adopted King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016). As a location outside of a defined development boundary it will be subject to policies for development in the countryside.
Local Development Framework Core Strategy (July 2011) • Policy CS01 Spatial Strategy outlines the Council’s spatial strategy and states that fostering sustainable communities is a development priority as is encouraging economic growth and inward investment. For rural areas, sustainable patterns of development will be promoted, and strong, diverse, economic activity ensured whilst maintaining local character and a high-quality environment. The countryside beyond the villages will be protected for its intrinsic character and beauty and its’ diversity in terms of heritage, landscape, geodiversity and biodiversity. • Policy CS06 Development in Rural Areas sets out the strategy for built development within rural areas and underlines that the Council will encourage a strong hierarchy of rural settlements and competitive, diverse and thriving rural enterprise that supports a range of jobs. The following extract from the policy relates to proposals for new built development in the countryside: “The strategy for rural areas is to: • promote sustainable communities and sustainable patterns of development to ensure strong, diverse, economic activity; • maintain local character and a high-quality environment …. • Ensure employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities are provided in close proximity. Beyond the villages and in the countryside, the strategy will be to protect the countryside for its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, and its natural resources to be enjoyed by all. The development of greenfield sites will be resisted unless essential for agricultural or forestry needs… The strategy will be supportive of farm diversification schemes and conversion of existing buildings for business purposes in accordance with Policy CS10 providing any proposal: • meets sustainable development objectives and helps to sustain the agricultural enterprise; • is consistent in its scale with its rural location; • is beneficial to local economic and social needs; • does not adversely affect the building and the surrounding area or detract from residential amenity.” • Policy CS08 Sustainable Development requires development of a high quality, which respects and enhances local character. Under this policy, proposals must demonstrate a
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 14 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
contribution to the sustainability needs of rural communities and ensure flood risk is mitigated through design and engineering solutions. Specifically to promote and encourage opportunities to achieve high standards of sustainability and energy efficiency, the policy states “measures should include: • Construction techniques, layout, orientation, internal design and appropriate insulation maximised to improve efficiency; • Innovative use of re-used or recycled materials of local and traditional materials to decrease waste and maintain local character; • Reduction of on-site emissions by generation of cleaner energy; • Provision of green space to safeguard wildlife, provide recreation opportunities and improve the quality of life for people living in the area; • Good access links for walking and cycling; • Integration of water saving devices and Sustainable Drainage Systems; • Designs that exceed the present standards set by Building Regulations and achieve higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes will be encouraged; • At the design stage, attention should be had to the CABE “Building for Life” national standard for well-designed homes and neighbourhoods and all new schemes should be assessed against the Building for Life Criteria, or successor documents as appropriate; • New development of more than 1o dwellings (new builds or conversions) or 1000m2 of non-residential floor space should reduce their CO2 emissions by at least 10% (by using decentralised and renewable and low carbon sources) as compared to the Standard Assessment Methodology. For developments over 100 dwellings a 20% reduction of CO2 emissions will be encouraged. In terms of density of development CS08 advises that Design and Access Statements will be scrutinised to confirm that the proposals optimise the density of development in light of local factors such as the setting of the development and the requirement for any on site infrastructure including amenity space. CS08 also supports the generation of energy from renewable sources and will permit their development unless there are unacceptable locational or other impacts that could not be outweighed by wider environmental, social, economic and other benefits. • Policy CS10 The Economy seeks to develop the local economy through jobs growth and to ensure that opportunities are available for the development of all sectors of the economy and workforce. The tourism and leisure industries are recognised as key elements of the economic and social vibrancy of the Borough which contribute to the regeneration and growth of the area. It states that: “The Council will promote opportunities to improve and enhance the visitor economy: • Supporting tourism opportunities through the borough… • Smaller scale tourism opportunities will also be supported in rural areas to sustain the local economy, providing these are in sustainable locations and are not detrimental to our valuable natural environment.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 15 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
The Council will permit the development of new tourism accommodation in rural areas subject to the following criteria being met: • It should be located in or adjacent to our villages and towns; • It should be of a high standard of design in line with national guidance; • Will not be detrimental to the landscape; • Mechanisms will be in place to permanently retain the tourism related use. New development to promote and enhance tourism should consider the historic character and setting of our towns, and proposals should aim to preserve and enhance this unique environment. In the countryside, preservation of the natural and historic environment should be a priority (also refer to Environmental Assets). Promotion of tourism and leisure industries will be assisted by implementation of the Green Infrastructure Management Plan.” • Policy CS11 Transport deals with transport issues in new development which need to demonstrate they have been designed to reduce the need to travel, promote sustainable forms of transport appropriate to their location and related uses and users, and provide for safe and convenient access for all modes. • Policy CS12 Environmental Assets states that development should seek to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impacts on biodiversity, geodiversity and heritage as well as seeking to enhance sites through the creation of features of new biodiversity, geodiversity and heritage interest. Design should be sensitive to context, and not detract from the quality of the environment.
Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (September 2016) • Policy DM1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development states as follows: “When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively and jointly with applicants to find solutions that allow proposal to be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area”. • Policy DM2 Development Boundaries states as follows: “Development will be permitted within the development boundaries of settlements shown on the Policies Map provided it is in accordance with the other policies in the Local Plan. The areas outside development boundaries (excepting specific allocations for development) will be treated as countryside where new development will be more restricted and will be limited to that identified as suitable in rural areas by other policies of the local plan, including: • Farm diversification (under Core Strategy CS06); • Small scale employment (under Core Strategy Policy CS10); • Tourism facilities (under Core Strategy Policy CS10) • Community facilities, development in support (under Core Strategy Policy CS13);
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 16 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Renewable energy generation (under Policy DM20 of the rural economy of this Plan); ……” • Policy DM9 Community Facilities states that the Council encourages provision of new community facilities in areas with poor levels of provision and in areas of major growth. • Policy DM11 Touring and Permanent Holiday Sites states: “Proposals for new holiday accommodation sites or units or extension or intensification to existing holiday accommodation will not normally be permitted unless: • The proposal is supported by a business plan demonstrating how the site will be managed and how it will support tourism or tourist related uses in the area; • The proposal demonstrates a high standard of design in terms of layout, screening and landscaping ensuring minimal adverse impact on visual amenity and the historical and natural environmental qualities of the surrounding landscape and surroundings; and • The site can be safely accessed; • It is in accordance with national policies on flood risk; • The site is not within the Coastal Hazard Zone indicated on the Policies Map, or within areas identified as tidal defence breach Hazard Zone in the Borough Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency’s mapping; Small scale proposals for holiday accommodation will not normally be permitted within the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) unless it can be demonstrated that the proposal will not negatively impact on the landscape setting and scenic beauty of the AONB or on the landscape setting of the AONB if outside the designated area. Proposals for uses adversely affecting Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) or European Sites will be refused permission. The policy also states the conditions to be applied to new holiday accommodation in the event consent is granted: “Where development is permitted in the open countryside for new holiday accommodation, it is essential that such uses are genuine and will be operated and maintained as tourist facilities in the future. To achieve this aim, occupancy conditions will be placed on future planning permissions requiring that: • The accommodation is occupied for holiday purposes only and shall be made available for rent or as commercial holiday lets; • The accommodation shall be for short stay accommodation only (no more than 28 days per single let) and shall not be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence; and • The owners / operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of lettings/occupation and shall make this available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority.” • Policy DM15 Environment, Design and Amenity states: “Development must protect and enhance the amenity of the wider environment including its heritage and cultural value. Proposals will be assessed against their impact on
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 17 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
neighbouring uses and their occupants as well as the amenity of any future occupiers of the proposed development. Proposals will be assessed against a number of factors including: • Heritage impact; • Overlooking, overbearing, overshadowing; • Noise; • Odour; • Air quality; • Light pollution; • Contamination; • Water Quality and • Visual impact. The scale, height, massing, materials and layout of a development should respond sensitively and sympathetically to the local setting…… Development that has a significant adverse impact on the amenity of others or which is of a poor design will be refused. Development proposals should demonstrate that safe access can be provided, and adequate parking facilities are available.” • Policy DM19 which supports Green Infrastructure/Habitats Monitoring and Mitigation
Emerging Local Plan Policy KLWNBC has produced a Local Development Scheme (LDS) which came into effect on 13 February 2020.The LDS chiefly outlines the currently anticipated timescales for production of the Local Plan review through to 2022. In March/April 2019 KLWNBC published a draft version of the Local Plan review for consultation. The Council is presently reviewing those consultation responses ahead of the forecast submission to the Secretary of State for examination in January/March 2021. Given the early stage of preparation the policies of the draft Local Plan are not considered material to the Proposed Development and will not be outlined in the ES.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 18 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
5 The EIA Process
5.1 EIA Regulations
The process for EIA for projects such as the Proposed Development is set out in The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. As set out in section 1.2 above, the Proposed Development falls within Schedule 2 Part 12 (c) of the EIA Regulations. Notwithstanding the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations, it is considered that the Proposed Development may have the potential to give rise to significant effects on the environment. This Scoping Report is provided in accordance with Regulation 15 of the EIA Regulations.
5.2 Consultation
Pre-application consultation took place in 2018 with the Environment and Planning Team of KLWNBC. The Council issued its pre-application enquiry response on 10 January 2019 regarding the proposed change of use for the siting of eco lodges, holiday homes and leisure uses at Wicken Quarry on land north of Ashwicken Road, East Winch, Norfolk (Ref. No: 18/00167/PREAPP). It concluded that there is no in principle reason why such an innovative tourism project would not be acceptable. It advised that its acceptability will be reliant on compliance with relevant planning policy and guidance of which statutory consultee responses will be key, these included: • Highway safety/impacts; • Flood risk and drainage; • Impact on SSSI; • Impact on landscape; • Impact on neighbour amenity; • Ecology; and • Trees. Further impact information was needed and it was not possible for KLWNBC “to give any real consideration other than to say it would hope to be able to support such a proposal that could benefit the borough in a number of ways including inward investment, tourism offer, employment and small scale community facilities in terms of the retail and restaurant offer.” Subsequently the Applicant’s transport consultants produced a Transport Assessment Scoping Note in August 2019 that was issued to both Highways England (HE) and Norfolk County Council (NCC). Following receipt of the two highway authorities’ pre-application enquiry responses, the Transport Assessment Scoping Report was updated to reflect changed development quanta assumptions and re-issued ahead of a meeting held on 4 November 2019 with NCC Highways. The meeting considered drawings illustrating improvements to Church Lane including proposals to manage the pinch-point to the south of the southern access and formalising some of the passing places. NCC advised this approach was acceptable in principle subject to being worked up in more detail for the planning application.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 19 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Engagement is ongoing with HE regarding visibility at the A47 junctions in East Winch. The Applicant will continue the discussions with the Council that commenced through the pre- application process on noise, odour, archaeology etc with the relevant teams of officers. The Applicant will undertake pre-application consultation with the local community on its proposals and accompany its planning application with a Statement of Community Involvement that will explain the engagement undertaken, the responses received and how the project has responded to the public feedback.
5.3 Assessment
In general terms the main stages in the EIA are as follows: • Data Review – draw together and review available data; • Scoping – identify significant issues, determine scope of EIA; • Baseline Surveys – undertake baseline surveys and monitoring; • Assessment and Iteration – assess likely significant effects of development, evaluate alternatives, provide feedback to design team on adverse effects, incorporate any necessary mitigation, assess effects of mitigated development; and • Preparation of the ES. The proposed scope of the EIA and approach to the assessment of likely significant effects is set out in Chapter 6.
5.4 Mitigation
One of the most important functions of the EIA process is to identify ways to mitigate identified adverse environmental effects and identify opportunities that a proposed development may have for environmental improvements. The EIA Regulations require an ES to contain: “A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment”. A hierarchy of methods for mitigating significant adverse effects will be followed, which are, in order of preference: • Enhancement - opportunities that the proposed development may provide to enhance the local and wider environment (e.g. ecological enhancement or provision of jobs); • Avoidance – designing the proposed development in such a way that avoids effects on the environment (e.g. locating sensitive infrastructure above flood levels); • Reduction – design the development or employ construction methodologies such that significant effects identified are reduced (e.g. employment of sustainable drainage to mitigate effects of development in flood prone areas); and • Compensation – providing off-site enhancement in order to compensate for where onsite mitigation has not been possible (e.g. financial contributions towards local infrastructure).
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 20 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Environmental effects remaining after mitigation measures have been incorporated are termed residual effects and these will be fully described in the ES. Embedded and Further Mitigation There is a distinction between mitigation that is incorporated or ‘embedded’ into the design of the development (embedded mitigation) and mitigation that is subsequently identified in order to prevent, reduce or offset any remaining significant adverse effects (further mitigation). Embedded mitigation may include, for example, incorporating habitat areas into the proposed development design, or incorporation of appropriate drainage attenuation. Embedded mitigation evolves through the iterative design process and early consideration of the likely significant impacts. The ES will document the embedded mitigation measures which have been employed within the design in response to the identification of potentially significant effects. The ES, within each of the topic chapters as appropriate, will also document the further mitigation that is required to complement the embedded mitigation. A summary of all mitigation measures and how they are secured, either inherently through the project design, or through the imposition of a planning condition, will be set out in the ES.
5.5 Monitoring
The EIA Regulations require “the monitoring of any significant adverse effects on the environment of proposed development”. It is important to note that the Regulations only require the monitoring of significant adverse effects. The ES will therefore ensure that it is clear to the reader which, if any, effects are both adverse and significant and may therefore require monitoring.
5.6 Cumulative effects
The EIA Regulations require the consideration of the potential impact of inter-relationships and cumulative effects of “existing and/or approved development” with the development. The EIA will consider as appropriate: • The likely significant cumulative effects of the proposed development and other major local existing and/or approved developments; and • The potential for impact interactions leading to an aggregated environmental effect on a receptor being greater than each of the individual effects that have been identified (e.g. local people being affected by noise, dust and increased traffic levels during the construction of the development, where those impacts are greater combined than individually). The assessment of likely significant cumulative effects of the Proposed Development and other local committed developments will be included within each of the topic chapters of the ES. The list of committed developments to be considered will be agreed in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Any potential impact interactions will be assessed within a dedicated chapter of the ES, as it will need to draw together the outcomes of individual discipline assessments.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 21 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
5.7 Environmental Statement
The EIA process will be documented in an ES which will describe the Proposed Development and set out the policy context; give full details of the EIA methodology and any technical methodologies and data used in support of the assessment; detail any mitigation and enhancement measures that have been employed; present the assessment of likely significant environmental effects and provide a schedule of proposed monitoring arrangements. The ES will present the residual effects, and an assessment of the cumulative effects and impact interactions as described in Chapter 6 below. In accordance with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations, a Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of the ES will also be provided
5.8 Consideration of Alternatives
The EIA Regulations require an ES to include “A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.” It is a matter for the developer to decide which alternatives it intends to consider. The EIA Regulations do not expressly require that an applicant considers alternatives, although it is widely encouraged at the policy level, both European and domestic, and is a feature of EIA best practice. The ES will fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations through identifying the reasonable alternatives considered by the developer and explain the main reasons for the choices made.
5.9 EIA Scoping Team
The table below identifies the contributing experts to this Scoping Report. The same team will prepare the ES and, for those topics scoped out, the other accompanying assessment reports.
EIA Scoping Topic Organisation
EIA Coordination Aardvark EM
Landscape and Visual Landscape Visual
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity BSG Ecology
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage South West Archaeology
Socio-Economics York Economics
Flood Risk HR Wallingford
Ground Conditions Hydrock
Transport ITransport
Table 5.1: EIA Scoping Team
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 22 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
6 Topics Included in EIA Scope
6.1 Introduction
This chapter identifies the environmental topics scoped into the EIA, the potential effects and the methodology proposed to undertake the topic assessments. In some instances, the scope of the assessment is based on environmental information already collected (including collection of desk study data, site walkovers and previously conducted survey work) which is informing the emerging design of the Proposed Development.
6.2 Landscape and Visual
Introduction This section considers the two related sub-topics of landscape and visual amenity. The objectives of the section are to identify sensitive landscape and visual receptors in the vicinity of the Proposed Development that will need to be scoped into the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). The section also outlines the potential landscape and visual impacts and sets out the proposed approach to the LVIA.
Study Area and Scope Based on the preliminary Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Figures 1265/5c and 5d (see Appendix B), and initial fieldwork, a 2km study area will be used for the assessment and a detailed 1km study area for assessment of effects.
Baseline Conditions The Proposed Development is located at a low-lying point, to the south of Ashwicken and north of East Winch. The landscape context is described in the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment. This published report notes that the proposed development is located within the Farmland with Woodland and Wetland (G) Landscape Character Type (LCT). The report notes that this LCT “is a medium scale, transitional landscape – separating the low-lying areas of Fens to the west, from the more elevated area of the Rolling Open Farmland to the east. The sense of transition is marked by a varied and less consistent land cover pattern than is evident in other landscapes within the Study Area”. The report also notes that the key characteristics include “Mixed agricultural fields, interspersed with woodland and areas of open water create a medium scale landscape with a varied sense of enclosure”. The mixed or varied pattern of character is also strongly influenced by the “previous and present-day mineral extraction sites” where the restored workings are important for both recreation and biodiversity. Settlement in the area “is concentrated on higher ground” where “churches associated with settlement are the most prominent landmark features”. Elsewhere pylons are also prominent features along with other masts and posts carrying overhead wires and away from the main transport routes the landscape has a peaceful character. The overall condition and strength of character is noted as “moderate”. It is also noted as being “varied”, “declining” and
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 23 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
“fragmented, due to varying land uses and land cover pattern”. The Site then straddles two sub Landscape Character Areas (LCA) at Bawsey And Leziate (G1) Gayton And East Winch (G3). There are no designated landscapes within the proposed development boundary or immediate study area but there are points of recreational value with a number of Public Rights of Way and the Leziate Country Park to the northwest of the Proposed Development.
Assessment Viewpoints A number of assessment viewpoints have been proposed, based on a set of criteria chosen so as to give a wide and representative coverage in terms of landscape and visual factors (see the schedule and viewpoint plan – Figures 1265/6a and 6b at Appendix B and C). The criteria for selecting appropriate viewpoint locations are: • Located with a view of the proposals • Character: within a range of landscape character areas • Recreation: from or near to local open space and/or routes with public access • Public highways: from or near to certain points along roads • Settlement: from or near to local settlement. The schedule at Appendix C summarises the rationale for each viewpoint. The photography and survey of the viewpoints contained in the schedule is currently being progressed. For technical or practical reasons it may be necessary to vary viewpoint locations during fieldwork. Due to changes in the emerging Proposed Development, it may become necessary to vary viewpoints, although this is considered unlikely. Any substantial variations to the viewpoint locations would be notified to the Council.
Potential Effects Given the varied, low-lying landscape context and the nature of the Proposed Development, the extent of visibility to both construction work and to the operational elements of the Proposed Development, including the lodges and clubhouse, will be generally limited to the immediate Site context within 1km and to adjacent points, extending up to 1.5km to the southwest where slight elevations in terrain permit more distant filtered views between wooded enclosure patterns. This is illustrated by the preliminary ZTV Figures 1265/5c and 5d at Appendix B. Beyond these areas at the 1 to 1.5km distance range, the Proposed Development will be a recessive element in the landscape. It is considered that the potential for significant effects will be restricted to the immediate landscape setting up to 1km from the site, between East Winch and Ashwicken. The exception to this extent of visibility would be the potential visibility of any taller, architecturally designed landmark building or follies which would be more visible, but as discrete elements in the surrounding landscape. It is understood that any landmark building and any other tall follies around the lake shore would be no more than 15m in height (similar to size and scale to local windmills). This would mean that they would be no taller than mature trees and woodland in the surrounding area and indicates that they would act as local landmarks only. The designs are at an early stage and care will be taken to ensure they have a recessive appearance in wider contextual views.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 24 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
There may also be a design intention to light some of these structures for visual interest, and potential night-time effects may need to be considered if this is the case. Where visible in this context up to 1km, most views will be partial and strongly filtered given the extent of enclosure from landcover and local landform variations. In these views the Proposed Development will also be seen in the context of adjacent large agricultural buildings, pylons and masts and by the open expanse of water. It will also be seen from higher points in the wider settled character of the area. The nature of development will also fit and extend the wider recreational aspects that define sections of the landscape to the north which relate to the wider character of the restored mineral workings in the area. Visual effects which could arise for users of the recreational landscape, and the road network will be assessed. For residents, the assessment would be limited to their consideration in relation to the representative viewpoints, and potential changes which could arise in visual amenity for groups of residents who are near the Site up to approximately 1km. Residential amenity assessments are separate from LVIAs in that they deal with private views and are normally only provided if it is considered likely at the scoping stage that visual effects on residential amenity are likely to be material, which following initial work is not considered to be the case for this project.
Method The following work stages will be undertaken: • Desk study collating information on potential receptors (landscape and visual). • Preparation of Geographic Information System (GIS)-based maps. • Fieldwork to photograph viewpoints and assess the baseline environment. • Assessment of the sensitivity of the surrounding landscape and views. • Assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts. • Preparation of photomontages to support the assessment. The method will follow the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013). The assessment will be proportionate to the effects of the Proposed Development, focussing on likely significant issues only. A full methodology is enclosed in Appendix D. Appendix D addresses assessment scenarios, assumptions, criteria for the magnitude of effects and the significance of impacts.
Supporting Materials Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and the Landscape Institute’s Visual Representation of Development Proposals Technical Guidance Note 06/19 will be followed in supplying an appropriate level of supporting visual material for the assessment. GIS-based context plans, Zone of Theoretical Visibility plans will be supplied and a selection of 3 or 4 visualisations as required and appropriate to illustrating a selection of the main landscape and visual issues. Technical Guidance Note 06/19 indicates that the Proposed Development falls within Category B and an approach using a combination of Types 1-3, would be appropriate (page 11 of the guidance). If wirelines of the Proposed Development are provided as part of these, the visualisations would be based on a terrain-model (OS or LIDAR data) with a hand-held GPS device providing viewpoint location data. The visualisations would provide indicative illustrations of the
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 25 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 proposed buildings in the landscape to an accuracy which is suitable for showing the appearance, context, form and extent of the Proposed Development.
6.3 Socio-Economics
Introduction The Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort has the potential to expand the tourism infrastructure in the surrounding area of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and across Norfolk more broadly. It will provide a new and different form of holiday accommodation that will potentially open up new markets for tourism in the area, with a particular focus on sustainable tourism. This section of the scoping report provides an initial overview of the socio-economic baseline for the development, the potential socio-economic effects relating to the development and how socio- economic impacts will be addressed within the planning submission.
Baseline Conditions The Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort will be located at the disused Wicken Quarry near East Winch. The nearest major town is King’s Lynn, which is around 7 miles away via the A47. There is currently no economic activity on the Site and hence no employment located there. The Proposed Development will potentially have a socio-economic impact across a broad geographic area: • its impact as a provider of employment and prosperity, either through directly through employment opportunities on-site or through its supply chain or through the expenditure of wages and salaries, will primarily be focused in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, which makes up the great majority of the King’s Lynn Travel to Work Area. It is also this area that is most likely to see social impacts from the Proposed Development, such as, for instance, from access to facilities at the Proposed Development or knock-on regeneration effects; • its role in bringing visitors to the area and hence injecting consumer expenditure into the economy away from the Site is likely to be felt across Norfolk as a whole, reflecting the presence of attractions across the County, albeit the balance of effects is likely to be towards King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. Table 6.1 shows the number of people employed in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and Norfolk in 2018 (latest available data) and a broad breakdown by economic sector. This employment structure is compared to England as a whole using location quotients (LQs). A location quotient of greater than 1 suggests a relative concentration of an activity in the relevant area, whereas a result of less than 1 suggests that the sector is underrepresented.
King's Lynn & West Norfolk Norfolk
Broad Sector Employment LQ Employment LQ
1 : Agriculture, forestry & fishing (A) 4,000 2.8 14,000 5.2
2 : Mining, quarrying & utilities (B,D and E) 1,000 1.3 6,000 1.4
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 26 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
3 : Manufacturing (C) 7,000 1.1 34,000 1.5
4 : Construction (F) 3,500 1.1 20,000 1.2
5 : Motor trades (Part G) 2,000 1.4 10,000 1.8
6 : Wholesale (Part G) 2,250 0.9 14,000 0.9
7 : Retail (Part G) 7,000 1.2 42,000 1.3
8 : Transport & storage (inc postal) (H) 2,000 0.9 16,000 0.7
9 : Accommodation & food services (I) 5,000 1.1 32,000 1.1
10 : Information & communication (J) 450 0.4 6,000 0.2
11 : Financial & insurance (K) 1,250 1.0 13,000 0.6
12 : Property (L) 900 0.8 6,000 0.8
13 : Professional, scientific & technical (M) 2,500 0.7 24,000 0.5
14 : Business administration & support services (N) 4,000 0.9 30,000 0.7
15 : Public administration & defence (O) 2,500 0.9 14,000 1.1
16 : Education (P) 4,500 1.0 33,000 0.9
17 : Health (Q) 8,000 1.1 55,000 1.1
18 : Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services 1,750 1.0 17,000 0.6 (R,S,T and U)
Total 59,600 386,000
Table 6.1: Employment and Location Quotients in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Norfolk in 2018 (Source: NOMIS)
There were around 59,600 people in employment in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk in 2018. The largest broad sectors of employment were health, retail and manufacturing. All three of these sectors have location quotients slightly above 1, suggesting a slight concentration in the area compared to England. Sectors that appear to be underrepresented in the area include Information & Communication, Professional, Scientific and Technical activities and Property. There is a significant concentration in relation to Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing compared to England. In Norfolk as a whole, there were around 386,000 people in employment in 2018. The largest individual sectors were again Health and Retail, but with Manufacturing, Accommodation & Food Services, Business Administration & Support Services and Education all offering similar levels of employment at a level below. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing is again heavily concentrated in the area but there are a number of other sectors with location quotients notably above 1. These include Mining, quarrying & utilities, Manufacturing, Motor trades and Retail. Notable underrepresented sectors include Information & communication, Financial & insurance, Business administration & support services, Transport & storage, and Arts, entertainment, recreation & other services. Table 6.2 shows employment growth in the potential impact areas since 2015 compared to the East of England Region and England. King’s Lynn & West Norfolk has generated an additional
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 27 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
2,100 jobs since 2015, which represents growth of around 3.7%. Norfolk as a whole has seen employment growth of around 9,100 or around 2.4% since 2015. Both areas are lagging some way behind the East of England region as a whole, which has seen employment growth of around 5.8%. King’s Lynn & West Norfolk has grown broadly in line with England, but Norfolk is again significantly behind the English average. Overall, this suggests that areas around the Proposed Development are not performing as strongly as the rest of the East of England, and that the county of Norfolk in particular would benefit from employment opportunities.
King's Lynn & Norfolk East of England England West Norfolk
2015 57,400 377,000 2,719,800 25,932,500
2016 59,300 383,100 2,801,300 26,330,000
2017 60,500 388,700 2,855,400 26,691,500
2018 59,600 386,000 2,878,900 26,842,000
% Growth 3.7% 2.4% 5.8% 3.5%
Table 6.2: Employment Growth since 2015 (Source NOMIS)
Table 6.3 shows the median average wage earned in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Norfolk compared to the East of England region and England. Both areas are behind both the rest of the region and England, albeit the difference for King’s Lynn & West Norfolk is relatively small.
King's Lynn & West Norfolk £29,477
Norfolk £27,311
East of England £30,345
England £30,667
Table 6.3: Median Average Salary in 2019 (Source NOMIS)
Table 6.4 shows the claimant count unemployment rates for King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Norfolk compared to the East of England region and England. Unemployment rates are relatively low in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk compared to the East of England and England. Norfolk is in line with the rates seen across the East of England but below those in England. However, it should be recognised that both areas are relatively rural and will tend to have generally lower rates compared to geographies containing significant urban areas.
King's Lynn & West Norfolk 1.6%
Norfolk 2.0%
East of England 2.0%
England 2.6%
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 28 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Table 6.4: Claimant Count Unemployment Rates in April 2019 (Source NOMIS)
Figure 6.1 shows the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) results by ward for the areas around the Proposed Development. Darker shading represents areas of high deprivation. This demonstrates that there are pockets of deprivation in King’s Lynn and other nearby areas around the Proposed Development and that as a result there is potentially a need for employment growth and economic opportunities in the area.
Figure 6.1: Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019
The Proposed Development will provide a new and important piece of tourism infrastructure for the area in an expanding part of the tourism market, ecotourism. Tourism is a significant industry within Norfolk. Table 6.5 shows the estimated number of tourism visits made to King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Norfolk as a whole in 2018 and the expenditure supported by these visits.
King's Lynn & West Norfolk Norfolk
Visits (000s) Spend (£m) Visits (000s) Spend (£m)
Day Visitors 6,099 £142 68,094 £1,461
Domestic Overnight Visitors 499 £74 2,858 £599
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 29 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
International Visitors n/a n/a 162 £52
Table 6.5: Tourism Visits and Spend in 2018 (Source: Visit Britain)
King’s Lynn & West Norfolk attracted around 6.1 million day visitors in 2018 and nearly 500,000 domestic overnight visitors. These visitors spent an estimated £216 million in the local economy. Across Norfolk as a whole, there were around 68.1 million day visitors in 2018, 2.9 million domestic overnight visitors around 162,000 international visitors. These visitors spent around £2.1 billion in the local economy. Overnight and international visitors are of particular value to the economy, as their spend per trip is substantially higher, around £210 and £322 respectively. The Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort would appeal to both these markets. Norfolk is known particularly for its countryside, its coastline, the Norfolk Broads, its attractive market towns and its seaside resorts. Key attractions in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk include: • Holkham and Wells-next-the-sea beaches; • Sandringham; • Holkham Hall; • Castle Rising; • the seaside resort of Hunstanton; and • King’s Lynn’s maritime heritage attractions. The VisitBritain Accommodation Stock Audit 2016 identified 47,935 total bedspaces in Norfolk. Around 39% of these bedspaces were in hotels or other serviced accommodation, with the tourist campsites the largest sub-sector in the non-serviced accommodation group. The audit identified 7,058 bedspaces in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, around 15% of the total. 35% of these bedspaces were in hotels or other serviced accommodation, slightly below the total for Norfolk as a whole. The Ashwicken Lakes Wellness Resort will increase bedspaces in King’s Lynn & West Norfolk by around 600 or 8% of the 2016 total.
Potential Effects Construction The construction of the Proposed Development is likely to generate temporary employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and supply chain benefits during the construction phase. There also potential opportunities to support training and skills development in the local workforce through the construction period. Operation Once completed, the Proposed Development will generate employment and GVA through the economic activity it supports on-site (direct impacts), through supply chain effects (indirect impacts) and through the expenditure of incomes earned via direct and indirect effects in the local economy (induced impacts). This would include consideration of the potential impacts of employment in terms of training and skills development of the workforce. Visitors to the Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort will also potentially support employment and GVA in the wider economy through expenditures made away from the resort when visiting other attractions or purchasing goods or services locally.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 30 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Assessment Methodology Effects associated with the construction and operational phase will be considered in both King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Norfolk as a whole. This will include assessment of gross, net and displacement effects resulting from the Proposed Development. To determine the baseline direct completed development impact, the number of employees will be determined based on analysis of the accommodation offer and other facilities provided on Site. The analysis will consider bedspaces provided, number of lodges and other units of accommodation, floor areas and other metrics. It will use recognized benchmarking data from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Employment Density Guide along with analysis of the employment supported by other similar developments elsewhere. GVA impacts will be considered based on typical GVA per job estimates for the accommodation sector taken from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Annual Business Survey. The direct impacts associated with the construction phase will be assessed based on the anticipated capital expenditure costs and published data from the Office for National Statistics on output per job in construction and the link between GVA and output in the sector. The indirect and induced impacts associated with both the construction and completed development will be calculated using multipliers. These multipliers will be drawn from existing research, such as the HCA Additionality Guide, and from research into other similar developments elsewhere. The multipliers selected will reflect the size and nature of the relevant study areas. The impact of the Proposed Development on the tourism economy in the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk and Norfolk economies will be estimated using expenditure data from VisitBritain statistics and Annual Business Survey data from ONS. The indirect and induced impacts associated with the increased activity in the tourism sector will then be estimated using appropriate multipliers for the tourism sector. Any broader socio-economic impacts associated with the Proposed Development, such as its potential to contribute to the overall tourism offer in the area or the potential to support training and skills development, will be discussed with appropriate stakeholders including the relevant local authorities and Visit Norfolk. Where appropriate, the assessment will adjust initial gross estimates of the impact of the development for a range of potential additionality issues, notably: • Deadweight – the assessment will consider the potential counterfactual should the development not be consented; • Displacement – the assessment will consider appropriate assumptions around both product and factor displacement. In relation to the latter, this will need to consider specifically that the development will privately be funded; • Leakage – the assessment will consider the extent to which benefits are likely to retained within the study areas. • Mitigation The socio-economic effects of the Development are expected to be beneficial and, hence, there is no requirement for mitigation.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 31 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Conclusions The socio-economic effects associated with the development are expected to be significant and beneficial. These effects will be assessed via the EIA.
6.4 Flood Risk
Introduction In view of the location of the Proposed Development, adjacent to/on a lake, and close to watercourses, it is important to assess the issue of flood risk. This will need to consider the risks to the future residents and staff at the Site, as well as whether the Proposed Development will have any impacts on the risks of flooding experienced at or near the Site. People and land beyond the Site could also potentially be affected. In recognition of flood risk being a significant issue for many sites it is a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that for a development of this size a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is carried out, to assess the existing risks, to consider the potential impacts of the development and to identify appropriate mitigation strategies. Indeed, flood risk issues should be considered early in the development of plans for the project, such that they can influence the design. Flood risk issues will be fully assessed and a report on the FRA will form an appendix to the Flood Risk chapter of the ES.
Baseline Conditions Review of Potential Flood Sources For any proposed development site there will be a number of potential flood risks that should be considered. Some may be significant and thus require detailed review and investigation, whilst others may not be applicable for some sites. The potential flood risks, and their anticipated applicability at Ashwicken Lake, are outlined in Table 6.6 below.
Ref. Type of Flooding Comments Relevance
The site is well away from the sea and the 1 Coastal N/A watercourses are not tidally influenced.
Flooding from rivers and smaller watercourses, spreading River / watercourse across the surrounding area and potentially causing To be 2 (fluvial) significant disruption. Three watercourses flow from the considered east into the site. They combine within the site.
Flooding due to runoff from the site and surrounding Surface water To be 3 areas. This occurs before runoff enters a watercourse. (pluvial) considered Potentially an issue.
In some areas high groundwater can cause local flooding – typically temporary. The presence of several lakes in To be 4 Groundwater the region, plus mineral extraction activities means that considered groundwater issues should be reviewed.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 32 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Ref. Type of Flooding Comments Relevance
There are no upstream dams or other embankments that Reservoir / canal might fail and potentially cause flooding of the site. To be 5 failure However, the lake is a large body of stored water, so any considered issues associated with this will be considered.
To be 6 Foul drainage Potential for local flooding from local drainage systems. considered
Table 6.6 Summary of potential flood risks at and near Ashwicken Lake
These flood risks will be reviewed in appropriate detail and discussed in the FRA Report and referred to as appropriate in the ES chapter. The Environment Agency (EA) has previously carried out computer modelling of fluvial and pluvial flooding (items 2 and 3 above), and has published the resulting flood maps (Error! Reference source not found.2 and Error! Reference source not found. below). These maps have been reviewed. It appears from the mapping that the models used topographic data that was applicable during the mineral extraction phase, but which does not represent the current topography. The available mapping is therefore of limited use for the Site. Indeed, the EA has confirmed this, saying that the: “modelling is indicative only and is not suitable for … detailed decision making or for use in site specific Flood Risk or Strategic Flood Risk Assessments”.
Figure 6.2 Fluvial Flood Map (Source: EA) Figure 6.3 Pluvial Flood Map (Source: EA) In order to assess the existing risk of flooding at and around the Site data will be obtained and reviewed from a wide variety of sources. Various stakeholders, who may have useful information in terms of how the existing systems work and any history of flooding will be engaged with. Overview of Data to be Collated and Reviewed Based on the initial review of various sources of data there appears to be particular potential for fluvial and pluvial flooding of parts of the Site and of Church Lane, which runs along the eastern edge of the Site. There may also be flooding close to the southern boundary of the Site. During the preparation of the FRA and the flood risk chapter of the ES various items of information will be collated and used to review the flood risk issues. This will include assessments of:
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 33 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Topography: of the Site and the local area to understand local drainage paths, etc. This will include assessing ground-based topographic survey data for the Site area (already surveyed) and LiDAR data from the EA (available for download). This will identify potential flow paths during flood conditions. • Watercourses: identify the existing watercourses and how water draining from the east (higher ground) passes through and around the lake, exiting the Site at its south-west corner, before passing under the old railway line and flowing westwards. The watercourse that runs just inside the southern boundary is the Middleton Stop Drain and the northern watercourse is the Pilkingtons Drain. These are maintained by the King’s Lynn Drainage Board (KLDB). The central drain is maintained by riparian owners. This and Pilkingtons join the Middleton Stop drainage system. • Flow controls: considering any relevant controls on the flow of water in the watercourses. This may include fixed, or active controls which may be operated by the KLDB for irrigation and / or flood control purposes. One such control exists on the Pilkingtons system, at an inlet to the lake. • Hydrogeology: considering groundwater issues, which will be related to the natural geology and influenced by mineral extraction and subsequent Site reinstatement works in the area. This assessment will relate to flood risk, and so will not require a full geological assessment. • Foul drainage: an assessment of Anglian Water information will be made to understand if there is an existing foul drainage flood risk issue in the area. The above assessment will initially be focussed on understanding existing flood risk issues. It will also consider the potential future impacts of climate change, a standard requirement in the preparation of FRAs. However, the understanding gained on existing conditions will also help to inform the assessments of the potential impacts, as well as the iterative design process for the Proposed Development. Stakeholder Liaison As well as obtaining data from various sources it is intended to engage with a range of stakeholders. This should enable them to share their understanding about how the existing systems operate, discuss any particular issues (such as any known flood history or other proposed works) and allow for the provision of additional information / data. This will include liaison with staff from the following organisations: • Local Planning Authority: Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council; • Environment Agency: modelling and planning teams; • Lead Local Flood Authority: Norfolk County Council; • Local Drainage Authority: King’s Lynn Drainage Board, part of the Water Management Alliance; • Anglian Water (AW): Development / Asset teams; and • Mineral Extraction: Sibelco.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 34 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Potential Environmental Impacts Understanding the existing situation will be the starting point for assessing any potential impacts, as the existing assessment will identify the sensitivities of the Site and the surrounding area to the different sources of flooding. Construction Phase Actions that might occur during the construction phase which could affect the flood risk will be considered. This will consider the impacts at the Site itself and also upstream (such as in Church Lane that bounds the eastern edge of the Site) and also downstream (such as in the downstream watercourse). It is anticipated that the key issues to consider will relate to the watercourses passing through / close to the Site, and the bank around the edge of the lake. Throughout the construction period normal flows should be maintained in the watercourses and there should be nothing done that might cause the lake to lose water. In addition, consideration is required regarding excavations or the disturbance of ground around the edge of the lake, particularly in areas of made up ground and where the bank is relatively low. Operational Phase The potential of existing flood risks (perhaps fluvial and pluvial flooding) to affect the proposed properties, activities and movements within the Site, and the access to and from the Site in the event of a significant flood will be considered. The design of the Proposed Development will take account of the findings, such that it will be safe from flood risk and also it will not adversely affect the flood risks experienced by others beyond the Site boundary. In the long term the lake and watercourse system should continue to operate as existing. The ability of the lake to intercept and attenuate flows must continue, and advice will be provided to the Design Team to ensure through the iterative design process that this is not unduly challenged. Similarly, any changes to the watercourses or associated culverts must not result in increased flooding, such as introducing a restriction that causes water to back up and to flood elsewhere. Whilst it may be possible to identify flood risk reductions, it is important to be aware that sometimes an improvement in one location results in deterioration elsewhere and the situation overall must be considered. Drainage Strategies As part of the Proposed Development it will be necessary to drain new impermeable surfaces (such as building roofs) in ways that have no adverse impacts on the environment. In addition, it will be necessary to provide a suitable sewage collection and treatment system for the Proposed Development as a whole. This may or may not be linked to the AW systems. The FRA and ES will consider these issues and provide overall strategies for addressing them. In addition to applying for planning permission, consents may be required from AW and / or KLDB. These will be identified in the ES.
Conclusions It is a planning requirement to review all flood risk issues and to prepare a FRA report, to be submitted as part of the planning documentation. This will provide the primary explanation of flood risk issues for the proposed development. It will consider the existing and future risks, the potential
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 35 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 impacts of the development at the Site and surrounding areas and will consider potential mitigation measures. In many ways this work is similar to the requirements for considering flood risk in the ES. The information from the FRA will therefore also be used in the preparation of the flood risk section of the ES. It is intended that the ES chapter will provide an appropriate summary and will refer to the details in the FRA.
6.5 Noise
Introduction The Proposed Development has the potential to generate noise during site preparation, earthworks and construction, whilst additional road traffic has the potential to increase noise levels post- construction, as well as noise from commercial and patron activities associated with the proposed uses. An assessment of the potential noise effects of the Proposed Development during construction (temporary) and operation (permanent) will be conducted and reported within the ES; this will include demolition and construction, excluding vibration, as the Proposed Development is not envisaged to introduce any significant sources of vibration (see Section 7.5 below)
Baseline Conditions General The prevailing background noise conditions in the area have been determined by an environmental noise survey conducted during both daytime and night-time periods between Tuesday 19th May 2020 to Thursday 21st May 2020. The survey was undertaken during the Covid-19 pandemic, meaning that road traffic movements were suppressed, giving the dataset used to derive the background sound level statistical robustness. Measurement Details All noise measurements were undertaken by a consultant certified as competent in environmental noise monitoring, and, in accordance with the principles of BS 74451. All acoustic measurement equipment used during the noise survey conformed to Type 1 specification of British Standard 616722. A full inventory of this equipment is shown in Table 6.7 below.
Position Make, Model & Description Serial Number
Brüel & Kjær 2238 Sound Level Meter 2812839 MP1 Brüel & Kjær 4188 Microphone 1794946
MP2 Rion NL-32 Sound Level Meter 01213696
1 British Standard 7445: 2003: Description and measurement of environmental noise. BSI. 2 British Standard 61672: 2013: Electroacoustics. Sound level meters. Part 1 Specifications. BSI.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 36 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Rion UC-53A Microphone 318715
Brüel & Kjær 2238 Sound Level Meter 2328256 MP3 Brüel & Kjær 4188 Microphone 2274651
All Cirrus CR:515 Calibrator 72886
Table 6.7: Inventory of Sound Measurement Equipment
Measurement equipment used during the survey was field calibrated at the start and end of the measurement period. A calibration laboratory has calibrated the field calibrator used within the twelve months preceding the measurements. The weather conditions during the survey were conducive to noise measurement; it being dry, with low wind speeds, as measured on-site with a rain-tipping gauge and anemometer. The microphones were fitted with protective windshields for the measurements, which is described in Table 6.8, with an aerial photograph indicating their respective locations shown in Figure 6.4.
Measurement Position Description
An unattended daytime and night-time measurement of sound under free-field conditions, at a height of 1.5 metres above local ground level on land associated with the site. The sound environment was maintained by very distant road traffic, and MP1 wind induced vegetation sound. MP1 is representative of all residential receptors to the north and was selected on the basis that it was setback from local roads, that are the biggest contributors to the background noise climate in the area.
An unattended daytime and night-time measurement of sound under free-field conditions, at a height of 1.5 metres above local ground level on land associated with MP2 the site. The sound environment was maintained by very distant road traffic, sound from the nearby pig and chicken farms, and wind induced vegetation sound. MP2 is representative of all residential receptors to the south-east.
An unattended daytime and night-time measurement of sound under free-field conditions, at a height of 1.5 metres above local ground level on land associated with MP3 the site. The sound environment was maintained by very distant road traffic, sound from the nearby pig and chicken farms, and wind induced vegetation sound. MP3 is representative of Vawser House to the south.
Table 6.8: Measurement Position Descriptions
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 37 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Figure 6.4: Measurement Positions (NB. Redline position altered to that shown at Appendix A)
Summary Results The summarised results of the environmental noise measurements are presented in Error! Reference source not found.6.9.
Measurement Noise Level, dB Period Position LAFmax LAeq,T LA10 LA90
Daytime 66 45 48 37 MP1 Night-Time 61 43 45 32
Daytime 69 46 48 36 MP2 Night-Time 63 43 45 28
Daytime 70 47 49 38 MP3 Night-Time 65 44 46 34
Table 6.9: Environmental Noise Measurement Results
Potential Effects During construction of the Proposed Development, noise could arise from earthworks, road planning, spreading fill, compaction and movement of heavy goods vehicles. During operation of the Proposed Development noise impacts could arise from an increase in road traffic amount or changes to the character of the flow. There is also a potential for changes to noise emissions due to changes in road layout. For example, a new road junction alters the traffic pattern, such as noise due to acceleration and braking of vehicles, compared to steady noise emissions of with a constant traffic speed.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 38 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Furthermore, during the operational phase of the Proposed Development, noise impacts could arise from commercial mechanical plant, entertainment music noise and user activity at off-site residential receptors.
Method The assessment will be prepared in line with the principles described in the NPPF, which sets out the legislative framework in relation to noise in England. The methodology will be discussed and agreed with the Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk prior to commencement of the assessment. Construction noise levels will be predicted at the closest identified noise-sensitive receptors based on the likely site preparation and construction methodologies and programme, in accordance with BS5228:2009+A1:2014. Where appropriate, the assessment of construction noise will also consider off-site activities such as construction traffic and deliveries, where the necessary information is available. Predicted construction noise levels will be assessed against relevant BS5228:2009+A1:2014 criteria, and best practice methods for managing the impact of construction noise will be discussed. The significance of impacts during the construction phase will be assessed based on the ‘ABC’ method. Operational noise levels will be predicted at the closest identified noise-sensitive receptors based on the likely operational profile of the site, in accordance with BS4142:2014+A1:2019. The assessment of operational noise will also consider off-site activities such as road traffic and deliveries, following guidance contained within CRTN and DMRB. Predicted operational noise levels will be assessed against relevant BS4142:2014+A1:2019 criteria, and best practice methods for managing the impact of construction noise will be discussed. Significance criteria will be derived from guidance contained within BS4142:2014+A1:2019, the National Planning Policy Framework, the Noise Policy Statement for England, and the National Planning Policy Guidance for Noise. Mitigation measures will be recommended, where necessary, to ensure the scheme will not have a significant impact. Such measures include: • Earth bunding on the boundary of the scheme; • Selecting low-noise mechanical plant; • Development transport travel plans to minimise personal car usage; • Designing buildings such that entertainment noise breakout is minimised; and • Developing operational procedures for the management of user activity. Calculations of road traffic noise will be carried out at receptors within a study area for: • Baseline conditions in the opening year; • With-scheme conditions in the opening year; and • With-scheme conditions in the future. Comparison of noise changes will be made in the short-term, the opening year, and in the long- term. The calculations will be facilitated by proprietary software for noise propagation calculations, CadnaA. The software facilitates the principles of CRTN, published by the Department of Transport
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 39 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
(DfT) in 1988. This prediction method requires a good understanding of the traffic flows, percentage heavy vehicles (HVs) and traffic speeds amongst other factors. The quantification and assessment of the potential noise impacts of the Proposed Development will be assessed by a combination of site surveys, desktop studies, consultations and predictions. The assessment for the operation phase of the scheme will be based upon the ‘detailed assessment methodology’ set out in Chapter 3 and Annex 1 of DMRB.
Conclusions The relevant Planning Policy and Guidance which will guide the potential environmental noise impact assessment of the Proposed Development has been identified. Baseline conditions have been measured and presented, alongside of how this information will be used in the assessment to follow. The potential environmental noise effects relevant to traffic are discussed, alongside noise impacts that could arise from commercial mechanical plant, entertainment music noise and user activity at off-site residential receptors. These sources of noise all have the potential to be significant, without considered mitigation and design. Likely mitigation measures are outlined along with further work that is needed to complete the assessment. It is expected that construction noise from the Site will be controlled through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The noise impact assessment of the construction is temporary, reducing the significance of the potential impact.
6.6 Transport
Introduction The Proposed Development will generate traffic flows that could have potential impacts on the highway network surrounding the Site. These impacts may relate to driver delays, pedestrian delay and amenity, fear and intimidation, severance and road safety. A full Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan will be produced to accompany the forthcoming planning application. The TA will form a technical appendix to the ES and some of the baseline data and assessment of the development impacts will be common across the two documents. The Travel Plan will focus primarily on staff travel to/from the Site given the nature of the Proposed Development. Initial scoping discussions regarding the assessment of traffic impacts arising from the Proposed Development have been conducted with both the Local Highway Authority (LHA), Norfolk County Council (NCC) and Highways England (HE), which is the body responsible for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) including A47. Following an initial pre-application enquiry by the Applicant in Summer 2019, a technical TA Scoping Note3 was issued to both HE and NCC. Responses were received from HE on 21 August 2019 and from NCC on 23 August 2019. Further to those pre-application responses, a meeting was held with NCC Highways on 4 November 2019 and the scoping note was updated to inform
3 TA Scoping Note ref: ITY14528-002 TN, dated 1 August 2019
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 40 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 that meeting4. It is the Applicant’s intention to continue to engage with both Highway Authorities in the period prior to submission of the forthcoming planning application. The assessments presented in the ES will be based upon independent traffic surveys conducted at various locations surrounding the site, details of which are set out below.
Baseline Conditions Study Area The study area for the assessment of traffic and transportation impacts has already been agreed in principle with HE and NCC Highways through pre-application dialogue and correspondence. It includes the following existing junctions and the links between these junctions: • A47 / Gayton Road priority-controlled junction. • A47/Station Road/Common Road priority-controlled junction. • Gayton Road / Ashwicken Road priority-controlled junction. • B1145 / East Winch Road priority-controlled junction. The ‘Thresholds for Assessment’ section below identifies the criteria that will be used to determine the junctions and links where assessments will be required. Existing Traffic Data Manual Classified Count (MCC) surveys were conducted at the following junctions on Thursday 24 May 2018: • A47 / Gayton Road priority-controlled junction. • A47/Station Road/Common Road priority-controlled junction. • Gayton Road / Ashwicken Road priority-controlled junction. • B1145 / East Winch Road priority-controlled junction. Junction turning counts were undertaken during morning (07:00 – 10:00) and afternoon/evening (14:30 – 18:30) peak periods. Queue length surveys were undertaken at the same time as the MCCs. Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were undertaken on A47 Lynn Road and on Church Lane for a continuous period between 18 May and 1 June 2018. There was a short break in the ATC data collection on Monday 25 May 2018 (Spring Bank Holiday) and on Tuesday 26 May 2018 due to a technical fault with the pneumatic tube. The ATC surveys nevertheless cover both a ‘neutral’ week and the school half-term holiday period. The vehicular flows derived from the manual classified counts have been converted from vehicles to passenger car units (pcu’s) using factors from RR67. The survey data has been used to derive existing baseline peak hour traffic flows for use in analysis. The weekday network peak hours are 08:00-09:00 and 16:45-17:45. Table 6.10 illustrates the total (i.e. two way) existing traffic flows (in PCUs per hour) through each of the junctions during the identified network peak hours.
4 Updated TA Scoping Note ref: ITY14528-002A TN, dated 28 October 2019
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 41 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Ref Junction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (08:00 – 09:00) (16:45 – 17:45) 1 A47 / Gayton Road 1,761 1,722 2 A47 / Station Road 1,815 1,684 3 Gayton Road / Ashwicken 243 227 Road 4 B1145 / East Winch Road 798 798 Table 6.10: Existing Traffic Flows (Source: 2018 Traffic Surveys)
Baseline Operational Capacity Assessment The need for operational assessments of off-site junctions on the SRN and the local road network will be determined through quantitative assessment and, where needed, will again be conducted using industry standard software (e.g. Junctions9). The capacity of the proposed site access junction(s) will be assessed using industry standard software (e.g. Junctions9) assuming the Proposed Development is in place. Collision Data Collision data will be collected as part of the EIA process and the most recently available 5-year dataset will be analysed and presented in the final report. The data will be compared with national average accident rates from COBA (DMRB). Committed Development There are no known committed developments in the vicinity of the Site which will have a material bearing on the assessment. Site Accessibility and Sustainable Travel The TA, which will be a technical appendix to the ES, will include an assessment of opportunities to travel to/from the Site on foot, by bicycle and by public transport. An assessment of the Site’s accessibility to local facilities and services will be conducted, noting that the Proposed Development incorporates a range of services and facilities which will meet the needs of holiday makers and thus retain trips within the Site. Public rights of way in the vicinity of the Site will be confirmed with reference to the Definitive Map. A Travel Plan will accompany the planning application as a stand-alone document. It will be produced with reference to current best practice guidance. The Travel Plan will present a package of sustainable transport measures aimed at all users of the Site, but with particular focus on the propensity for staff to travel to/from the Site by modes of transport other than the private car and how this may be positively influenced. The Travel Plan will identify modal shift targets for staff journeys, a monitoring regime and an action plan of responsibilities.
Potential Environmental Effects Potential environmental effects during the construction and operational phases of the development will be considered. Construction Phase Environmental effects during the construction phase could include:
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 42 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Impacts on driver delay • Impacts on pedestrian delay and amenity • Impacts on dear and intimidation (pedestrians and cyclists) • Impacts on severance • Impacts on accidents and safety • Impacts on public transport users. Traffic volumes associated with the construction phase are however expected to be significantly lower than during the operational phase. In addition, construction traffic movements will only occur for a temporary period. It is expected that construction traffic routes to/from the Site will be controlled through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). For these reasons, it is proposed to scope out the assessment of traffic and transportation effects of the Construction Phase. Operational Phase At this stage, the environmental impacts related to road traffic during the operational phase can only be predicted with a low level of confidence because the calculations and assessments are yet to be completed. It is therefore proposed that the ES brings forward an assessment of the following environmental impacts during the operational phase in line with the methodology set out below: • Impacts on driver delay • Impacts on pedestrian delay and amenity Impacts on dear and intimidation (pedestrians and cyclists) • Impacts on severance • Impacts on accidents and safety • Impacts on public transport users.
Method Policy and Guidance The planning policy documents referred to in Chapter 4 above will be considered in the preparation of the TA and the transport chapter of the ES, in addition to Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’. In addition, the following guidance documents will be considered: • Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic (IEMA, 1993); • Manual for Streets (MfS) (DCLG/DfT, 2007); • Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) (CIHT, 2010); • Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DfT, Various); • Parking Standards for Norfolk (NCC, 2007). Assessment Scenarios In terms of assessment scenarios, the ES will consider two future assessment years during the operational phase, consistent with prevailing national guidance, as follows:
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 43 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Year of Opening – assumed for the purposes of scoping to be 2023; and • Application registration plus ten-year time horizon – assumed for the purposes of scoping to be 2030. Assessments will be presented without, and then with, the development traffic to identify the impacts of the Proposed Development Receptors Receptors will comprise pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and drivers affected by increased traffic levels resulting from the Proposed Development. The development receptors are summarised in Table 6.11 below.
Designation Development Receptors Very high (e.g. International) None High (e.g. National) None Medium (e.g. Regional / Drivers at junctions on the A47 Lynn Road County) Low (e.g. Local) Pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users within the vicinity of the Site including on B1145, East Winch Road, Church Lane, Ashwicken Road, Gayton Road and Station Road which provide routes to/from the Site
Drivers at junctions across the study area on the local highway network, excluding those identified above. Table 6.11: Development Receptors Thresholds for Assessments The environmental impact of traffic generated by the Proposed Development will be assessed taking account of the criteria set out in the Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, which provides two broad rules to define the need for environmental impact analysis: • Rule 1 – include highway links where traffic flows will increase by more than 30% (or the number of HGVs will increase by more than 30%) • Rule 2 – include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows have increased by 10% or more. There are no specifically sensitive areas within the agreed study area and hence the 30% parameter will be used. It is acknowledged that traffic attracted by the Proposed Development will generally result in negative (i.e. adverse rather than beneficial) impacts. Significance of Effects The significance of each of the potential environmental impacts outlined above will be expressed using the ‘7-point scale’ identified below: • Major Beneficial • Moderate Beneficial • Minor Beneficial • Negligible • Minor Adverse
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 44 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Moderate Adverse • Major Adverse. Impact Prediction Confidence It is also of value to attribute a level of confidence by which the predicted impact has been assessed. The criteria for these definitions are set out below: • High Confidence - the predicted impact is either certain i.e. a direct impact, or believed to be very likely to occur, based on reliable information or previous experience • Low Confidence - the predicted impact and its levels are best estimates, generally derived from first principles of relevant theory and experience of the assessor. More information may be needed to improve confidence levels. At this stage, the environmental impacts related to road traffic during operational phase can all be predicted with a low level of confidence because the calculations and assessments are yet to be completed. Assessment of Effects The basis of the assessment of driver delay will involve the consideration of traffic conditions in the forecast years without and with the proposed development. Changes in driver delay will be considered at key junctions in the study area based on the junction capacity assessment results. Junction capacity assessments will be undertaken using industry-standard software, namely Junctions9 (PICADY module). This program outputs ratios of flow to capacity (RFC), which give an indication of the overall operational capacity of the junctions, together with queues and delays for each approach. Pedestrian delay is related to traffic flows and the type of crossing provision. A change in vehicular demand affects the ability of pedestrians to crossroads, which may impact on an individual’s desire to make a particular walking journey. Changes in the volume, speed or composition of traffic and the physical condition of the crossing points affect pedestrian amenity. Guidelines for the calculation of pedestrian delay are identified in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). These will be used to inform the assessment. In terms of pedestrian amenity, the Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic refers to a threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian amenity where the traffic flow (or its lorry component) is halved or doubled. This threshold will be used to inform the assessment. A further impact that traffic may have on pedestrians and cyclists is described as ‘fear and intimidation’. This is influenced by the volume of traffic, heavy goods vehicle (HGV) content and, in the case of pedestrians, the width of the footway. The Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic recognises that there are no commonly agreed thresholds for the measurement of fear and intimidation, but suggests thresholds based on total traffic flows, number of HGVs and traffic speeds as identified in Table 6.12. These thresholds will be used for the assessment.
Degree of Hazard Average Traffic Flow Total 18 hour HGV Average Speed over over 18 hour day flow 18 hour day (mph) (veh/hr) Extreme 1,800+ 3,000+ 20+ Great 1,200 – 1800 2,000 – 3,000 15 - 20
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 45 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Degree of Hazard Average Traffic Flow Total 18 hour HGV Average Speed over over 18 hour day flow 18 hour day (mph) (veh/hr) Moderate 600 – 1,200 1,000 – 2,000 10 - 15 Table 6.12: Fear and Intimidation Thresholds
The concept of severance is a perceived division that occurs when a traffic link separates part of a community. This can occur when a road becomes too heavily trafficked, making crossing the road difficult, or when a route physically divides land. It is particularly relevant to situations where access to an essential amenity is impaired. A number of factors have been identified when assessing severance relating to new routes, including road width, traffic speeds, crossing facilities and existing crossing provision. The indicators set out in the Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic and summarised below, will be used to form the basis of the assessment of severance: • Slight separation effects – 30% increase in traffic flows; • Moderate separation effects – 60% increase in traffic flows; and • Substantial separation effects – 90% increase in traffic flows. The assessment of highway safety is based upon knowledge of existing accident rates for particular classifications of roads and junction types and specific local circumstances. These are used to identify locations of specific concern (commonly referred to as ‘accident blackspots’). For example, should a particular link or junction be found to have a high existing accident rate with a consistent pattern to the accidents, then the addition of significant traffic volumes could have a further detrimental impact on highway safety and mitigation measures may be required. The appraisal of the potential impacts of the development proposals upon accidents and safety will be conducted through a comparison of the observed number of accidents at key junctions and links in the study area with typical DMRB accident rates, together with the forecast traffic flow change as a result of the proposed development. The accident rates will be calculated using the formulae set out within the DMRB. The potential impacts on bus users in the vicinity of the site will be assessed with reference to the driver delay results (i.e. the additional delay to bus users). Changes in traffic flows will lead to changes in environmental effects related to noise and air quality and these will be assessed in other sections of the ES. Traffic flows used in these assessments will be derived using the same methodology as described above for the respective study areas and assessment periods. The assessments above require different types of traffic data, including: • Peak hour traffic flows; • 24 hour annual average daily traffic flows (AADT); • 18 hour annual average weekday traffic flows (AAWT); and • Heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and heavy duty vehicle (HDV) proportions. The peak hour traffic flows will be obtained from observed survey data. The 24-hour and 18-hour traffic flows will be calculated by applying factors to the AM and PM peak hour flows. The factors will be derived from the observed link count data outlined above. The HGV and HDV proportions will be derived from observed traffic data in the study area.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 46 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Mitigation Measures Traffic flows generated by the Proposed Development may result in negative impacts. Mitigation measures could comprise highway improvements (where necessary) and Travel Plan measures to promote sustainable travel. Details of proposed mitigation measures will be included in the TA, Travel Plan and ES. Any temporary mitigation measures required to address short-term impacts during the construction phase will also be identified. Residual Impacts The ES will assess the potential environmental impacts, taking account of the mitigation measures proposed, to determine the residual significance of the environmental impacts. This will involve the application of professional judgement as to the overall impact and significance of the development post-mitigation. Conclusions This section of the ES Scoping study identifies relevant Planning Policy and Guidance which will guide the environmental impact assessment of the traffic and transportation effects of the Proposed Development. Initial data collection is described along with how these data will be used in the assessment to follow. The potential environmental effects relevant to traffic and transportation are discussed, along with the significance criteria to be applied. Anticipated mitigation measures are outlined along with further work that is needed to complete the assessment. It is proposed to scope out the road traffic volumes from the construction phase of development on the basis that traffic volumes associated with the construction phase are expected to be significantly lower than during the operational phase. Construction traffic movements are not considered to be particularly sensitive to possible changes in the volumes of earthworks on the Site and will only occur for a temporary period. It is expected that construction traffic routes to/from the Site and volumes will be controlled through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The noise impact assessment of the construction traffic associated with the development will be based on the information contained within the draft CEMP accompanying the application.
6.7 Summary
It is therefore proposed to scope into the ES the following topics: • Landscape and visual impact; • Socio-economic impact; • Flood risk impacts – which will include Flood Risk Assessment and climate change considerations in terms of resilience; • Noise impacts; and • Transport impacts – which will include a Transport Assessment. In addition, the planning application and ES will be accompanied by a draft CEMP and a Travel Plan.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 47 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
7 Topics Not Included in the EIA Scope
7.1 Introduction The ES should be focused, documenting only the assessment of likely significant environmental effects, both adverse and beneficial. Therefore, those effects which are not likely to be significant should not be included in the ES, i.e. they should be scoped out of the EIA, as clearly set out in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Paragraph: 035 Reference ID: 4-035-20140306). This chapter sets out those topics that have been determined not to be significant and therefore are not included in the EIA, as well as those that will be addressed independently in separate assessments.
7.2 Ground Conditions Baseline Conditions A summary of the Site’s baseline conditions following a walkover is presented below in Table 7.1.
Item Brief Description Site access The Site was accessed from Church Lane. Other access points are from East Winch Road. Site area The Site is generally rectangular in shape and has an area of approximately 80 ha. Elevation, topography The Site occupies ground that is slightly higher than the valley to the south. and any geomorphic The lake edge is generally at 6.1 to 6.2m above Ordnance Datum (aOD). The water features level was at 6.25m during the most recent survey. The elevation rises from the lake edge to the site boundary, in places up to 12m aOD but generally between 9m and 10m aOD and falls again where drainage ditches run around the site edge. The depth of the lake is currently unknown and may present landslide issues. Present land use A lake occupies the majority of the Site. This has been formed by quarrying. A former Gas Valve Compound, now overgrown with vegetation, is present along the eastern boundary of the Site. It is fenced off. An electricity line on pylons runs across the Site from the eastern boundary to the southwest corner. Drainage ditches run around the majority of the Site boundary. Two ponds are present in the southwest of the Site. Vegetation Trees are present in the north of the Site (at the location of the former Valley Plantation) and in the southwest of the Site. Grass covers the rest of the area surrounding the lake. General site sensitivity The Site is within a generally agricultural area, however quarrying works are still present to the west of the Site. Site boundaries and East Winch Road runs along the northern boundary. Church Lane runs along the surrounding land eastern boundary. A poultry farm and piggeries are located along the southern boundary. A former quarry, associated with the current lake on Site, is present along the western boundary. Further to the west quarrying activities are active. Residential housing is located on East Winch Road to the north of the Site. Table 7.1: Site Description
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 48 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
A study of historical Ordnance Survey maps has been undertaken to identify any former land uses at the Site and surrounding areas which may have geotechnical or geo-environmental implications for the proposed development. The key findings are summarised in Table 7.2.
Reference Key Features on Site Key Features off Site OS Map5 1885 The Site comprises mainly open land, Glosthorpe Manor is located on the 1:2,500 separated by field boundaries. Rough northern Site boundary. pasture is noted in the west of the Site. A well is present 30m north of the Site. Drainage ditches run along the field A railway line runs 100m south of the boundaries. Site. Long Plantation is located in the west of the site and Valley Plantation is located along the northern boundary. A watercourse runs along the southern Site boundary. OS Map 1904 -1906: No significant change. No significant change. 1:10,560 & 1905 1:2,500 OS Map 1950 -1958 Trees cover the southwest corner. No significant change. 1:10,560 OS Map 1972 – 1978 An electricity line on pylons crosses the Houses have been constructed from 1:2,500 & 1:10,000 Site from the eastern boundary to the the northern Site boundary to 750m southwestern corner. north of the site. A gas valve compound has been A poultry farm has been constructed constructed on the eastern boundary. on the southern Site boundary. The railway is noted as dismantled. Google Earth© Quarrying has taken place in the west of The lake and quarry continue to the Imagery 19996 the Site and a lake has infilled the west of the Site. excavation. OS Map 1993 1:2,500 A track has been constructed through the A Sand Pit is noted 100m west of the west of the Site. Site. Piggeries have been constructed on the southern Site boundary. OS Map 2001 A lake is mapped. The piggeries to the south have been 1:10,000 extended. Lakes are shown from 250m northwest of the Site. Google Earth© The Site is occupied by quarrying The lake from the west of the Site is no Imagery 20067 activities. A small lake has infilled the longer present. central excavation. OS Map 2010 A lake is shown sporadically across the No significant change. 1:10,000 centre of the site. Google Earth© Quarrying activities appear to have ceased Quarrying activities have continued Imagery 20148 and the quarry lake occupies the majority 400m west of the Site. of the Site. OS Map 2020 No significant change. No significant change. 1:10,000 Table 7.2: Site History Review
5 Ordnance Survey Historical Map Information provided by Groundsure. 6 ©Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, image date: 31/12/1999; 7 ©Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, image date: 11/09/2006; 8 ©Maxar Technologies, image date: 18/09/2014;
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 49 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
The general geology of the site area is shown on the British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 geological maps of King’s Lynn and the Wash and Fakenham (Sheets 145 and 146) and is summarised in Error! Reference source not found.7.3.
Ref. for Location Stratigraphic Description Figures Name Superficial Deposits (Figure 7.1) 2 On site Head Variable clay, silt, sand and gravel. 1 On western Lowestoft Sand and gravel. boundary Formation 3 On western Lowestoft Chalky till, together with outwash sands and boundary Formation gravels, silts and clays. Solid Geology (Figure 7.2) 1 On site Leziate Member Pale grey (locally green, yellow or orange), fine- to (Sandringham medium-grained, cross-bedded quartz sands with Sand Formation subordinate bands of silt or clay. Pyrite nodules are present and glauconite is locally abundant. 2 Outcropping in Mintlyn Member Glauconitic, clayey, grey and green sands with the southwest (Sandringham bands and "doggers" of brown-weathering clay- corner, Sand Formation) ironstone and seams of phosphatic nodules. underlying the entire site at depth. 4 Outcropping in Roxham Member Grey and yellow-green, pyritic, silty sands with an the southwest and Runcton indurated basal pebbly sandstone with black chert corner, Member phosphatic nodules and derived Kimmeridgian underlying the (Undifferentiated) debris. entire site at depth. 5 Underlying the Kimmeridge Clay Mudstones (calcareous or kerogen-rich or silty or entire site at Formation sandy); thin siltstone and cementstone beds; depth. locally sands and silts.
Table 7.3: Geology
Figure 7.1: Superficial Deposits Figure 7.2: Solid Geology
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 50 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
The Site is a former sand quarry, and it is assumed quarrying activities have removed the upper granular strata to leave the underlying Kimmeridge Clay Formation, although there are no records of depth of the quarrying activities. A summary of the sites Hydrogeology is presented within Table 7.4 below.
Stratum Aquifer Designation Comments Superficial Deposits Head Secondary Predominantly clay of low permeability, interbedded Lowestoft Formation undifferentiated Aquifer with occasional layers of sand and gravel, of (cohesive) moderate to high permeability Lowestoft Formation Secondary A Aquifer Intergranular permeability. Dominated by moderate to (granular) high permeability layers of sand and occasional gravel, interbedded with low permeability clay. Groundwater flow is likely to be variable and discontinuous as water migrates around low permeability areas. Lowestoft Formation Secondary A Aquifer Intergranular permeability. Dominated by moderate to (granular) high permeability layers of sand and occasional gravel, interbedded with low permeability clay. Groundwater flow is likely to be variable and discontinuous as water migrates around low permeability areas. Solid Geology Leziate Member Principal Aquifer Dominated by high permeability sands, interbedded with low permeability beds of clay and silt. Potentially faulted and fractured, with high secondary permeability. Kimmeridge Clay Unproductive Strata Dominated by low permeability clays and mudstone, Formation with possible higher permeability within sand lenses. Negligible significance for water supply or base flow.
Table 7.4: Aquifer System There are no active licensed groundwater abstractions within 1km of the Site. The Site is not within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ). The surface water features in the vicinity of the Site are listed in Error! Reference source not found.7.5.
Feature Location Relative to Site Lake A lake within the former quarry is present in the centre of the site, of an irregular shape. Middleton Stop Drain Drainage ditch running along the southern site boundary. Drainage ditches Running around the western, northern and eastern site boundaries. Culverted drains Two drains run from the east flowing beneath Church Lane along the eastern boundary and into the lake on site. A drain is culverted flowing from the western boundary of the lake to Middleton Stop Drain. Lakes and reservoir Numerous lakes associated with former quarrying are to the northwest of the site. One of these is a reservoir. Great Ouse 7km west of the site.
Table 7.5: Surface Water Features
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 51 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
There are no active licensed surface water abstractions within 1km of the Site. There are four active licensed surface water discharges within 1km of the Site. They are listed in Table 7.6.
Location Relative to Site Purpose of Discharge 50m north Sewage discharges – final/treated effluent (not water company) into tributary of Great Ouse 160m north Sewage discharges – final/treated effluent (not water company) onto land 425m south Sewage discharges – final/treated effluent (not water company) into Devils Bottom Stream 460m south East Winch STW - Sewage discharges – final/treated effluent (water company) into Devils Bottom Stream
Table 7.6: Surface Water Discharges Reference to the Environment Agency web site shows the Site is located within the catchment of the North West Norfolk Rivers, with the specific river water body being the Middleton Stop Drain. The current (2016 cycle 2) overall status under the Water Framework Directive is ‘moderate’. The water body is currently ‘moderate’ status due to nickel levels. The objective is for phosphate levels to be ‘good’ by 2027. The Site has formerly been quarried for sand, with a quarry lake present in the centre of the Site. The area has been extensively quarried, with numerous other quarry lakes and a reservoir to the northwest of the Site. There is one licensed waste management Site recorded within 500m of the Site:
• East Winch Quarry – located 310m to the west and licensed to treat waste to produce soil (issue date 12/03/2012).
Potential Effects A summary of the potential construction related effects are presented below within Table 7.7.
Phase Description Adverse / Beneficial Construction The construction phase may lead to effects on Controlled Waters Adverse (groundwater). Baseline conditions are such that earthworks (including profiling and construction of the proposed buildings) could disturb and theoretically impact groundwater through the mobilisation of contaminants present as a result of the former quarrying activities. Construction The construction phase may lead to effects on Controlled Waters Adverse (groundwater). Baseline conditions are such that earthworks (including profiling, piling and construction of the proposed buildings) could disturb and theoretically impact surface waters through the mobilisation of contaminants present as a result of the former quarrying activities to surface waters via the unsaturated zone. Construction The construction phase may lead to effects on Site workers and Adverse neighbours. Baseline conditions are such that earthworks (including profiling, piling and construction of the proposed buildings) could disturb and expose workers and local neighbours to localised ground contamination through dermal contact, inhalation and/ or ingestion pathways.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 52 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Phase Description Adverse / Beneficial Construction The presence of elevated contaminants, present as a result of the Adverse former quarrying activities, within the site soils has the potential to adversely impact on new buildings and infrastructure where construction materials come into direct contact with the soils. Construction The presence of elevated contaminants, present as a result of the Adverse former quarrying activities and the presence of re-worked made ground and lake sediments has the potential to generate bulk ground gases and volatile gases which could adversely impact on new buildings and infrastructure. Construction The presence of naturally occurring Radon has the potential to Adverse adversely impact on the users of new buildings and infrastructure. Construction The presence of elevated contaminants, present as a result of the Adverse former quarrying activities, within the site soils has the potential to adversely impact plant life and ecology where contaminants are disturbed by works or come into direct contact with the flora and fauna. Construction A number of plausible geotechnical hazards have been identified Adverse associated with the site’s redevelopment including slope stability, variable strength made ground and soft/loose compressible ground, aggressive chemical conditions, challenging groundwater conditions. These have the potential to impact on the proposed structures and their associated infrastructure. Table 7.7: Potential Construction Effects A summary of the potential operational related effects is presented below within Table 7.8.
Phase Description Adverse / Beneficial Operational During the operational phase, ingestion, dermal contact and root Adverse uptake pathways will generally only exist in areas of soft landscaping. Elsewhere the areas of hardstanding (i.e. the building floor slabs, car parks, pavements,) will break these pathways. Operational Mobilisation of contaminates associated with the sites former Adverse activities have the potential to adversely impact the existing water feature and any corresponding recreational use. Operational During the operational phase any subsurface chemical Adverse contamination coming into contact with buried services has the potential impact to this receptor. Potable water supply pipes are a particularly sensitive receptor in this regard. Operational Where Made Ground is present at service locations, future Adverse maintenance workers may be at risk of exposure to contaminants hazardous to human health. Operational The presence of elevated contaminants, present as a result of the Adverse former quarrying activities and the presence of re-worked made ground and lake sediments has the potential to generate bulk ground gases and volatile gases which could adversely impact the users of buildings and infrastructure during operation. Table 7.8: Potential Operational Effects
Mitigation Whilst a number of potentially adverse impacts have been identified it is considered that these can be appropriately managed through the provision of the below proposed mitigation and
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 53 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 enhancement. Mitigation and enhancement measures are anticipated to be controlled through the provision of planning conditions. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) A draft CEMP will be developed to place environmental controls on the construction activities to ensure any construction related impacts are minimised. Intrusive Environmental and Geotechnical Site Investigation A phase of intrusive ground investigation should be undertaken to further assess the potential for the historic activities to have impacted the Site and the resulting Proposed Development. These works should address both environmental and geotechnical aspects to ensure that any uncertainties identified to date can be further assessed and mitigated where necessary. Where necessary, depending on the findings of the site investigation, further works and assessment should be completed. Given the sensitive controlled waters environment this may necessitate the completion of a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Controlled Waters. Remediation Method Statement (RMS) Production of a Remediation Method Statement should be undertaken following the above site investigation works and risk assessment. This document will look to define the remedial measures necessary to address any outstanding pollutant linkage and minimise the environmental impact of the construction works on the environment. The RMS will also detail the supporting data that the appointed contractor will be required to obtain so that this can be collated within a verification report. Geotechnical Design Report (GDR) and Geotechnical Feedback Report (GFR) Depending on the findings of the site investigation and the specifics of the developments detailed design, it may be necessary for the production of a Geotechnical Design Report. This document will be in accordance with Eurocode 7 and will detail the geotechnical design necessary to ensure that the potential geotechnical hazards are suitably addressed. An earthworks specification will also form part of this document. On completion a geotechnical feedback report will be produced to demonstrate verification with the GDR. Foundation Design Foundations and infrastructure in direct contact with elevated contaminants are at risk of damage to building materials potentially creating structural faults in the buildings/infrastructure. Further ground investigation will be required to investigate the potential for this. Based on the conclusions, foundations can then be designed in accordance with the identified ground conditions. Where necessary and in view of the potential impact to controlled waters, a piling risk assessment may be necessary to control and minimise any potential adverse piling activities. Capping Layer Direct contact with elevated contaminants may cause an adverse impact to newly planted flora and fauna. Within areas of landscaping, gardens or public open space a suitable capping layer should be placed over the Made Ground with a no dig marker to prevent plant life and ecology coming into contact with contaminants. Services
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 54 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
To mitigate for the presence of contaminants associated with the Site’s former activities, the use of barrier pipe for potable water supplies is proposed .In addition, all services should be installed within clean service corridors to ensure future maintenance workers do not come into contact with contaminants.
Conclusions Following the completion of the Phase 1 desk study and the above assessment of the potential impacts on the site’s construction and operational use, it is concluded that the identified potentially adverse effects can be suitably controlled and enhanced through the use of planning conditions attached to any consented application. As such further assessment is considered not merited and it is recommended that ground conditions be scoped out of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
7.3 Heritage
Introduction This section considers the topic of the historic environment. The objectives of this section are twofold: firstly, to determine the archaeological potential of the proposed Site and assess the potential for direct harm; and secondly, to assess the likely indirect effect of the proposed development on designated heritage assets in the local area and assess the potential for harm.
Study Area and Scope A 1km study area was selected for consideration of direct effects. For many sites, a 1km study area is insufficient to reliably determine archaeological potential. However, quarrying activity in the area has led to 12 archaeological investigations, including three on the proposed Site alone. A 1-2km study area for assessing indirect effects was selected, based on the preliminary screened Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Figures 1265/5c and 5d contained in Appendix C. Beyond 1.5km the Proposed Development will comprise a recessive feature of the landscape.
Baseline Conditions In terms of archaeological potential, and the potential for direct harm to the buried archaeological resource, the main conclusion of the preparatory work is that the greater part of the Site was quarried for silica sand in the 2000s and any archaeological features – had they been present – have already been destroyed. Only the woodland areas along the northern edge of the Site, and in the south-west corner of the Site, appear to have been untouched. Some archaeological work took place in advance of quarrying, to the south and east of the Site, and this determined the archaeological potential of the Site to be low. Only a few flint flakes and some undated ditches were recorded. In terms of its historic development, it is likely that this low-lying site was always marginal and was utilised by neighbouring communities as meadowland. The hay and aftermath grazing were important, but ground conditions would have restricted other activity and occupation in these areas. The 19th and 20th century maps appear to indicate the watercourses crossing the site were canalised after 1840, and certainly the long straight field boundaries and rectangular fields bear
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 55 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 the hallmarks of late enclosure. The field boundaries shown on the 1840 tithe map survived, largely unchanged, until quarrying in 2000-2005 swept them away. There are no designated heritage assets within the Site. There are three Listed structure within 1km of the Site, and a further two Listed buildings have been considered within the 1-2km range. Within 1km of the Site there is one Grade II* Listed church (All Saints, Ashwicken), one Grade II Listed war memorial (at Ashwicken Church), and one Grade II Listed former barn (Station Barn). Just beyond 1km there is one Grade II* Listed church (All Saints, East Winch) and one Grade II Listed former farmhouse (Hall Farmhouse). In this relatively subdued terrain, theoretical views are extensive, but the role of screening is significantly enhanced.
Potential Effects The construction and operation of the Proposed Development may have some direct effects on the buried archaeological resource. However, as identified, most of the Site was quarried for silica sand in the 2000s and thus the theoretical archaeological resource no longer exists. In addition, the archaeological monitoring and recording that did take place determined the archaeological potential of the Site to be low. As part of the pre-application engagement on the Proposed Development, the Historic Environment Planning Team at Norfolk County Council advised on 1 August 2019 that there were no known archaeological implications arising from the scheme. The construction and operation of the Proposed Development may have some indirect effect on the setting of a small number of designated heritage assets in the local area. However, given the enhanced role of screening in a relatively subdued landscape, intervisibility is only likely in one instance, and that at a distance of over 1km; only for this one asset (All Saints Church, East Winch) is the visual effect of the Proposed Development considered likely to be appreciable (if still minimal).
Method The following work stages will be undertaken: • Desk-based assessment collating information on the archaeological potential of the site and the potential for indirect effects. • Assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts. The work will be undertaken in line with the appropriate guidance (see below). The assessment will be proportionate to the effects of the Proposed Development. A full report will accompany the planning application and ES.
Supporting Materials The following appropriate guidance will be followed (see below). The readily available historic maps will be used (all record offices are currently closed due to COVID-19 restrictions) and the relevant historical sources will be consulted (with the same caveat). The Norfolk Historic Environment Record will be consulted, and Historic England data used for designated heritage assets. The screened ZTVs prepared for the LVIA will be used as a basis for selection of designated heritage assets to assess.
• Chartered Institute of Field Archaeologists 2014: Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 56 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• English Heritage 2008: Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment.
• Historic England 2015: The Setting of Heritage Assets. • Landscape Institute 2013: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd edition. London.
Conclusions The desk-based assessment concluded that, as the Site was quarried for silica sand in the early 2000s and the archaeological works that were undertaken prior to quarrying did not encounter significant archaeological remains, the archaeological potential of the Site is negligible to none. A desk-based assessment of the likely effect of the Proposed Development on the setting of designated heritage assets in the local area determined that the screening provided by the terrain and vegetation would reduce to a minimum the potential impact on the few assets in the local area. Based on these results, no further investigation is necessary and cultural heritage is proposed to be scoped out of further assessment in the ES.
7.4 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity
Introduction This section provides the information on the topic of biodiversity and the reasoning by which the decision has been made to scope it out of the proposed EIA and how it will be addressed in the planning submission. Encompassed within the topic of biodiversity are the receptors that are termed in various legislation and policy documents as: • Natural environment • Nature conservation • Natural Heritage • Fauna and flora • Habitats • Species • Ecology • Wildlife • Nature Specifically with respect to KLWNBC policy this section addresses biodiversity as expressed in the adopted Local Plan with policies titled: • Core Strategy Policy CS12 Environmental Assets: Green Infrastructure, Historic Environment, Landscape Character, Biodiversity and Geodiversity • SADMP Policy DM19 Green Infrastructure / Habitats Monitoring and Mitigation
Baseline Conditions
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 57 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
The baseline conditions at the Site of the Proposed Development and in a buffer around it have been established by a combination of desk study and field survey. The desk study has involved: • Interrogation of the Government website MAGIC (https://magic.defra.gov.uk/home.htm) for the presence of international statutory designated sites within 5 km and national statutory designated sites and European Protected Species Mitigation Licences (EPSML) granted within 2 km of the site of the proposed development. • the study of aerial photographs and mapping (Google Maps, OS Maps and MAGIC) to identify the habitats and land uses on and surrounding the site of the proposed development. The field survey has involved 10 visits to the site since December 2019. This has been to: • Identify the main habitats on the site. • Identify features that might support protected species. • Record the species and numbers of birds using the main waterbody during the winter. • Record the species, numbers and locations of birds holding territories on site during the breeding season. From the desk study the following has been concluded about the Site of the Proposed Development: • It is not within any internationally or nationally designated nature conservation site. Nor does it form part of any locally designated nature conservation site. • There are three international statutorily designated sites within 5 km (Roydon Common Ramsar, Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC and Norfolk Valley Fens SAC) and three nationally statutorily designated sites within 2 km (Bawsey SSSI, East Winch Common SSSI and Leziate, Sugar and Derby Fens SSSI). • The only records of habitats held in the national inventories accessible through MAGIC are of deciduous woodland that is not ancient woodland. • No EPSM Licences have been granted for the Site. From the field survey the following has been concluded about the Site of the Proposed Development: • The woodlands on the outer boundaries of the Site contain some trees with the potential to support roosting bats. • The woodland edges have the potential to offer foraging opportunities for bats. • The areas with a combination of open scrub, grassland and bare ground have the potential to support reptiles. • The small ponds separated from the main lake have been tested for the presence of great crested newt by eDNA analysis and the finding is that great crested newts are not present. • The main lake supports an overwintering population of waterbirds that numerically is dominated by non-native geese (greylag, Canada and Egyptian) and a population of native wigeon that feed on the grassed banks.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 58 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• In the bird breeding season the main lake supports small numbers of waterbirds and the surrounding scrub and woodland support small numbers of widespread and common breeding songbirds. • The former mineral extraction land to the west, that is undergoing restoration, supports breeding lapwing and woodlark. One or two of the latter occasionally feed on the open ground of the western end of the Site but do not breed there. Appendix E contains the reports of the field surveys regarding wintering birds, breeding birds and great crested newts.
Potential Environmental Effects Construction The following potential environmental effects have been identified as potentially occurring during the construction phase of the Proposed Development: • Habitat loss - permanent land take for the development and temporary land take for construction processes (laydown areas, compounds etc) confined to the site of the proposed development. • Disturbance to species - from noise, light and the presence of vehicles and people both within the site and a buffer around it. • Contamination / pollution – potential water and air pollution from spillages and vehicles. Operation The following potential environmental effects have been identified as potentially occurring during the operational phase of the Proposed Development: • Habitat loss - permanent land take of the development. • Disturbance to species - from noise, light, the presence of vehicles and the presence of people both on the land and water within the Site and from noise and light spreading off the Site and from people accessing land off the Site for quiet recreation and dog walking. • Contamination / pollution – potential water and air pollution from spillages and vehicles.
Conclusions The potential environmental effects identified above are considered to give rise to the following potential adverse effects, none of which have been evaluated as being of significant effect in the terms defined in the relevant EIA Regulations. In the construction phase, with relevant mitigation identified in parenthesis [ ]: • Habitat loss ➢ The permanent loss of grassland of no biodiversity significance under the footings of the buildings and under infrastructure and hardstanding [the area of land take by both the permanent buildings and infrastructure will be minimised]. ➢ The permanent loss of open water of no biodiversity significance under the accommodation [the permanent loss of open water under the accommodation will be minimised].
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 59 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
➢ The temporary loss of grassland of no biodiversity significance under the construction compound and laydown areas [the temporary loss of land under the temporary construction areas will be minimised]. • Disturbance to species ➢ The temporary disturbance of bats from artificial light used to aid construction in hours of darkness [artificial light to aid construction will be minimised with that present designed to minimise light spillage outside active construction areas]. ➢ The temporary disturbance of breeding and overwintering birds on site from the noise of construction [a Construction Environmental Management Plan will identify best practice noise management to be applied]. ➢ The temporary disturbance of breeding birds off site to the west from the noise of construction [a Construction Management Plan will identify best practice noise management to be applied]. ➢ The temporary disturbance of breeding and overwintering birds on site from the presence of vehicles and people [construction activity will be downscaled during periods of severe winter weather when waterbirds will be most stressed by the adverse conditions and vegetation will be cleared outside of the bird breeding season]. ➢ The temporary disturbance of breeding birds off site to the west from the presence of vehicles and people [a Construction Environmental Management Plan will identify best practice management to be applied]. • Contamination / pollution ➢ Water pollution from spillages associated with construction works [a Construction Environmental Management Plan will identify best practice to be applied, and will refer, as appropriate, to BS8582 Code of Practice for surface water management for development sites, and best practice guidance provided by CIRIA, including: o Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites – guide to good practice(SP156); o Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites – Guidance for Consultants and Contractors (C532); o Environmental Good Practices – Site Guide (C650)]. ➢ Air pollution from vehicle emissions and dust generation [a Construction Environmental Management Plan will identify best practice to be applied. Measures to supress dust generation from the Site will include (but not limited to) the use of water bowsers and sheeting vehicles for the movement of soil as necessary].
In the operational phase, with relevant mitigation identified in parenthesis [ ]: • Habitat loss ➢ The permanent loss of grassland of no biodiversity significance under the footings of the buildings and under infrastructure and hardstanding [the area of land take by both the permanent buildings and infrastructure will be minimised].
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 60 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
➢ The permanent loss of open water of no biodiversity significance under the accommodation [the permanent loss of open water under the accommodation will be minimised]. • Disturbance to species ➢ The permanent disturbance of bats from artificial light used in buildings and around the site for security and safety [artificial lighting of the external areas will be minimised with that present designed to minimise light spillage outside of areas accessed by site users]. ➢ The permanent disturbance of breeding and overwintering birds on site from the presence of people staying at and visiting the site [potentially disturbing land and water activities will be zoned across the site with quiet and undisturbed areas where birds may rest, feed and breed]. ➢ The permanent disturbance of breeding birds off site to the west from people accessing that land for quiet recreation and dog walking [those staying and visiting (especially those with dogs) will be advised of the sensitivity of land being managed for biodiversity conservation to the west of the development and advised not to trespass in to signed and fenced areas but to use waymarked rights of way]. • Contamination / pollution ➢ Water pollution from spillages associated with ongoing site activities [The Proposed Development will follow current government guidance on pollution prevention for business with respect to storage of waste or any other materials which could present a risk of pollution to water. A formal drainage strategy will be devised to ensure that both surface water and foul water originating from the development is managed appropriately, and in line with best practice guidance and principles.]. ➢ Air pollution from vehicle emissions [on-site transportation modes will focus on electrically charged vehicles as far as possible to reduce potential air pollution]. It is proposed that the non-significant effects on biodiversity that have been identified are addressed in the planning submission with the following accompanying documents: • An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) Report with its structure, format and content informed by the guidance issued by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2018. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine. [Version 1.1]) and supported by details of the desk study and field surveys carried out. • Evidence of the proposed development delivering a net gain for biodiversity in the form of the output from a Biodiversity Net Gain Calculation using the Defra 2.0 metric.
7.5 Vibration
The EIA Regulations require vibration to be considered within the EIA process. There are no significant sources of vibration located in the vicinity of the Site, such as a railway, or indeed no significant sources of vibration are proposed as part of the operational phase of the Proposed Development.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 61 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
As noted, piling will likely be required as part of the foundation designs for some elements of the proposed development. It is proposed to use a rotary bored piling technique; this technique has a low vibratory generation mechanism, such that any vibration is likely to be imperceptible within 10 m of the respective pile, with a Peak Particle Velocity of less than 0.14 mm•s-1, as confirmed in Table D.5 of BS5228-2:2009. In light of the above, there will be no impact from construction or operational vibration, as such, it is proposed to be scope consideration of vibration out of the ES
7.6 Odour
The EIA Regulations require odour to be considered within the EIA process. The proximity of the Proposed Development to the intensive farming businesses (piggeries and poultry) to the south of the Site is noted. It is noted that the piggeries are regulated by way of an Environmental Permit (Industrial Installations) ref: GP3131MX. It is anticipated that odour management controls will be included within the terms of the Permit and thereby regulated by the Environment Agency. A copy of the Permit has been requested from the Agency so the relevant controls can be understood. It is not expected that these will need to be changed as a result of the Proposed Development, and the Permitting regime can be relied upon to appropriately regulate the piggery activity. In terms of the poultry farming, these would not appear to be regulated under the Environmental Permitting regime. However it would appear that this business is managed in such a way as to prevent odour being an issue in the locality. The proposed planting on the Site will consider how best to visually screen these businesses from the Proposed Development. In light of the above it is considered that the proposed effects of odour arising from the Proposed Development being located in proximity to these faming businesses are insignificant, and it is proposed to be scope them out of the ES. The details of the piggeries Environmental Permit will be noted in the Planning Statement in so far as they relate to odour control measures.
7.7 Human Health
The EIA Regulations require human health to be considered within the EIA process. During construction the Site will be secured to prevent the public entering, and during operation there will be security features such as lighting, gated accesses, fencing and security cameras where appropriate. A security team will be employed on Site to ensure guests safety is adequately catered for. As such it is considered that the potential effects on human health arising from the Proposed Development are insignificant, and it is proposed to scope them out of the ES.
7.8 Risks of Major Accidents and/or Disasters
The EIA Regulations require the ES to provide “a description of the expected significant adverse effects of the development on the environment deriving from the vulnerability of the development to risks of major accidents and/or disasters which are relevant to the project concerned”.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 62 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
Where appropriate, this should include measures envisaged to prevent or mitigate the significant adverse effects of such events on the environment and details of the preparedness for and proposed response to such emergencies. Key environmental risks will be described in the ES in the Proposed Development section and will provide sufficient information upon which the assessment of such issues can take place. Topic chapters within the ES will consider foreseeable risks during the construction and operational periods and identify how the risk of such events will be minimised. Gas Pipeline The gas pipeline that runs along the southern boundary of the Site poses a risk of harm to people in the event that it fails. There is a possibility of a major accident occurring during the construction of the Proposed Development and/or during its operation. The level of risk is dependent on a number of factors such as gas pressure; condition and age of the pipe, type and proximity of the development to the pipeline. The Applicant has engaged with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in its capacity as a statutory consultee for certain developments within the Consultation Distance of Major Hazard Sites/Pipelines. HSE suggested that the consultation zones may be removed if there have been improvement works to the pipeline when it was repositioned as a result of the mineral extraction works. HSE directed consultation to Cadet/National Grid to establish the latest conditions. The easement on the pipeline is 6.1m either side, and National Grid has requested that the Proposed Development avoids any construction, particularly piling outside of this zone including parking. National Grid has reviewed the latest design as shown on the Indicative Site Masterplan (Appendix B) and confirmed it is acceptable. In the event planning permission is granted National Grid will be notified prior to construction commencing and its Operations Team will come to Site to mark up the pipeline’s positions. The construction section of the ES will explain foundation construction methodologies and it will be confirmed that the Proposed Development will not encroach within the agreed easement zones. Overhead Power Cables An overhead power cable spans the Site, on an east west axis, at a substantial height. Online searches on the UK Power Networks (UKPN) portal indicate that the pylons hold standard 132kV overhead cables. UKPN has been approached for design guidance advice and potential easements on Site regarding overhead lines and pylons. It is understood that UKPN will visit the Site once the Covid 19 Regulations allow, and in the meantime the current proposed layout show holiday accommodation located beyond a 30m easement zone either side of the pylon, which is in excess of online industry guidance. In light of the above information it is therefore considered that major risks and disasters can be scoped out of the ES as the design has the necessary safety protection buffers embedded in it.
7.9 Waste
The EIA Regulations require an ES to describe the likely significant effects of the development on the environment resulting from “the disposal and recovery of waste”. During construction of the Proposed Development there will be works to prepare and clear the Site, including topsoil stripping and clearance of vegetation. It is considered that waste generated
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 63 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020 during site preparation and clearance would not be significant and is not proposed to be considered within the ES. Waste quantities will be minimised through the prefabrication of the lodges off site. It is proposed that a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared to accompany the planning application. During the operation, waste would be generated by the Proposed Development through the creation of household waste from the lodgers and commercial waste from the Clubhouse facilities. This waste will be sorted on site at the point of generation into waste for recycling and waste for recovery/landfill and transported off-site for management at an appropriately licensed facility It is considered that operational waste would not create significant impacts and it is not proposed to be considered within the ES. Vehicle movements accounting for the management of waste and movement off site will be included as part of the assessment presented in the Transport Statement accompanying the application.
7.10 Residential Amenity Assessment
The emphasis of the visual assessment to take place in the LVIA chapter of the ES is on publicly available views. Paragraph 6.17 of LI and IEMA (2013) notes that “in some instances it may [also] be appropriate to consider private viewpoints, mainly from residential properties…..Effects of development on private property are frequently dealt with mainly through “residential amenity assessments”. Residential amenity assessments are separate from LVIAs and are normally only provided if it is considered likely at the scoping stage that effects on visual aspects of residential amenity are likely to give rise to likely significant effects. The assessment has not identified that as a concern for the Proposed Development; no further consideration is given to effects on residential amenity in the LVIA or ES.
7.11 Climate Change
The EIA Regulations, under Schedule 4, part 4, require the ES to consider “Climate”. It is proposed that the effects from the Proposed Development (contributions to greenhouse gases) will be scoped out of the EIA. Consideration of the impact of climate change on the Proposed Development from future climate change projections will be considered in specific topic chapters where relevant.
7.12 Summary
It is therefore proposed to scope out of the ES the following topics:
• Ground Condition impacts; • Heritage impacts; • Nature conservation and biodiversity impacts;
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 64 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
• Vibration impacts; • Odour impacts; • Human health impacts; • Risks of major accidents or disasters; • Waste; • Residential impacts; • Climate – contribution to greenhouse gases. In addition, the planning application and ES will be accompanied by a draft CEMP, a Phase 1 Geo- Environmental Assessment, a Desk Based Heritage Impact Assessment and an Ecological Impact Assessment Report and Biodiversity Net Gain calculation.
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 65 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
APPENDIX A Site Location Plan and Indicative Masterplan
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 66
Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
APPENDIX B LVIA Figures
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 67 Ashwicken Lakes Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment | Figures for EIA Scoping
27 May 2020 | PRELIMINARY
Landscape Planning Tel: +44(0)1825 280 580 www.landscapevisual.com Site (indica�ve) This is a screened ZTV which is based on LIDAR 1m Digital Surface Model data (Environment Agency, 2018). 1km bands from Site This data shows surface features such as vegetation and buildings. The following should be borne in mind when interpreting the information presented on the ZTV: ZTV reference points 1. Areas shown as having no visibility will be likely to have no visibility. ScreeneLandscaped ZTV (Lidar DPlanningSM) 2. Areas shown as having theoretical visibility may have visibility of the development, however, local features Tel: +44 1825 280 580 1 such as trees, hedgerows, embankments or buildings could screen views. Where settlements or woodlands are www.landscapevisual.com shown as lying within areas of visibility, it is only likely to be the edges of the settlements or woodlands which 2 would theoretically have views to the proposed development. 3 3. Sixteen reference points have been modelled on the development site (proposed buildings around the lake 4 Legend: shore), with viewer height assumed to be 1.75m above the existing terrain. The reference points could be the 5 only parts of the proposed development which is visible. 4. The ZTV has been calculated to 3km from the reference points. Visual effects tend to reduce with distance. Site (indica�ve) 6 7 5. Note that, while the Lidar approach gives a higher-resolution depiction of potential visibility, the output is 1km bands from Site still theoretical. For instance, the ZTV indicates visibility from areas which may not be accessible, such as the 8 roofs of buildings. While being a useful tool for assessment work, the method is demonstrated by fieldwork to ZTV reference po9ints exaggerate real-world views. Interpretation of this plan should be with reference to the LVIA report. 10 [No theoretical visibility in the area covered by this text box]. Screened ZTV (Lidar DSM) 11 1 12 2 13 3 14 4 15 5 16 6 Mapping 7 OS_1_50_000_raster_-_Land_Ranger_609962_807332 8 0 9 255 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 PRELIMINARY Mapping OS_1_50_000_raster_-_Land_Ranger_609962_807332 0 7 October 2019 255 1:40,000
Walpole East
PRELIMINARY
Project:7 OctoberAshwicken 2019 Lakes
Title:1:40,000Zone of Theoretical Visibility (screened) Walpole East
Date: May 2020 N Ref: 1265/5c Scale: 1:30,000 at A3 © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community swisstopo, IGN, IGP, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, i-cubed, USDA, GeoEye, Esri, DigitalGlobe, 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: reserved. All rights copyright, © Crown Site (indica�ve) This is a screened ZTV which is based on LIDAR 1m Digital Surface Model data (Environment Agency, 2018). 1km bands from Site This data shows surface features such as vegetation and buildings. The following should be borne in mind when interpreting the information presented on the ZTV: ZTV reference points 1. Areas shown as having no visibility will be likely to have no visibility. ScreeneLandscaped ZTV (Lidar DPlanningSM) 2. Areas shown as having theoretical visibility may have visibility of the development, however, local features Tel: +44 1825 280 580 1 such as trees, hedgerows, embankments or buildings could screen views. Where settlements or woodlands are www.landscapevisual.com shown as lying within areas of visibility, it is only likely to be the edges of the settlements or woodlands which 2 would theoretically have views to the proposed development. 3 3. Sixteen reference points have been modelled on the development site (proposed buildings around the lake 4 Legend: shore), with viewer height assumed to be 1.75m above the existing terrain. The reference points could be the 5 only parts of the proposed development which is visible. 4. The ZTV has been calculated to 3km from the reference points. Visual effects tend to reduce with distance. Site (indica�ve) 6 7 5. Note that, while the Lidar approach gives a higher-resolution depiction of potential visibility, the output is 1km bands from Site still theoretical. For instance, the ZTV indicates visibility from areas which may not be accessible, such as the 8 roofs of buildings. While being a useful tool for assessment work, the method is demonstrated by fieldwork to ZTV reference po9ints exaggerate real-world views. Interpretation of this plan should be with reference to the LVIA report. 10 [No theoretical visibility in the area covered by this text box]. Screened ZTV (Lidar DSM) 11 1 12 2 13 3 14 4 15 5 16 6 Mapping 7 OS_1_25_000_raster_-_Explorer_609962_807333 8 8 9 255 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 PRELIMINARY Mapping OS_1_50_000_raster_-_Land_Ranger_609962_807332 0 7 October 2019 255 1:20,000
Walpole East
PRELIMINARY
Project:7 OctoberAshwicken 2019 Lakes
Title:1:40,000Zone of Theoretical Visibility (screened) Walpole East
Date: May 2020 N Ref: 1265/5d Scale: 1:20,000 at A3 © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community swisstopo, IGN, IGP, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, i-cubed, USDA, GeoEye, Esri, DigitalGlobe, 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: reserved. All rights copyright, © Crown Site (indica�ve) 500m bands from Site
Viewpoints Landscape Planning Site photographs Tel: +44 1825 280 580 www.landscapevisual.com Assessment viewpoints
Google Maps Legend:
Site (indica�ve) 500m bands from Site
Viewpoints
Site photographs
Assessment viewpoints
Google Maps
PRELIMINARY
7 October 2019
1:20,000
Walpole East
PRELIMINARY
7 October 2019
1:20,000 Project: Ashwicken Lakes Walpole East Title: Viewpoints
Date: May 2020 N Ref: 1265/6a Scale: 1:15,000 at A3 © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community swisstopo, IGN, IGP, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, i-cubed, USDA, GeoEye, Esri, DigitalGlobe, 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: reserved. All rights copyright, © Crown Site (indica�ve) 500m bands from Site
Viewpoints Landscape Planning Site photographs Tel: +44 1825 280 580 www.landscapevisual.com Assessment viewpoints
PROWs Legend: Norfolk PROWs Footpaths Site (indica�ve) Bridleways 500m bands from Site Restricted byway Viewpoints Google Maps Site photographs
Assessment viewpoints
Google Maps
PRELIMINARY
7 October 2019
1:20,000
Walpole East
PRELIMINARY
7 October 2019
1:20,000 Project: Ashwicken Lakes Walpole East Title: Viewpoints
Date: May 2020 N Ref: 1265/6b Scale: 1:15,000 at A3 © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community swisstopo, IGN, IGP, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, i-cubed, USDA, GeoEye, Esri, DigitalGlobe, 2020. Licence number 0100031673. AP source: reserved. All rights copyright, © Crown Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
APPENDIX C LVIA Proposed Viewpoints
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 68 Ashwicken Lakes Proposed Landscape and Visual Assessment Viewpoints Refer to enclosed viewpoint plan and photographs
27 May 2020
No. Description OS Grid Reference Rationale for viewpoint selection Distance Direction Easting Northing to site (m) from site Landscape Council Area 1 Church Lane, Ashwicken 569845 317685 0 E Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn View across the site from the eastern boundary. Wetland (Gayton And East Winch and West (G3)) Norfolk 2 Glossthorpe Manor 569487 318248 60 N Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn View southwards through woodland to the northern sections of the site from nearest residential Wetland (Gayton And East Winch and West properties to the north. (G3)) Norfolk
3 Footpath, south of All Saints Chruch Ashwicken 569604 318613 450 NE Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn Elevated view from the footpath on the Leziate circular walk. (Leziate FP19) Wetland (Gayton And East Winch and West (G3)) Norfolk
4 Footpath, Holthouse Lane 568831 318200 190 NW Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn Demonstrates the potential for views through woodland from the route with public access to the Wetland (Bawsey And Leziate (G1)) and West north-west of the site. Norfolk
5 Gayton Road, East Winch 569751 316582 775 S Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn View towards the southern boundaries of the site from the settlement edge of East Winch. Wetland (Gayton And East Winch and West (G3)) Norfolk
6 Footpath, west of East Winch and northside of 568936 316290 1100 S Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn View from the elevated footpath to the west side of East Winch with views across the western the A47 (East Winch FP2) Wetland (Gayton And East Winch and West sections of the site. (G3)) Norfolk
7 Gayton Road, north of the airfield 570776 317283 850 SE Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn Open views towards the eastern boundaries of the site from local road to the south-east. Wetland (Gayton And East Winch and West (G3)) Norfolk
8 Byway, south of Station Road, Middleton, 566776 316615 225 SW Farmland with Woodland and Kings Lynn Demonstrates the potential for views from the elevated byway to the south-west. (Middleton RB3) Wetland (Middleton (G2)) and West Norfolk
Please note that this schedule lists the viewpoints following preliminary site and baseline assessment but prior to scheme fix and appraisal work being undertaken. For practical or technical reasons, or due to changes in the emerging development proposal, it may become necessary to vary viewpoints, although this is considered unlikely. The viewpoints are representative of views typically available to the development site from the surrounding area.
1265_ViewpointSchedule_270520 Page 1 of 1 Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort – EIA Scoping Request June 2020
APPENDIX D LVIA Methodology
Aardvark EM Limited – June 2020 Page 69
Ashwicken Lakes
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Method Annex for LVIA Scoping
May 2020
Methodology
Scope of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
The European Landscape Convention (ELC) defines landscape as, ‘…an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action or interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Council of Europe, 2000). The ELC supports a holistic approach to landscape planning and covers, ‘…natural, rural, urban and peri-urban areas. It includes land, inland water and marine areas. It concerns landscapes that might be considered outstanding as well as everyday or degraded landscapes.’
LVIA considers landscape and visual effects separately as ‘related but very different considerations’ (LI and IEMA, 2013i; paragraph 2.20):
. Landscape assessment considers the effects of the proposed development on the landscape as a resource. . Visual assessment considers the effects of the proposed development on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people.
The scope of LVIA is derived from the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) Regulations 2011, Schedule 4 of which states that EIA must include: ‘A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development…’ With respect to landscape and views, an LVIA typically considers the direct and indirect effects of a proposal, its potential cumulative effects, considers the changes which would arise over time, and whether those changes would be beneficial, neutral or adverse.
This methodology is structured as follows:
A1.1 Study Area A1.2 The Nature of Landscape and Visual Effects A1.3 Appraisal Criteria
A. Sensitivity
B. Magnitude
C. Significance A1.4 Residential Amenity A1.5 Zone of Theoretical Visibility Analysis A1.6 Photomontages.
A1.1 Study Area Based on the preliminary Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Figures 1265/5c and 5d, and initial fieldwork, we will use a 2 km study area for the assessment and a detailed 1 km study area for assessment of effects.
A1.2 The Nature of Landscape and Visual Effects Direct and Indirect Effects The landscape and visual resource of an area can be affected both directly and indirectly. Visual impacts are always direct because an object needs to be seen for a visual impact to arise. Landscape impacts on the other hand can be either direct or indirect. Change which affects on- site physical features (i.e. vegetation, buildings and landform), or the character area in which the Site is located, is direct, whereas an impact on the character of surrounding landscape character areas is indirect. Indirect impacts tend to be less significant than direct ones.
In general, the scope of this LVIA is:
. Direct (primary) effects on landscape features, the character of the Site, and views; and . Indirect (secondary) effects on the surrounding landscape character.
Cumulative Effects The nature of cumulative landscape and visual effects are described in detail in section 7 of LI and IEMA (2013). As a summary, the following cumulative effects could potentially arise with two or more developments (terms used are from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (2012); pages 10/11, see also footnote 1):
. Cumulative landscape effects: where two or more projects in combination create new landscape types (e.g. similar to large-scale afforestation). Landscape effects are not necessarily negative and may include other pressures such as longer-term
1 Much of the expertise in cumulative assessment in recent practice is derived from LVIAs of wind farms which can have significant cumulative effects. SNH have led much of the research in this field, and while guidance on wind farms or SNH’s influence is not specifically relevant to this LVIA, the thinking as set out by SNH is transferable to other forms of development and this report. incremental change.
. Combined visual effects: where it is possible to see two or more projects from one location, either in combination (in the viewer’s same field of view at any one time), or in succession (in different fields of view from the same location).
. Sequential visual effects: where the viewer has to move through the landscape to see different projects.
As with landscape and visual effects, cumulative effects vary depending on the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the change in terms of the scale, nature, duration, frequency of combined and sequential views (glimpses or more prolonged views; oblique, filtered or more direct views; time separation between sequential views). Cumulative effects also vary depending on the relative impact of each project with respect to visual amenity.
Assessment Timescales In this assessment, potential effects are considered according to the following timescales, which allow an understanding of the changes which may occur in the landscape as a result of the development over time, and judgements to be made about the duration and reversibility of effects (see also the section A1.3B on ‘Magnitude’ below):
. During construction: focussing on specific construction-related landscape and visual effects.
. On completion: the effects when the construction phase is complete and the operational phase of the project starts.
. Medium-term: taken to be up to 15 years post completion: this timescale allows the assessment to consider effects once the mitigation vegetation proposed for the Site has become established and has been managed to the stipulated height.
. Long-term: taken to be 15-35 years post completion and for the duration of the operational life of the Proposed Development.
Adverse, Beneficial and Neutral Effects The methodological background to whether effects are adverse, beneficial or neutral is based on the aim for assessment work to influence a proposed development to reduce adverse effects:
‘In reporting on the significance of the identified effects the main aim should be to draw out the key issues and ensure that the significance of the effects and scope for reducing any negative/adverse effects are properly understood by the public and the competent authority before it makes its decision’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 3.35).
Whether effects should be adverse, beneficial or neutral is recognised as a ‘challenging’ aspect of assessment (LI and IEMA, 2013; 5.37). Further methodological background is provided in paragraphs 5.37 and 6.29 for landscape and visual effects respectively.
‘One of the more challenging issues is deciding whether the landscape effects should be categorised as positive or negative. It is also possible for effects to be neutral in their consequences for the landscape. An informed professional judgement should be made about this and the criteria used in reaching the judgement should be clearly stated. They might include, but should not be restricted to:
- The degree to which the proposal fits with existing character;
- The contribution to the landscape that the development may make in its own right, usually by virtue of good design, even if it is in contrast to existing character.’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.37).
‘As with landscape effects an informed professional judgement should be made as to whether the visual effects can be described as positive or negative (or in some cases neutral) in their consequences for views and visual amenity. This will need to be based on a judgement about whether the changes will affect the quality of the visual experience for those groups of people who will see the changes, given the nature of their existing views.’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 6.29).
Effects in this assessment are described as follows:
. Adverse, for example the loss of valuable landscape elements, degradation of landscape character or loss of integrity in terms of designated landscapes.
. Beneficial, for example the removal of inappropriate or damaging landscape elements, enhancement of key landscape elements and landscape character, or introduction of positive landscape elements.
. Neutral effects are those which are on balance neither adverse nor beneficial. Neutral may reflect an absence of harm. Neutral may sometimes be used as a judgement where there are both adverse and beneficial aspects of an effect.
The decision regarding whether effects are adverse, beneficial or neutral is set out in the conclusions for effects of greater than negligible magnitude and is made using professional judgement and separately to the determination of their magnitude. For adverse landscape or visual effects, mitigation is described or recommended (proposals for preventing/avoiding, reducing, or offsetting or compensating for the adverse effects), or has been recommended during previous iterations of the appraisal. Residual effects remaining after mitigation are summarised at the end of the report.
A1.3 Assessment Criteria The following are the main terms used in this assessment:
. The sensitivity of receptors (landscape or visual)2, which depends upon the value attached to the landscape or view and the susceptibility to harm due to the development proposal.
. The magnitude of an effect (the change brought about by the development proposal), which depends upon the scale and geographical extent of the change, and its duration and reversibility.
The above are determined using a combination of quantitative (objective) and qualitative (subjective) methods, and are assessed using professional judgement.
A. Sensitivity The sensitivity of landscape receptors depends primarily upon the value attached to the landscape and the landscape’s susceptibility to the development proposal.
Landscape Value ‘Landscapes and their component parts may be valued at the community, local, national or international levels… A review of existing landscape designations is usually the starting point in understanding landscape value, but the value attached to undesignated landscapes also needs to be carefully considered and individual elements of the landscape – such as trees, buildings or hedgerows – may also have value’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.19).
The following influence landscape value as determined in this assessment (LI and IEMA, 2013i; box 5.1):
2 Landscape receptors are ‘defined aspects of the landscape resource that have the potential to be affected by a proposal.’ Visual receptors are ‘individuals and/or defined groups of people who have the potential to be affected by a proposal.’ (From the glossary to LI and IEMA, 2013). . ‘Landscape quality (condition): a measure of the physical state of the landscape. It may include the extent to which typical character is represented in individual areas, the intactness of the landscape and the condition of individual elements. . Scenic quality: The terms used to describe landscapes that appeal primarily to the senses (primarily but not wholly to the visual senses). . Rarity: The presence of rare elements or features in the landscape or the presence of a rare Landscape Character Type. . Representativeness: Whether the landscape contains a particular character and/or features or elements which are considered particularly important examples. . Conservation interests: The presence of features of wildlife, earth science or archaeological or historical and cultural interest can add to the value of the landscape as well as having value in their own right. . Recreation value: Evidence that the landscape is valued for recreational activity where experience of the landscape is important. . Perceptual aspects: A landscape may be valued for its perceptual qualities, notably wilderness and/or tranquillity. . Associations: Some landscapes are associated with particular people, such as artists or writers, or events in history that contribute to perceptions of the natural beauty of the area.’
Landscape value is illustrated by scale set out in Table A1.1.
Table A1.1: Landscape Value Value Typical criteria High High landscape quality and scenic quality. Particularly important/representative landscapes or landscape elements. Important conservation interests and recreational value due to landscape quality. Highly valued perceptual aspects or cultural/historical associations. Medium Medium landscape quality and scenic quality. May contain some important/representative elements. May contain some conservation interests and recreational value and/or perceptual aspects or cultural/ historical associations of moderate value. Low Low landscape quality and scenic quality. Common landscapes which are not particularly important/representative examples. More limited conservation interests and recreational value and/or more limited perceptual aspects or cultural/historical associations of value.
Landscape Susceptibility Susceptibility can be defined as, ‘the ability of the landscape receptor (whether it be the overall character or quality/condition of a particular landscape type or area, or an individual element and/or feature, or a particular aesthetic or perceptual aspect) to accommodate the proposed development without undue negative consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.40).
Susceptibility of landscape areas is influenced by their characteristics and is often considered in district or county landscape character assessments or capacity studies. For designated landscapes, susceptibility may also relate to the special qualities for which the designation is made. The activity and expectations of people within landscapes which are used for access or recreation may also influence susceptibility.
Individual assessment of the susceptibility of receptors is made in relation to the specific development proposal as part of the assessment of effects. Landscape susceptibility is determined according the scale set out in Table A1.2.
Table A1.2: Landscape Susceptibility Susceptibility Typical criteria High A low potential to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences. A more vulnerable landscape unlikely to be able to accommodate the Proposal with a low risk of harm. Medium A moderate potential to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences. A moderately vulnerable landscape which may be able to accommodate the Proposal with a low risk of harm. Low A high potential to accommodate the specific proposed development without undue negative consequences. A less vulnerable landscape likely to be able to accommodate the Proposal with a low risk of harm.
Landscape Sensitivity Table A1.3 illustrates typical judgements which might be made in assessing landscape receptor sensitivity, which take account of landscape value and landscape susceptibility. It should be noted that, ‘there can be complex inter-relationships between the value attached to landscape receptors and their susceptibility to change which are especially important when considering change within or close to designated landscapes’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.46). For this reason, judgements relating to how value and susceptibility combine to determine sensitivity are made on a case-by-case basis and explained in the assessment as necessary.
Table A1.3: Landscape Sensitivity Sensitivity Typical criteria High A high-quality landscape of particular importance or representativeness, with important conservation or recreational value and valued perceptual aspects or cultural or historic associations. A landscape valued at an international, national or regional scale. A landscape which has a high susceptibility to the proposed change. Minor changes cannot be accommodated without impact on value and/or loss of character or no more than minor changes can be compensated by replacement or substitution. Medium A medium-quality landscape which may contain some important or representative elements, and have some conservation or recreational value, and valued perceptual aspects or cultural or historic associations. A landscape valued at a regional, district or community scale. A landscape of medium susceptibility to the proposed change. Minor to moderate change may be accommodated but needs to be carefully dealt with. Minor changes can be accommodated without impact on value and/or loss of character or moderate changes can be reduced or eliminated by replacement or substitution. Low A low-quality landscape which is not particularly important or is representative of a common type with limited conservation or recreational interests, or limited value placed in perceptual aspects or cultural or historic associations. A landscape valued at the district or community scale. Potentially a damaged or derelict landscape. A low susceptibility to the proposed change. Moderate changes can be accommodated without impact on value and/or loss of character or more substantial changes can be reduced or eliminated by replacement or substitution.
Visual Sensitivity The sensitivity of visual receptors can depend on:
. Their susceptibility to change, which is, ‘mainly a function of the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view at particular locations and the extent to which their attention or interest may therefore be focussed on the views and the visual amenity they experience at particular locations’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 6.32).
. The value attached to the view, for example whether it appeals to locals, visitors, or whether it is cited in books, guides and maps, or whether the view might be recognised through planning designations or in relation to heritage designations.
For visual receptors, value and susceptibility are closely related. Individuals or groups of receptors are assessed on a case-by-case basis and the thinking in relation to judgements is recorded in the assessment. Table A1.4 illustrates the typical judgements which may be made in assessing the sensitivity of visual receptors.
Table A1.4: Visual Receptor Sensitivity (information adapted in part from LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraphs 6.33 and 6.34) Sensitivity Typical criteria High People at viewpoints in a high-value landscape, recognised in published maps or guides (e.g., visitors to nationally designated areas of public and private open space such as National Parks, AONBs or Heritage Coasts). Residents at home where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents. People who are engaged in leisure activities intrinsic to which is an appreciation of the landscape or surroundings, for example users of national trails, long-distance paths or local footpaths through high-valued landscapes. Visitors to heritage assets or other important attractions, or travellers on routes where views are important to the experience. Medium People at viewpoints in a medium-value landscape (e.g., visitors to locally designated areas of public and private open space such as Areas of Great Landscape Value, or Country Parks). People who have a moderate interest in their surroundings whilst working or engaged in leisure activities, for example those engaged in outdoor sports such as fishing or golf, or using local footpaths through moderately-valued landscapes, or users of local roads designated as National Cycle Routes or national trails. Travellers on road, rail or other routes may fall into an intermediate category depending on whether travel involves appreciation of the landscape. Low People at viewpoints in a low-value landscape. People involved in outdoor sport or recreation not involving or depending upon appreciation of views in the landscape. People at places of work whose attention is focussed on their work or activity, not on their surroundings, and where the setting is not important to quality of working life. People who have a transient interest in the surrounding landscape whilst engaged in other activities, for example while working or travelling through an area on an occasional or functional basis (e.g., users of major roads, employees of businesses and industry, users of local rights of way associated with highways or local routes whose primary function is access between two places).
B. Magnitude The assessment considers scale, extent and duration/reversibility as key aspects of the magnitude of landscape and visual effects (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraphs 5.48 and 6.38).
Scale For landscape receptors, scale relates to:
. ‘the extent of existing landscape elements that will be lost, the proportion of the total extent that this represents and the contribution of that element to the character of the landscape – in some cases this may be quantified;
. the degree to which aesthetic or perceptual aspects of the landscape are altered either by the removal of existing components of the landscape or by addition of new ones – for example, removal of hedges may change a small-scale, intimate landscape into a large-scale, open one, or introduction of new buildings or tall structures may alter open skylines;
. whether the effect changes the key characteristics of the landscape, which are critical to its distinctive character’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.49).
For visual receptors, scale relates to:
. ‘the scale of the change in the view with respect to the loss or addition of new features in the view and changes in its composition, including the proportion of the view occupied by the proposed development;
. the degree of contrast or integration of any new features or changes in the landscape with the existing or remaining landscape elements and characteristics in terms of form, scale and mass, height, colour and texture;
. the nature of the view of the proposed development, in terms of the relative amount of time over which it will be experienced and whether views will be full, partial or glimpses’ (LI and IEMA, 2013i; paragraph 6.39).
Extent For landscape receptors, extent is the ‘geographical area over which the landscape effects will be felt’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.50). Generally, effects may occur:
. ‘at the site level, within the development site itself;
. at the level of the immediate setting of the site;
. at the scale of the landscape type or character area within which the proposal lies;
. on a larger scale, influencing several landscape types or areas.’
For visual receptors extent is likely to reflect:
. ‘the angle of view in relation to the main activity of the receptor;
. the distance of the viewpoint from the proposed development;
. the extent of the area over which the changes would be visible’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 6.40).
Duration and reversibility For both landscape and visual receptors: ‘These are separate but linked considerations. Duration can usually be simply judged on a scale such as short term, medium term, or long term, where, for example, short term might be zero to five years, medium term five to ten years and long term ten to twenty-five years. There is no fixed rule on these definitions…Reversibility is a judgement about the prospects and practicality of the particular effect being reversed in, for example, a generation’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraphs 5.51, 5.52 and 6.41).
Table A1.5 illustrates the judgements made with respect to magnitude, which take account of scale, extent and duration/reversibility. Effects are judged on a case-by-case basis applying professional judgement for the specific project and host landscape.
Table A1.5: Magnitude Landscape Visual The magnitude of change in relation to physical The magnitude of change in relation to views and/or elements and/or landscape character. visual amenity as generally perceived by Considerations include scale, extent, and observers – this is related to the degree of landscape duration/reversibility. impact magnitude. Considerations include scale, extent, and duration/reversibility. Negligible Indiscernible or barely discernible change - Indiscernible or barely perceptible change - project components would tend to go project components would tend to go unnoticed unnoticed in the wider landscape. in views. Very Small Very small levels of change – project Very small levels of change - project components components would generally be perceived as a would be a background element in views and background element in the wider landscape. would very easily go unnoticed. Small Small levels of change - project components Small levels of change to views - project would be present in the landscape but would components would be present in the landscape generally be perceived as a background but as a background component of views and component of the wider landscape. would easily go unnoticed. Medium Medium levels of change – project Medium levels of change to views - project components would be relatively prominent in components would be relatively prominent but the landscape but would generally appear generally subservient, or in equilibrium with, the subservient to, or in equilibrium with, the prevailing landscape characteristics, and would prevailing landscape characteristics. easily be noticed. Large Large levels of change – project components Large levels of change to views - project would be prominent in the landscape and components would be prominent, perceived as a would generally be perceived as a determining determining factor in views, and would be factor of local character. difficult not to notice. Very Large Very large levels of change – project Very large levels of change to views – project components are very prominent in the components would be very prominent, perceived landscape and are the determining factor of as the determining factor in views, and would be local character. extremely difficult not to notice.
C. Significance Judgements about the sensitivity of a landscape or visual receptor and the magnitude of a landscape or visual effect are combined to draw conclusions about significance. Note that for both landscape and visual receptors ‘there are no hard and fast rules about what makes a significant effect, and there cannot be a standard approach since circumstances vary with the local and landscape context and with the type of proposal’ (LI and IEMA, 2013i, paragraphs 5.56 and 6.44).
Landscape Effects ‘Significance can only be defined in relation to each development and its specific location. It is for each assessment to determine how the judgements about the landscape receptors and landscape effects should be combined to arrive at significance and to explain how the conclusions have been derived’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 5.54). In broad terms, the significance for landscape effects can be illustrated by the extremes illustrated in the following table.
Table A1.6: Significance of Landscape Effects More likely to be Major loss or irreversible negative effects, over an extensive area, on elements and/or significant aesthetic and perceptual aspects that are key to the character of nationally valued landscapes. Reversible negative effects of short duration, over a restricted area on elements and/or Less likely to be aesthetic and perceptual aspects that contribute to but are not key characteristics of significant landscapes of community value.
Visual Effects ‘Significance of visual effects is not absolute and can only be defined in relation to each development and its specific location. It is for each assessment to determine the approach…’ (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 6.42). In broad terms, the significance of visual effects can be illustrated by the extremes in the following table.
Table A1.7: Significance of Visual Effects Effects on people who are particularly sensitive to changes in views and visual amenity. More likely to be Effects on people at recognised and important viewpoints or from recognised scenic routes. significant Large-scale changes which introduce new, uncharacteristic or discordant or intrusive elements. Effects on people who are less sensitive to changes in views and visual amenity. Effects on people at local incidental viewpoints, or from local routes, the primary purpose Less likely to be of which is to connect two places. significant Small-scale changes which introduce forms which are already present and characteristic, or unobtrusive elements.
Table A1.8 illustrates how sensitivity and magnitude may combine to determine significance. Judgements are made on a case-by-case basis.
Effects of moderate/major or major significance (shaded grey in Table A1.8) are ‘significant’ in that they are the principal landscape or visual effects of the Project. The identification of ‘significant’ effects equally does not necessarily mean that effects would be unacceptable. Effects considered to be ‘not significant’ are not completely disregarded in the assessment (LI and IEMA, 2013; paragraph 3.34) but are lesser effects which are considered, with professional judgement, to be less important in decisions regarding the landscape and visual effects of the Project.
Table A1.8: Significance (source: Landscape Visual Limited)
Conclusions regarding significance are also expressed in terms of whether effects are adverse, beneficial or neutral as is described under the subheading ‘Adverse, Beneficial and Neutral Effects’, Section A1.2 above.
A1.4 Residential Amenity The emphasis of the visual assessment is on publicly available views. Paragraph 6.17 of LI and IEMA (2013) notes that ‘in some instances it may [also] be appropriate to consider private viewpoints, mainly from residential properties…. Effects of development in private property are frequently dealt with mainly through ‘residential amenity assessments’’. Residential amenity assessments are separate from LVIAs and are normally only provided if it is considered likely at the scoping stage that effects on visual aspects of residential amenity are likely to give rise to likely significant effects. The assessment has not identified this as a concern for this development; no further consideration is given to effects on residential amenity in the LVIA. The assessment considers the changes in views which could arise for groups of properties near the Site based on fieldwork on the Site and in publicly accessible areas.
A1.5 Zone of Theoretical Visibility Analysis The ZTVs Figures 1265/5c and 5d are ‘screened’ ZTVs, which take into account the underlying topography as well as woodlands, hedgerows, earthworks, buildings and other landscape surface features captured by LIDAR survey. A LIDAR elevation model of the study area was compiled from 1 m resolution Digital Surface Model data (Environment Agency, 2018).
ZTVs were prepared using the Grass version 7.4.1 r.viewshed script (Toma, Zhuang, Richard and Metz, 2017). Reference points were located across the Site corresponding to the maximum height of the proposed buildings. Viewer height was assumed to be 1.75 m. The ZTV should be interpreted with reference to the notes on the ZTV plans. The ZTVs should be interpreted with reference to the notes on the ZTV plans.
A1.6 Photomontages If photomontages are prepared, a method will be included with the LVIA output. All visualisations will accord with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LI and IEMA, 2013) and LI TGN 06/19 Visual Representation of Development Proposals (LI, September 2019).
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping: Biodiversity Supporting Appendices
BLANK PAGE
Issuing office
Milton Hall | Ely Road | Milton | Cambridge | CB24 6WZ T: 01223 631635 | W: www.bsg-ecology.com | E: [email protected]
Client Aardvark EM Ltd
Project Ashwicken Lake, Ashwicken Lake Ecological Assessment
Version FINAL
Project number P19-955 Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping Biodiversity - Appendices
Name Position Date
Originated Roger Buisson Associate Director 12 June 2020
Reviewed Peter Shepherd Director 23 June 2020
Approved for Peter Shepherd Director 23 June 2020 issue to client
Issued to client Roger Buisson Associate Director 23 June 2020
Disclaimer
This report is issued to the client for their sole use and for the intended purpose as stated in the agreement between the client and BSG Ecology under which this work was completed, or else as set out within this report. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written agreement of BSG Ecology. The use of this report by unauthorised third parties is at their own risk and BSG Ecology accepts no duty of care to any such third party.
BSG Ecology has exercised due care in preparing this report. It has not, unless specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the content of this report and BSG Ecology assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentation made by others.
Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that BSG Ecology performed the work. The content of this report has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct. BSG Ecology works where appropriate to the scope of our brief, to the principles and requirements of British Standard BS42020.
Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured. Observations relating to the state of built structures or trees have been made from an ecological point of view and, unless stated otherwise, do not constitute structural or arboricultural advice.
Derbyshire Oxford Newcastle Newport Swansea Cambridge | BSG Ecology is a trading name of BSG Ecology Ltd Registered in: England and Wales | No. 12142513 | Registered address: Merlin House No1 Langstone Business Park Newport, NP18 2HJ
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Contents 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Appendix 1: Wintering birds ...... 5 3 Appendix 2: Breeding birds ...... 12 4 Appendix 3: Great crested newt ...... 21
1 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
1 Introduction
1.1 This document contains three appendices that are provided as supporting information to the biodiversity section of the EIA Screening Report for the proposed Ashwicken Lake Wellness Resort (the Site).
1.2 The purpose of each Appendix is to present the evidence that has been gathered to date from field survey to draw the conclusion, that is expressed in the biodiversity section of the EIA Screening Report, that the Site is no more than of District level for its biodiversity value.
1.3 The three appendices cover:
1 Wintering birds
2 Breeding birds
3 Great crested newt
1.4 Note that for readability of the text the scientific names of birds are not given within the Appendices. Those scientific names are provided in the Table overleaf.
Personnel
1.5 The wintering and breeding bird surveys were conducted by Dr Roger Buisson CEnv CIWEM, Associate Director at BSG Ecology. This report was compiled by Roger Buisson. Roger has over 40 years’ experience of surveying for birds across all UK habitats and over 30 years’ experience evaluating and assessing the biodiversity value of habitats and the impacts of proposed developments. Further details of his experience and qualifications can be found at https://www.bsg- ecology.com/portfolio_page/roger-buisson-director-of-ecology-cambridge/.
1.6 The GCN eDNA water sampling was conducted by Claire Wiggs GradCIEEM, Ecologist at BSG Ecology. Details of her experience and qualifications can be found at https://www.bsg- ecology.com/portfolio_page/claire-wiggs/. Claire is authorised to work as an accredited agent under GCN class licence 2015-18530-CLS-CLS registered to Peter Newbold (Principal Ecologist at BSG Ecology).
1.7 This report was reviewed by Dr Peter Shepherd, Director at BSG Ecology.
2 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Table: Scientific names of birds included in the Appendices. Vernacular name Scientific name Mute Swan Cygnus olor Greylag Goose Anser anser Canada Goose Branta canadensis Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata Wigeon Anas penelope Gadwall Anas strepera Teal Anas crecca Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Pochard Aythya ferina Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Grey Partridge Perdix perdix Red-legged Partridge Alectoris rufa Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Little Egret Egretta garzetta Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus Red Kite Milvus milvus Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus Buzzard Buteo buteo Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Coot Fulica atra Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Snipe Gallinago gallinago Woodcock Scolopax rusticola Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Curlew Numenius arquata Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus Common Gull Larus canus Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus Herring Gull Larus argentatus Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Stock Dove Columba oenas Woodpigeon Columba palumbus Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus Swift Apus apus Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Green Woodpecker Picus viridis Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major Magpie Pica pica Jay Garrulus glandarius Jackdaw Corvus monedula Rook Corvus frugilegus Carrion Crow Corvus corone Goldcrest Regulus regulus Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus Great Tit Parus major Coal Tit Periparus ater Marsh Tit Poecile palustris
3 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Vernacular name Scientific name Woodlark Lullula arborea Skylark Alauda arvensis Sand Martin Riparia riparia Swallow Hirundo rustica Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Garden Warbler Sylvia borin Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca Whitethroat Sylvia communis Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus Nuthatch Sitta europaea Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Starling Sturnus vulgaris Blackbird Turdus merula Fieldfare Turdus pilaris Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Redwing Turdus iliacus Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus Robin Erithacus rubecula Dunnock Prunella modularis Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Greenfinch Chloris chloris Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Siskin Carduelis spinus Linnet Carduelis cannabina Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus
The English vernacular names and the scientific names follow the terminology and conventions of the British Ornithologists’ Union British List https://www.bou.org.uk/british-list/
4 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
2 Appendix 1: Wintering birds
Introduction
2.1 A programme of surveys was conducted with the aim of identifying the species and numbers of birds wintering on the Site, with a particular focus on waterbirds. This would provide the data from which an evaluation could be conducted to determine the geographical significance of any single population of wintering birds, or the assemblage of wintering birds. This information is an important component in the conduct of an impact assessment.
Methods
Field survey
2.2 The Site was surveyed by walking a circuit around the Site and observing and recording all bird species observed. This method is analogous to the ‘look-see’ method described in Bibby et al. 2000 and also analogous to the method applied in the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) organised Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS).
2.3 The focus of the survey was on waterbirds (encompassing divers, grebes, swans, ducks, geese, herons, rails, waders and gulls) and as a result a differential level of recording detail was applied to waterbirds and to other birds:
A. For waterbirds the location of each observation was recorded on a large scale map of the site and for each observation a record was made of the species, number, sex (where that was possible to determine) and behaviour (separated in to feeding, swimming, roosting and flying). As the survey progressed a running summary of the observations was maintained using a table pre-formatted with rows for bird species and columns for the number exhibiting each behaviour type. For the purposes of this survey kingfisher and reed bunting were recorded as waterbirds.
B. For other birds a species list was maintained with a count made only for those species of high conservation concern e.g. Woodlark.
2.4 A programme of six visits was established covering the core winter period of December to February, the period when peak numbers of waterbirds might be expected in East Anglia in response to cold weather on the continent driving birds westward.
2.5 On each visit the same route was followed. That route enabled all parts of the waterbody and its shoreline to be seen. The route was designed so that disturbance to waterbirds was minimised and if any birds did move across the site then that movement was tracked and double counting avoided. The direction of the walked circuit was alternated across the survey programme to avoid the same parts of the site being recorded either at the start or end of the visit.
2.6 Two visits were made each month, with one visit in the morning during the period that is the peak for feeding activity for a range of birds and one visit in afternoon, timed such that at the end of the survey then observations could be made of any birds coming in to roost on the waterbody. The two visits in any one month and between months were spaced a minimum of one week apart.
2.7 Any disturbance events were recorded.
5 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Processing of bird count data
2.8 The bird counts from each survey visit were entered in to a MSExcel spreadsheet and that used to derive the following key parameters:
i. The number of species seen on each visit ii. The total number of birds counted on each visit iii. The total number of species (the assemblage) seen across the programme of visits iv. The peak number of each species of bird seen across the programme of visits v. The peak number of the assemblage of birds seen across the programme of visits
2.9 The additional detail recorded on behaviour also permitted counts to be extracted based on bird activity.
Evaluation
2.10 The evaluation of the survey findings is based on:
i. The conservation status of the species on Site ii. The number of each bird species on Site iii. The wintering bird assemblage
2.11 The conservation status is identified and categorised as follows: Presence on the Red or Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (BoCC4 Red/Amber List) (Eaton et al., 2015). Presence on the Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 list of species of principal importance (SPI) for the purpose of conserving biodiversity in England. Presence on the Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan (N. BAP) priority species list for birds (Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership https://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/habitats-and-species/birds/)
2.12 Presence on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is not accounted for in the evaluation of wintering birds as this legislative measure is specifically aimed at protecting breeding birds.
2.13 Non-native species, either introduced in to the country historically for amenity reasons (Canada, greylag and Egyptian goose) or continuing to be released for sporting reasons (pheasant), do not form part of the system for evaluating conservation status .
2.14 The peak count for each waterbird species is compared, to determine whether the Site is of national importance, to the 1% threshold criteria for waterbirds in the UK that is published in Frost et al. (2019). A wetland is considered nationally important if it regularly holds 1% or more of the estimated British population of one species of waterbird (https://www.bto.org/our- science/projects/wetland-bird-survey/data/species-threshold-levels). Where Frost et al. (2019) does not provide a population threshold then reference is made to the national population estimates prepared for birds in the UK by the Aviation Population Estimates Panel (APEP) (Woodward et al., 2020).
2.15 Norfolk does not have any published criteria by which a site is evaluated as important at the county level for its wintering birds e.g. as might be published in the relevant County Wildlife Site (CWS) criteria (https://www.norfolkwildlifetrust.org.uk/documents/cws/county-wildlife-sites-2018). In this case reference was made to the wintering bird population estimates for Norfolk published in the Norfolk Bird Atlas (Taylor & Marchant, 2011).
2.16 The peak total number of birds present in the waterbird assemblage was compared to the assemblage criteria for a site of national and international importance drawn from Drewitt et al. (2015) and the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2010). This is a peak assemblage in excess of 20,000 waterbirds.
6 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Limitations to methods
Field survey
2.17 The nature of the waterbody, being a recently restored sand quarry, meant that there were no extensive reedbeds or willow carr present that would have hidden waterbirds from view. All waterbirds present will have been recorded.
2.18 No limitations resulted from the weather.
2.19 No disturbance events were recorded that would have led to a low count of waterbirds. On three occasions people were observed within the Site boundary, one occasion a trespassing birdwatcher and two occasions were people present there with permission. None of these events led to birds departing from the Site. The localised disturbance caused by the surveyor moving around the Site did not lead to any birds departing from the Site.
Evaluation
2.20 Compiled and published criteria for determining waterbodies as CWS for birds wintering in Norfolk were not available and the evaluation at the County level was against 1% of the County population estimates.
Results
2.21 The planned programme of six visits was successfully completed with the dates and weather conditions on which surveys were conducted presented in Table 2.1. All surveys were conducted by Roger Buisson.
Table 2.1: Programme of visits
Visit Date Start & finish time Weather conditions 1 23/12/19 09.45 – 12.15 Dry; Cloud 1/8; Wind W 2; Temp 8oC 2 30/12/19 14.00 – 16.15 Dry; Cloud 0/8; Wind SW 2; Temp 12-8oC 3 21/01/20 14.00 – 16.30 Dry; Cloud 0/8; Wind 0; Temp 5oC 4 29/01/20 09.00 – 11.30 Dry; Cloud 0/8; Wind W 3; Temp 4-7oC 5 12/02/20 14.30 – 16.45 Dry; Cloud 2/8; Wind W 3; Temp 7oC 6 19/02/20 09.15 – 11.40 Dry; Cloud 0/8; Wind W 1; Temp 4-7oC
2.22 A total of 28 species of waterbird was recorded making use of the Ashwicken Lake for feeding, swimming or roosting during the programme of surveys. The number of waterbird species recorded on each visit ranged from 16 to 19 species. Table 2.2 presents the peak number of each waterbird species recorded across the programme of wintering bird surveys.
Table 2.2: Peak number counted on the programme of wintering bird surveys Species Peak count Mute Swan 4 Greylag Goose 266 Canada Goose 25 Egyptian Goose 9 Shelduck 1 Wigeon 330 Gadwall 33 Teal 4 Mallard 95 Pochard 13
7 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Species Peak count Tufted Duck 22 Little Grebe 1 Great Crested Grebe 7 Cormorant 4 Little Egret 1 Grey Heron 3 Moorhen 1 Coot 32 Lapwing 130 Woodcock 1 Black-headed Gull 40 Common Gull 40 Herring Gull 160 Lesser Black-backed Gull 6 Great Black-backed Gull 1 Kingfisher 1 Reed Bunting 1
2.23 The peak count of the waterbird assemblage on any one visit was 819 and that was recorded on the visit on 30 December 2019.
2.24 Annex 2.A provides a species list of the non-waterbirds observed during the programme of site visits.
Evaluation
2.25 Table 2.3 presents the conservation status for each of the waterbird species observed using the Site on the programme of survey visits.
Table 2.3: Conservation status of waterbird species Species BoCC4 SPI Norfolk BAP Mute Swan Amber Greylag Goose Non-native Canada Goose Non-native Egyptian Goose Non-native Shelduck Amber Wigeon Amber Gadwall Amber Teal Amber Mallard Amber Pochard Red Tufted Duck Green Little Grebe Green Great Crested Grebe Green Cormorant Green Little Egret Green Grey Heron Green Moorhen Green Coot Green Lapwing Red SPI Woodcock Red Black-headed Gull Amber Common Gull Amber Herring Gull Red SPI Lesser Black-backed Gull Amber Great Black-backed Gull Amber
8 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Species BoCC4 SPI Norfolk BAP Kingfisher Amber Reed Bunting Amber SPI N. BAP
2.26 In summary the Site supports the following numbers of species within the different status categories (noting that one species can have multiple status and the numbers should not be summed and that species that are BoCC4 Green are of no conservation concern):
BoCC4 Red: 4 BoCC4 Amber: 12 SPI: 3 Norfolk BAP: 1
2.27 The peak number of each waterbird species observed is compared to the 1% threshold criterion for national significance in Table 2.4. This criterion does not apply to the non-native waterbird species (greylag, Canada and Egyptian goose). Frost et al. (2019) does not give thresholds for kingfisher and reed bunting and the figures given are drawn from the wintering population figures provided in Woodward et al. (2020).
Table 2.4: Peak number as a proportion of the threshold for national significance. National 1% Species Peak count threshold Mute Swan 4 500 Greylag Goose 266 n/a Canada Goose 25 n/a Egyptian Goose 9 n/a Shelduck 1 470 Wigeon 330 4,500 Gadwall 33 310 Teal 4 4,300 Mallard 95 6,700 Pochard 13 230 Tufted Duck 22 1,300 Little Grebe 1 150 Great Crested Grebe 7 170 Cormorant 4 620 Little Egret 1 110 Grey Heron 3 450 Moorhen 1 3,000 Coot 32 2,000 Lapwing 130 6,200 Woodcock 1 14,000 Black-headed Gull 40 22,000 Common Gull 40 7,000 Herring Gull 160 7,300 Lesser Black-backed Gull 6 1,200 Great Black-backed Gull 1 760 Kingfisher 1 39 - 64 Reed Bunting 1 2,750
2.28 None of the species peak numbers provided in Table 2.4 is anywhere near to approaching the 1% threshold criterion for a site of national population importance. Similarly, none of the species peak numbers provided in Table 2.4 is anywhere near to approaching levels of county population importance.
2.29 The peak count recorded of the waterbird assemblage was 819. This is below the 20,000 waterbird assemblage threshold established by Drewitt et al. (2015) and the Ramsar Convention.
9 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
2.30 Of the non-waterbird species observed during the programme of wintering bird surveys only the observation of two woodlark singing off-Site on land to the west on the visit on 19 February 2020 is considered to be of any note. The presence of woodlark in the area is addressed in the report on the breeding bird surveys (Appendix 2).
Conclusion
2.31 The wintering waterbird population of Ashwicken Lake, when considered with respect to each species, has been shown by available quantitative and qualitative criteria not to be of national or of county level importance.
2.32 The wintering waterbird population of Ashwicken Lake, when considered with respect to the assemblage of species, has been shown by available quantitative and qualitative criteria not to be of national or of county level importance.
2.33 The wintering waterbird population of Ashwicken Lake is evaluated as being of no more than district level importance.
References Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S.H. (2000). Bird Census Techniques (2nd edition). Academic Press, London. Drewitt, A.L., Whitehead, S. and Cohen, S. (2015). Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Part 2: Detailed Guidelines for Habitats and Species Groups. Chapter 17 Birds. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N. J., Brown, A. F., Hearn, R. D., Lock, L., Musgrove, A. J., Noble, D. G., Stroud, D. A. and Gregory, R. D. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108: 708–746. Frost, T., Austin, G., Hearn, R., McAvoy, S., Robinson, A., Stroud, D., Woodward, I. and Wotton, S. (2019). Population estimates of wintering waterbirds in Great Britain. British Birds 112: 130-145.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2010). Designating Ramsar Sites. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Woodward, I., Aebischer, N., Burnell, D., Eaton, M., Frost, T., Hall, C., Stroud, D.A. & Noble, D. (2020). Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds 113: 69–104.
10 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Annex 2.A: List of the non-waterbirds observed during the programme of site visits
Pheasant Red-legged partridge Red kite Buzzard Kestrel Herring gull Woodpigeon Stock dove Green woodpecker Great spotted woodpecker Skylark Woodlark Magpie Jackdaw Rook Carrion crow Jay Mistle thrush Robin Wren Dunnock Blackbird Goldcrest Long-tailed tit Blue tit Great tit Coal tit Marsh tit Meadow pipit Pied wagtail Goldfinch Chaffinch Bullfinch
11 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
3 Appendix 2: Breeding birds
Introduction
3.1 A programme of surveys was conducted with the aim of identifying the species and numbers of birds breeding, or potentially breeding, on the Site. This would provide the data from which an evaluation could be conducted to determine the geographical significance of any single population of breeding birds, or the assemblage of breeding birds. This information is an important component in the conduct of an impact assessment.
Methods
Field survey
3.2 A breeding bird community characterisation survey was carried out over the period March to June 2020.
3.3 Visits were made at regular intervals across the territory establishment and early nesting phase of the bird breeding season, the period when birds that are breeding at a location are most visible and vociferous. The first visit was timed to coincide with the early song period of woodlark (Gilbert et al., 1998; Conway et al., 2009), a species known to be breeding in the area from an initial investigation and the sightings made on the last of the programme of wintering bird surveys.
3.4 Four morning visits were made to the Site and during each visit all land within the Site boundary was approached to within 50 m. The Site was walked at a slow pace to enable all birds detected to be located, identified and recorded. Regular stops were made to listen and scan for bird activity indicative of territory establishment or breeding such as singing, calling, displaying and carrying food. The direction of the walked circuit was alternated across the survey programme to avoid the same parts of the site being recorded either at the start or end of the visit.
3.5 All birds observed were recorded on to a survey visit specific set of A3 maps that were of a sufficient scale to enable several closely located birds to be mapped with clarity and legibility. The location of each bird detected (visually and/or aurally) was mapped and behaviour recorded using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) codes and symbols (Marchant, 1983). As the survey progressed a running summary of the observations was maintained using a table pre-formatted with rows for bird species and columns for the number exhibiting breeding behaviour or other behaviour.
3.6 Birds observed beyond the boundary of the Site or flying over the Site showing no apparent association with it were also noted in order to contextualise the information gained but those observations do not form part of the reported territory numbers.
3.7 Surveys were conducted in periods of fine weather, that is without high wind or rain as these conditions may have led to reduced bird activity occurring and hence have reduced the likelihood that birds were recorded. Weather conditions were recorded during each survey. The start and finish time of each survey visit was recorded. Surveys commenced shortly after dawn and ended mid-morning to ensure that the peak period for bird territorial activity was captured.
3.8 Any disturbance events were recorded.
Estimation of territory numbers
3.9 The principle behind the estimation of territory numbers is that over the course of the programme of surveys a bird that is holding territory at any particular location is likely to be recorded there over several visits and on each visit is more likely to be observed showing territorial behaviour or breeding behaviour.
12 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
3.10 Multiple observations of the same bird species from the same location showing territorial or breeding activity is evaluated as a territory. This is adjusted to account for some species that have only a brief period of territorial activity before becoming less visible during incubation and chick rearing. This can apply to both some resident species and some summer migrants for which the observation of territorial activity on a single visit is evaluated as a territory. It can also apply to those summer migrants that arrive later in the spring to breed. Caution is applied when applying the single observation approach to summer migrants that may only be moving through on passage.
3.11 The maps showing bird locations and behaviour obtained as a result of the four visits are examined visit by visit and species by species for the occurrence birds showing territorial or breeding activity and new maps compiled of indicative territory locations for relevant species.
3.12 Birds observed beyond the boundary of the Site or flying over the Site showing no apparent association with it were also noted in order to contextualise the information gained but those observations do not form part of the reported indicative territory numbers.
Evaluation
3.13 The evaluation of the survey findings is based on:
iv. The conservation status of the species holding territory on Site v. The number of indicative territories for a species on Site vi. The breeding bird assemblage on Site
3.14 The conservation status is identified and categorised as follows: Presence on the Red or Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern 4 (BoCC4 Red/Amber List) (Eaton et al., 2015). Presence on the Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 list of species of principal importance (SPI) for the purpose of conserving biodiversity in England. Presence on Schedule 1 (Sch. 1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) as bird species receiving additional protection from disturbance when breeding. Presence on the Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan (N. BAP) priority species list for birds (Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership https://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/habitats-and-species/birds/)
3.15 Non-native species, either introduced in to the country historically for amenity reasons (Canada, greylag and Egyptian goose) or continuing to be released for sporting reasons (pheasant), do not form part of the system for evaluating conservation status .
3.16 The number of indicative territories for each species is compared to the national population estimates prepared for birds in the UK by the Aviation Population Estimates Panel (APEP) (Woodward et al., 2020) and compared to the population estimates for Norfolk published in the Norfolk Bird Atlas (Taylor & Marchant, 2011). The evaluation criterion is that if the Site population exceeds the 1% threshold then the Site is of national or county importance respectively.
3.17 National criteria are also available for breeding bird assemblages (Drewitt et al., 2015). That system seeks to identify localities which support an especially good range of bird species characteristic of a particular habitat. It applies a numeric system based on the range of species present breeding on a site compared to what would be expected on the best examples of that habitat. Ashwicken Lake falls in to the habitat category ‘Lowland open waters and their margins’. The characteristic breeding bird assemblage defined for this habitat and the weighting given to each breeding species are given in Annex 1 of Drewitt et al. (2015) and that is repeated in Annex 3.C below that applies the quantification process to the Site.
3.18 Such breeding bird assemblage criteria have not been produced at the Norfolk level (https://www.norfolkwildlifetrust.org.uk/documents/cws/county-wildlife-sites-2018).
13 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Limitations to methods
3.19 Nightjar are known to breed in the wider area and the morning visits reported here were not intended to identify if there was any breeding or foraging activity at the Site by nightjar. A separate, targeted programme of surveys for nightjar is planned in June and July.
3.20 No limitations resulted from the weather.
Results
Bird counts
3.21 The survey dates, time and weather are provided in Table 3.1. All surveys were carried out in suitable weather conditions, with an absence of strong winds and/or continuous rain. All surveys were carried out by Dr Roger Buisson, Associate Director at BSG Ecology.
Table 3.1: Programme of visits to survey for breeding birds
Visit Date Start & finish time Weather conditions 1 20/03/20 08.30 – 12.00 Dry; Cloud 5-7/8; Wind E 1; Temp 8oC 2 21/04/20 06.15 – 10.45 Dry; Cloud 0/8; Wind E 3-5; Temp 8-16oC 3 13/05/20 06.30 – 10.45 Dry; Cloud 5/8; Wind N 3; Temp 7-12oC 4 28/05/20 06.30 – 10.15 Dry; Cloud 0/8; Wind E 2; Temp 9-18oC
3.22 A total of 67 species were recorded over the programme of visits as being associated with the habitats present on the Site. On any one visit the number of species recorded ranged from 40 to 46. These totals exclude birds seen flying high over the Site and birds seen nearby but off the Site while the observer was on the Site, a list of which is provided in Annex 3.A.
3.23 Of those 67 species, 28 displayed no signs of holding territory or breeding on the Site. Those species were late staying winter visitors; birds visiting the Site that are dependent on habitats for breeding that are not present on the Site; or birds passing through on migration. A list of those species is provided in Annex 3.B.
3.24 Table 3.2 presents the estimates of numbers of indicative territories of birds on the Site. This is a total of 39 species.
Table 3.2: Estimate of numbers of indicative breeding territories Species Indicative territories Canada Goose 1 Greylag Goose 2 Mute Swan 1 Egyptian Goose 3 Mallard 6 Tufted Duck 3 Pheasant 6 Gt Crested Grebe 3 Moorhen 1 Coot 12 Stock Dove 3 Woodpigeon 10 Great Spotted Woodpecker 1 Green Woodpecker 1 Kestrel 1 Carrion Crow 2 Marsh Tit 1
14 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Species Indicative territories Blue Tit 8 Great Tit 2 Long-tailed Tit 3 Willow Warbler 2 Chiffchaff 9 Reed Warbler 2 Blackcap 12 Garden Warbler 3 Whitethroat 5 Goldcrest 2 Wren 12 Blackbird 6 Song Thrush 1 Mistle Thrush 1 Robin 12 Dunnock 5 Pied Wagtail 1 Chaffinch 4 Bullfinch 1 Linnet 2 Goldfinch 1 Reed Bunting 7
Disturbance events
3.25 During mid-May an irrigation pipe was laid in a trench along the track that runs around the northern perimeter of the Site. Those works were not actively taking place at the time that the bird survey was being conducted around the northern perimeter of the Site. As a result it had no direct effect on the bird recording process nor the number of birds observed.
3.26 No other disturbance events were recorded.
Evaluation of significance of territory numbers
Conservation status
3.27 Table 3.3 presents the conservation status for each of the indicative territory holding species.
Table 3.3: Conservation status of indicative territory holding species Species BoCC4 SPI Schedule 1 Norfolk BAP Canada Goose Non-native Greylag Goose Non-native Mute Swan Amber Egyptian Goose Non-native Mallard Amber Tufted Duck Green Pheasant Non-native Great Crested Grebe Green Moorhen Green Coot Green Stock Dove Amber Woodpigeon Green Great Spotted Woodpecker Green Green Woodpecker Green Kestrel Amber Carrion Crow Green
15 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Species BoCC4 SPI Schedule 1 Norfolk BAP Marsh Tit Red SPI Blue Tit Green Great Tit Green Long-tailed Tit Green Willow Warbler Amber Chiffchaff Green Reed Warbler Green Blackcap Green Garden Warbler Green Whitethroat Green Goldcrest Green Wren Green Blackbird Green Song Thrush Red SPI Mistle Thrush Red Robin Green Dunnock Amber SPI Pied Wagtail Green Chaffinch Green Bullfinch Amber SPI Linnet Red SPI Goldfinch Green Reed Bunting Amber SPI N. BAP
3.28 In summary the Site supports the following numbers of species within the different status categories (noting that one species can have multiple status and the numbers should not be summed and that species that are BoCC4 Green are of no conservation concern):
BoCC4 Red: 4 BoCC4 Amber: 8 SPI: 6 Schedule 1: 0 Norfolk BAP: 1
Population estimates
3.29 None of the species population estimates provided in Table 3.2 is anywhere near to approaching the 1% threshold criterion for a site of national population importance. Similarly, none of the species population estimates provided in Table 3.2 is anywhere near to approaching levels of county population importance.
3.30 The score for the evaluation of the breeding bird assemblage is a total of 12 (see Annex 3.C), not anywhere near to approaching the score of >44.5 required for a site to be of national importance. Whilst there is not a county level threshold score available, the disparity with the national score is so great that county level value for the assemblage can also be ruled out.
Conclusion
3.31 The breeding bird population of Ashwicken Lake, when considered with respect to each species, has been shown by available quantitative and qualitative criteria not to be of national or of county level importance.
3.32 The breeding bird population of Ashwicken Lake, when considered with respect to the assemblage of species, has been shown by available quantitative and qualitative criteria not to be of national or of county level importance.
16 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
3.33 The breeding bird population of Ashwicken Lake is evaluated as being of no more than district level importance.
References Conway, G., Wotton, S., Henderson, I., Eaton, M., Drewitt, A. & Spencer, J. (2009). The status of breeding Woodlarks Lullula arborea in Britain in 2006. Bird Study 56: 310-325. Drewitt, A.L., Whitehead, S. and Cohen, S. (2015). Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Part 2: Detailed Guidelines for Habitats and Species Groups. Chapter 17 Birds. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N. J., Brown, A. F., Hearn, R. D., Lock, L., Musgrove, A. J., Noble, D. G., Stroud, D. A. and Gregory, R. D. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108: 708–746.
Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods: A Manual of Techniques for Key UK Species. RSPB, BTO, WWT, JNCC, ITE & The Seabird Group, Sandy, Bedfordshire..
Marchant J. (1983). BTO Common Bird Census Instructions. British Trust for Ornithology, Tring.
Taylor, M. and Marchant, J. (2011). The Norfolk Bird Atlas: Summer and Winter Distributions, 1999-2007. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.
Woodward, I., Aebischer, N., Burnell, D., Eaton, M., Frost, T., Hall, C., Stroud, D.A. & Noble, D. (2020). Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British Birds 113: 69–104.
17 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Annex 3.A: Birds observed during survey visits that were not associated with the Site either because they were flying over high or were associated with land adjacent to the Site.
Bird species only seen flying over
Swift Starling Siskin
Bird species seen on adjacent land
Grey partridge: A bird was heard giving its territorial calls from the farmland to the east of the Site.
Little grebe: A bird was heard giving its territorial calls from the large pond to the west of the Site.
Lapwing: Two pairs bred on the land to the west with at least one pair raising a single young. It was these adult birds or unpaired, non-breeding birds that were occasionally seen foraging on the most open parts of the Site. There was no evidence of lapwing breeding within the Site.
Sparrowhawk: Seen hunting over land to the west.
Red kite: Two birds were seen circling high to the west.
Rook: A rookery present in coniferous trees to the south of the Site resulted in many young rooks, with their parents, being observed foraging on the Site on the later visits.
Nuthatch: A bird was heard giving its territorial calls from a mature tree to the north of the Site.
Woodlark: Two males were regularly heard singing from the land to the west, with the nearest bird occasionally drifting over the western boundary of the Site on its song flight. The second male had its territory at least 500 m to the west. Birds from the nearest breeding pair landed to feed for a brief period on the track along the western boundary of the Site. There was no evidence of woodlark breeding within the Site.
Greenfinch: A bird was heard singing to the south of the Site.
18 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Annex 3.B: Birds observed on the Site during survey visits that displayed no signs of holding territory or breeding on the Site.
Shelduck Mandarin Wigeon Red-legged Partridge Grey Heron Little Egret Cormorant Marsh Harrier Buzzard Oystercatcher Lapwing Snipe Curlew Whimbrel Black-headed Gull Common Gull Herring Gull Lesser Black-backed Gull Jay Magpie Jackdaw Rook Woodlark Skylark Sand Martin Swallow Fieldfare Redwing
19 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Annex 3.C: Quantification of the value of the breeding bird assemblage The species selection, weighting and threshold given below are taken from Drewitt et al. (2015).
Species with indicative Open water assemblage territory species score Canada Goose Greylag Goose 2 Mute Swan 3 Egyptian Goose Mallard Tufted Duck 2 Pheasant Great Crested Grebe 3 Moorhen Coot Stock Dove Woodpigeon Great Spotted Woodpecker Green Woodpecker Kestrel Carrion Crow Marsh Tit Blue Tit Great Tit Long-tailed Tit Willow Warbler Chiffchaff Reed Warbler 1 Blackcap Garden Warbler Whitethroat Goldcrest Wren Blackbird Song Thrush Mistle Thrush Robin Dunnock Pied Wagtail Chaffinch Bullfinch Linnet Goldfinch Reed Bunting 1 Assemblage score 12
The total score does not exceed the threshold of 44.5 and as a result it can be concluded that the Site is not of national importance for its breeding bird assemblage.
20 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
4 Appendix 3: Great crested newt
4.1 A survey was conducted with the aim of identifying the presence or absence of great crested newt (GCN) Triturus cristatus on the Site. This information on the presence / absence of a European Protected Species (EPS) is an important component in the conduct of an impact assessment.
Method
4.2 The land within the Site was initially assessed using aerial photographs and then by field survey for the presence of small, non-flowing waterbodies that were considered to have potential suitability to support breeding GCN. The main lake had been determined as unsuitable as a breeding habitat because of its large size and populations of waterfowl.
4.3 Four suitable small waterbodies were identified in late March 2020. These were all on the south- west side of the Site and are shown on Figure 4.1 as Location 1 – 4. These waterbodies are described below, based on their appearance in March and April 2020 which was after a very wet winter.
Location 1: A large pond surrounded by goat willow Salix caprea and alder Alnus glutinosa trees with a fringe of common reed Phragmites australis around clear, open water.
Location 2: A small pond surrounded by willow trees and rush Juncus sp. with the open water heavily congested by filamentous algae.
Location 3: A former drainage ditch that had been cut off from the drainage system on Site with alder trees growing on its banks.
Location 4: A small pond surrounded by willow trees and rush with the open water heavily congested by filamentous algae.
4.4 The waterbodies were revisited on 13 May 2020 with the intention of taking water samples for GCN environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis. Since April it had been hot and dry and the water level had dropped in all of the waterbodies. The state of each waterbody was as follows:
Location 1: A depth of at least 50 cm of water remained with the base of the reed fringe still in water.
Location 2: A few centimetres depth of water remaining in the centre of the pond amongst the filamentous algae.
Location 3: A few centimetres depth of water remaining in the ditch heavily coloured orange by iron ochre that had come in to the ditch through groundwater seepage.
Location 4: No water remaining in the pond.
4.5 As a result a sample of water for GCN eDNA analysis could not be taken from Location 4.
4.6 The water sampling was undertaken on 13 May 2020 by Claire Wiggs GradCIEEM, Ecologist with BSG Ecology. Claire is authorised to carry out survey work for GCN as an accredited agent under GCN class licence 2015-18530-CLS-CLS registered to Peter Newbold (Principal Ecologist at BSG Ecology).
4.7 The sampling was conducted in accordance with the method approved by Natural England (Biggs et al., 2014).
21 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
4.8 Laboratory analysis of the collected water samples was undertaken by SureScreen Scientifics Ltd, Morley, Derbyshire. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the method approved by Natural England (Biggs et al., 2014).
Results
4.9 The analysis of the water samples gave the following results:
Location 1: Negative for GCN eDNA.
Location 2: Negative for GCN eDNA.
Location 3: Inconclusive for GCN eDNA.
4.10 With regard to the inconclusive test for Location 3, the laboratory report noted that something was present in the water sample that inhibited the analytical technique. This sample was from the ditch that was heavily contaminated with iron ochre (this naturally occurs in ground water that has passed through the local iron rich sand deposits). It is considered that this was the cause of the inconclusive test.
4.11 A copy of each of the laboratory report is provided in Annex 4.A.
Conclusion
4.12 The small waterbodies within the Site do not support great crested newt.
References Biggs, J., Ewald, N., Valentini, A., Gaboriaud, C., Griffiths, RA., 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.
22 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Figure 4.1: Ashwicken Lake GCN eDNA water sampling locations
23 23/06/2020
Ashwicken Lake EIA Scoping – Biodiversity: Supporting Appendices
Annex 4.A: Laboratory analysis report from SureScreen Scientifics Ltd
24 23/06/2020
Folio No: E7474 Report No: 1 Purchase Order: P19-955 Client: BSG ECOLOGY LTD Contact: Claire Wiggs
TECHNICAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DNA IN POND WATER FOR THE DETECTION OF GREAT CRESTED NEWTS (TRITURUS CRISTATUS)
SUMMARY
When great crested newts (GCN), Triturus cristatus, inhabit a pond, they continuously release small amounts of their DNA into the environment. By collecting and analysing water samples, we can detect these small traces of environmental DNA (eDNA) to confirm GCN habitation or establish GCN absence.
RESULTS
Date sample received at Laboratory: 22/05/2020 Date Reported: 01/06/2020 Matters Affecting Results: Sample 2425 inhibited. DNA marker only detected after sample dilution, indicating likely presence of substances which inhibit the PCR process.
Lab Sample Site Name O/S SIC DC IC Result Positive No. Reference Replicates
1535 Pond 1; Large TF 68970 Pass Pass Pass Negative 0 Pond, 17499 Ashwicken Lakes
1536 Pond 2; Small TF 69048 Pass Pass Pass Negative 0 Pond, 17465 Ashwicken Lakes
2425 Cut off Ditch, TF 69112 Pass Pass Fail Inconclusive 0 Ashwicken 17411 Lakes
Forensic Scientists and Consultant Engineers SureScreen Scientifics Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Company Registration No. 08950940 Page 1 of 3 If you have any questions regarding results, please contact us: [email protected]
Reported by: Chris Troth Approved by: Sarah Evans
METHODOLOGY
The samples detailed above have been analysed for the presence of GCN eDNA following the protocol stated in DEFRA WC1067 ‘Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt, Appendix 5.’ (Biggs et al. 2014). Each of the 6 sub-sample tubes are first centrifuged and pooled together into a single sample which then undergoes DNA extraction. The extracted sample is then analysed using real time PCR (qPCR), which uses species- specific molecular markers to amplify GCN DNA within a sample. These markers are unique to GCN DNA, meaning that there should be no detection of closely related species.
If GCN DNA is present, the DNA is amplified up to a detectable level, resulting in positive species detection. If GCN DNA is not present then amplification does not occur, and a negative result is recorded.
Analysis of eDNA requires scrupulous attention to detail to prevent risk of contamination. True positive controls, negative controls and spiked synthetic DNA are included in every analysis and these have to be correct before any result is declared and reported. Stages of the DNA analysis are also conducted in different buildings at our premises for added security.
SureScreen Scientifics Ltd is ISO9001 accredited and participate in Natural England’s proficiency testing scheme for GCN eDNA testing. We also carry out regular inter-laboratory checks on accuracy of results as part of our quality control procedures.
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
SIC: Sample Integrity Check [Pass/Fail] When samples are received in the laboratory, they are inspected for any tube leakage, suitability of sample (not too much mud or weed etc.) and absence of any factors that could potentially lead to inconclusive results.
DC: Degradation Check [Pass/Fail] Analysis of the spiked DNA marker to see if there has been degradation of the kit or sample between the date it was made to the date of analysis. Degradation of the spiked DNA marker may lead indicate a risk of false negative results.
IC: Inhibition Check [Pass/Fail] The presence of inhibitors within a sample are assessed using a DNA marker. If inhibition is detected, samples are purified and re-analysed. Inhibitors cannot always be removed, if the inhibition check fails, the sample should be re-collected.
Result: Presence of GCN eDNA [Positive/Negative/Inconclusive] Positive: GCN DNA was identified within the sample, indicative of GCN presence within the sampling location at the time the sample was taken or within the recent past at the sampling location. Positive Replicates: Number of positive qPCR replicates out of a series of 12. If one or more of these are found to be positive the pond is declared positive for GCN presence. It may be assumed that small fractions of positive analyses suggest low level presence, but this cannot currently be used for
Forensic Scientists and Consultant Engineers SureScreen Scientifics Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Company Registration No. 08950940 Page 2 of 3 population studies. In accordance with Natural England protocol, even a score of 1/12 is declared positive. 0/12 indicates negative GCN presence. Negative: GCN eDNA was not detected or is below the threshold detection level and the test result should be considered as evidence of GCN absence, however, does not exclude the potential for GCN presence below the limit of detection.
Forensic Scientists and Consultant Engineers SureScreen Scientifics Ltd, Morley Retreat, Church Lane, Morley, Derbyshire, DE7 6DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1332 292003 Email: [email protected] Company Registration No. 08950940 Page 3 of 3